User talk:J Milburn/archive44

The Signpost: 29 September 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello
Hi Mllburn. While I've reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Between the Species and have cleared the same, I wanted you to know that in the QPQ column, in good faith, I've marked it as having been done by you. Could you please confirm the QPQ done against this nomination? Thanks. Lourdes 18:08, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you're very trusting! I am yet to do the QPQ review; I will look into it now. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you :) I'll not change any detail on the template. Just ping me whenever you're done with the review. That would be enough. Thanks. Lourdes  18:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Between the Species.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Between the Species.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:21, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Please help
As an adminsistrator, could you persuade Midnightblueowl not to engage in an edit war? I have inserted two small changes from an academic source, and she insists on deleting them on Heathenry (new religious movement) article.

She seems to be a dedicated wikipedian, and has served over ten years, but she does not "own" the pages she writes. She is presently engaging in a similar war on the the article on the United Kingdom Independence Party

I know I am being obsessional as well, but the errors on the heathen page are quite serious. I am by know means an expert on the subject, but even amateurs can see them

She has finally fixed the mistaken reference to a "hugh," but she insists that a polytheist faith can be monotheist, she does not seem to realize that Indo-European gods can be killed but do not die "forever,"and she has a strange obsession over using certain sources only for the article, although she uses a "rock star" as a source here Theosophy (Blavatskian) (Gary Lachman, from Blondie!

Do not get me wrong, I like Lachman's books, but why is there a different standard on the Heathen page?

She also has this objection over using books by heathens (such as Stephen McNallen) on the heathen page, but she uses "primary sources on the Order of Nine Angles page. (She has done a nice job there, although I know vey little about Satanists who practice human sacrifice.)

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks --Eswedenborg (talk) 00:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll look into it in the next few days, but I can't make any promises. All I can say in the mean time is be aware of the bold, revert, discuss cycle (if someone reverts an addition, discuss it, don't revert them back) and back up any claims you make with a reliable source. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:29, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've taken a look at the situation and decided that the best thing for now is a page protection. Please note that a protection is not an endorsement of the current version of the page; instead, it gives interested parties a chance to discuss possible changes and perhaps reach some conclusions (or open up dispute resolution if a conclusion can't be reached) without the distraction/disruption of ongoing reverting back-and-forth. I encourage you to use this time to dig up sources and present arguments, and, if necessary, request the views of third parties in accordance with the procedures set out at Dispute resolution, which I encourage you to read. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you. Instead of a back-and-forth, a freeze is a good idea. I was certain that she would not delete two quotations from a book that she herself uses (Gardell was indicating that heathens are polytheists), but she seems determined to make the page "her page."

Is there a process for wikipedia to independently contact one of the professors that she uses? I am sure that any one of them could do a nice clean up" of the article. In particular, Stefanie von Schnurbein or Michael F. Strmiska would be good.  --Eswedenborg (talk) 19:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There's not really a widely-used process for that kind of thing. We used to have Academic peer review, but that has been inactive for a long time, and I'm not sure if it was ever used anyway. I would advise against contacting someone without a lot of thought; if you're set on it, try talking to MBO first, and make sure you're both quite clear on what you hope to achieve by contacting someone (and, ideally, make sure you're both on board. Asking busy researchers to give up their time is a big deal. I confess I'm still not quite sure why you object so strongly to the article; the whole "typically polytheistic" versus "polytheistic" thing certainly doesn't seem to warrant calling in a professor to rewrite the article. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I meant someone at Wikipedia contacting a professor. If I did it, Midnightblueowl would no doubt try to ban him or her.

Here is a great article: clear, factual and impartial: Emanuel Swedenborg

Even though I love Swedenborg and have studied his writings for years, I could not add to it if I tried.

In contrast, the heathenry article falls short. I am not a pagan, but it gives the impression that they are crazy fascists worshipping dead gods (or is it god?)

--Eswedenborg (talk) 22:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Is that because it reflects what the academic studies of Heathenry have focussed upon? If so, perhaps your objection is not to this article, but to the academic work surrounding the subject. My impression from the article is that there are racist corners of Heathenry, and, for better or worse, Heathenry has been caught up in discussions and controversies about race, but there's nothing inherently racist about Heathenry. Again, I implore you to discuss your worries about the article on the talk page, preferably with sources. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Not really. I have no problem discussing race in the article. In fact the present version ignores Casper Crowell.

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2009/03/20/white-supremacist-running-odinist-network-maximum-security-prison.

My problem is the article emphasizes trivia and ignores fundamental notions. For example, instead of discussing the significance of Loki as a trickster figure, and perhaps then mentioning his "gender bending," the article simply mentions his gender bending. It is like discussing the director Ed Wood and never mentioning his movies, only his interest in wearing female clothing.

Be that as it may, the article could be fixed using the sources she has used in a proper way. But, you are no doubt a busy man, so I thank you for your time and I will stop bothering you!

Thanks again for the temporary lock on the article. Regards.--Eswedenborg (talk) 06:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Please help
As an adminsistrator, could you persuade Midnightblueowl not to engage in an edit war? I have inserted two small changes from an academic source, and she insists on deleting them on Heathenry (new religious movement) article.

She seems to be a dedicated wikipedian, and has served over ten years, but she does not "own" the pages she writes. She is presently engaging in a similar war on the the article on the United Kingdom Independence Party

I know I am being obsessional as well, but the errors on the heathen page are quite serious. I am by know means an expert on the subject, but even amateurs can see them

She has finally fixed the mistaken reference to a "hugh," but she insists that a polytheist faith can be monotheist, she does not seem to realize that Indo-European gods can be killed but do not die "forever,"and she has a strange obsession over using certain sources only for the article, although she uses a "rock star" as a source here Theosophy (Blavatskian) (Gary Lachman, from Blondie!

Do not get me wrong, I like Lachman's books, but why is there a different standard on the Heathen page?

She also has this objection over using books by heathens (such as Stephen McNallen) on the heathen page, but she uses "primary sources on the Order of Nine Angles page. (She has done a nice job there, although I know vey little about Satanists who practice human sacrifice.)

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks --Eswedenborg (talk) 00:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll look into it in the next few days, but I can't make any promises. All I can say in the mean time is be aware of the bold, revert, discuss cycle (if someone reverts an addition, discuss it, don't revert them back) and back up any claims you make with a reliable source. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:29, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've taken a look at the situation and decided that the best thing for now is a page protection. Please note that a protection is not an endorsement of the current version of the page; instead, it gives interested parties a chance to discuss possible changes and perhaps reach some conclusions (or open up dispute resolution if a conclusion can't be reached) without the distraction/disruption of ongoing reverting back-and-forth. I encourage you to use this time to dig up sources and present arguments, and, if necessary, request the views of third parties in accordance with the procedures set out at Dispute resolution, which I encourage you to read. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you. Instead of a back-and-forth, a freeze is a good idea. I was certain that she would not delete two quotations from a book that she herself uses (Gardell was indicating that heathens are polytheists), but she seems determined to make the page "her page."

Is there a process for wikipedia to independently contact one of the professors that she uses? I am sure that any one of them could do a nice clean up" of the article. In particular, Stefanie von Schnurbein or Michael F. Strmiska would be good.  --Eswedenborg (talk) 19:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There's not really a widely-used process for that kind of thing. We used to have Academic peer review, but that has been inactive for a long time, and I'm not sure if it was ever used anyway. I would advise against contacting someone without a lot of thought; if you're set on it, try talking to MBO first, and make sure you're both quite clear on what you hope to achieve by contacting someone (and, ideally, make sure you're both on board. Asking busy researchers to give up their time is a big deal. I confess I'm still not quite sure why you object so strongly to the article; the whole "typically polytheistic" versus "polytheistic" thing certainly doesn't seem to warrant calling in a professor to rewrite the article. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I meant someone at Wikipedia contacting a professor. If I did it, Midnightblueowl would no doubt try to ban him or her.

Here is a great article: clear, factual and impartial: Emanuel Swedenborg

Even though I love Swedenborg and have studied his writings for years, I could not add to it if I tried.

In contrast, the heathenry article falls short. I am not a pagan, but it gives the impression that they are crazy fascists worshipping dead gods (or is it god?)

--Eswedenborg (talk) 22:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Is that because it reflects what the academic studies of Heathenry have focussed upon? If so, perhaps your objection is not to this article, but to the academic work surrounding the subject. My impression from the article is that there are racist corners of Heathenry, and, for better or worse, Heathenry has been caught up in discussions and controversies about race, but there's nothing inherently racist about Heathenry. Again, I implore you to discuss your worries about the article on the talk page, preferably with sources. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Not really. I have no problem discussing race in the article. In fact the present version ignores Casper Crowell.

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2009/03/20/white-supremacist-running-odinist-network-maximum-security-prison.

My problem is the article emphasizes trivia and ignores fundamental notions. For example, instead of discussing the significance of Loki as a trickster figure, and perhaps then mentioning his "gender bending," the article simply mentions his gender bending. It is like discussing the director Ed Wood and never mentioning his movies, only his interest in wearing female clothing.

Be that as it may, the article could be fixed using the sources she has used in a proper way. But, you are no doubt a busy man, so I thank you for your time and I will stop bothering you!

Thanks again for the temporary lock on the article. Regards.--Eswedenborg (talk) 06:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Josh,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Tripedalia-cystophora.png is scheduled to be Picture of the Day on October 20, 2016. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2016-10-20. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:26, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Josh
I so appreciate your help! Melinda Pittman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melinda Pittman (talk • contribs) 22:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry at Heathenry
Hello Josh. Just to let you know that I have opened up a new sockpuppet investigation here. I strongly suspect that we may be witnessing the reappearance of an old friend... Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I had just seen that. I'll let the investigation play its course. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Good call. Just thought that I'd let you know given your recent responses over at the Heathenry talk page. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I do not even know what this is. Is this a process that she uses to eliminate editors who disagree? --Eswedenborg (talk) 22:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't see this message. MBO is concerned that your editing patterns match those of a disruptive user who previously edited articles related to Heathenry. If you are not the same person, you have nothing to worry about. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Dr. Milburn.

An interesting thing about errors: when they are inserted into an article, different people can find them!@

On the talk page of Heathenry (new religious movement), I have recorded the errors and the academic citations to correct them. Hope that helps. --Eswedenborg (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

On the "investigation," I do not share your confidence. Nothing is foolproof. The Romans killed Jesus--NOT Barabbas.

I note that Midnightblueowl managed to "take down" Osred Jameson as a "sock puppet." Anyone who knows anything about Odinism knows that he is an Australian Odinist leader, published author, and ill with cancer. Check his IP and he would have been posting from Western Australia. Clearly, Midnightblueowl had no idea who he is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Osred --Eswedenborg (talk) 22:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Osred --Eswedenborg (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Osred was blocked by, who has CheckUser rights and knows what he is doing. The unblock request on the Osred account was declined by , who is an experienced administrator who also knows what he is doing. More information can be found at Sockpuppet investigations/Holtj/Archive. I defer entirely to Mike on the problems with the Osred account; if you feel that his decision was in error, he's the person to talk to; I think you're mistaken in blaming MBO for that one. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok. I could be wrong. I hope it was not Osred. --Eswedenborg (talk) 00:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Between the Species
Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Anna L. Peterson
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

FAC
Hello, I'm. Ike Altgens is a Featured article candidate. I hope you have a few moments to check this article against the criteria so I may address any concerns and see this nomination through. My thanks in advance. — ATS &#128406;  talk  21:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi ATS, thanks for the message. I'm afraid I think I'll have to pass; I have a lot on my plate at the moment. Best of luck with it. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

An invitation to November's events
(To subscribe: Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 18:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Happy birthday!
Warm regards, Mz7 (talk) 21:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Over the Rainbow (Connie Talbot album)
Josh, is this old FA Main-Page-ready? I clicked on a link at random ("Crowds go wild for Connie") and it was broken. I prefer to schedule as many TFAs with anniversaries as I can; I think that's one way to demystify the process. For the moment, all I've got for Nov 26 is this one (apart from a US naval article, but I'm heavy on US articles as it is this month). - Dank (push to talk) 05:12, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a blast from the past; I haven't really edited on reality TV in a long time. I'll have a look into it and get back to you in the next few days. A little tightening may be enough. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks much! - Dank (push to talk) 13:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't count on running it. I've made a start on fixes, but a bit more is needed and while I'll try to do make them, I lack both time and motivation compared to when I wrote the article. In all seriousness, there are far better articles/worthier topics! Josh Milburn (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks much for looking. Dweller maintains a page of the older FAs; I'll mark this one as not ready. - Dank (push to talk) 22:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 November newsletter: Final results
The final round of the 2016 WikiCup is over. Congratulations to the 2016 WikiCup top three finalists:
 * First Place -
 * Second Place -
 * Third Place -

In addition to recognizing the achievements of the top finishers and everyone who worked hard to make it to the final round, we also want to recognize those participants who were most productive in each of the WikiCup scoring categories:
 * Featured Article – Cas Liber (actually a three-way tie with themselves for two FAs in each of R2, R3, and R5).
 * Good Article – MPJ-DK had 14 GAs promoted in R3.
 * Featured List – produced 2 FLs in R2
 * Featured Pictures – Adam Cuerden restored 18 images to FP status in R4.
 * Featured Portal – produced the only FPO of the Cup in R2.
 * Featured Topic – and Calvin were each responsible for one FT in R3 and R2, respectively.
 * Good Topic – MPJ-DK created a GT with 9 GAs in R5.
 * Did You Know – MPJ-DK put 53 DYKs on the main page in R4.
 * In The News – and, each with 5 ITN, both in R4.
 * Good Article Review – MPJ-DK completed 61 GARs in R2.

Over the course of the 2016 WikiCup the following content was added to Wikipedia (only reporting on fixed value categories): 17 Featured Articles, 183 Good Articles, 8 Featured Lists, 87 Featured Pictures, 40 In The News, and 321 Good Article Reviews. Thank you to all the competitors for your hard work and what you have done to improve Wikipedia.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

We will open up a discussion for comments on process and scoring in a few days. The 2017 WikiCup is just around the corner! Many thanks from all the judges. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. ,, and

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to Asian Women Month
Hi there! As you may know, this November is Asian Women Month, hosted by Wikipedia Asian Month and WikiWomen In Red. Our goal is to encourage coverage of Asian women in order to help overcome the Asian content gender gap. Asian Women Month observes the rules of Wikipedia Asian Month. You will receive a special Asian Women Month barnstar if you create four articles in accordance with the rules for the event, as well as a postcard sent from an Asian community! Thanks for your consideration. Read more here! - Rimmel . Edits Talk 20:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 November 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers
Hi.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins) .MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

GA review request
Hello. Is there any chance you would be interested in reviewing Liliuokalani for GA status (like now)? I haven't nominated it yet since I don't want to bog it down in the GA review waiting process unless I can secure someone to review it. I am looking for an attentive and quick (but not sloppy) review that can struck up all the problems. Let me know what you think. Thanks. I'm asking a few other regular GA reviewer as well.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, that looks like a really interesting article, but it's not really a topic I know much about and my time is stretched at the moment. I'd recommend sticking it in the queue anyway; even if no one you contact is able to pick it up quickly, someone else might be able to pick it up, and you can always withdraw it if you don't want to wait. There's a review drive on at the moment, so the queue may not be as long as usual. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gary Varner
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gary Varner 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 Midnightblueowl -- Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Michael Allen Fox
Hello! Your submission of Michael Allen Fox 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! Yoninah (talk) 18:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

December 2016 at Women in Red
(To subscribe: Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2016 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Your GA nomination of Gary Varner
The article Gary Varner you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Gary Varner for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Midnightblueowl -- Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Viking metal FAC
I have nominated Viking metal as a featured article candidate. I know you have a lot on your plate, but if you would like to comment on it, please see the review page. It's been languishing without much attention. Thanks, -- 3family6 ( Talk to me  &#124;  See what I have done  ) 20:08, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note; when I joined Wikipedia, black metal was a real interest, but my editing and musical interests have both changed since then. I can't make any promises, but I may be able to drop by. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:35, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I understand.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me  &#124;  See what I have done  ) 05:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 November 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:05, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

4th Annual GA Cup - Round 1
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Gary Varner
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Apologies!
I just saw your edit on Strongarm. That was me completely goofing up. Sorry for giving you extra work! 64.183.45.226 (talk) 22:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem; I think we have very much the same aims, here! Josh Milburn (talk) 22:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Kendra Coulter
— Maile (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup December newsletter: WikiCup 2017
On 1 January 2017, WikiCup 2017 (the 10th Annual WikiCup) will begin. This year we are trying something a little different – monetary prizes.

For the WC2017 the prizes will be as follows (amounts are based in US$ and will be awarded in the form of an online Amazon gift certificate):
 * First place – $200
 * Second & Third place – $50 each
 * Category prizes – $25 per category (which will be limited to FA, FL, FP, GA, and DYK for 2017). Winning a category prize does not require making it to the final round.

Note: Monetary prizes are a one-year experiment for 2017 and may or may not be continued in the future. In order to be eligible to receive any of the prizes above, the competing Wikipedia account must have a valid/active email address. After two years as a WikiCup judge, Figureskatingfan is stepping down. We thank her for her contributions as a WikiCup judge. We are pleased to announce that our newest judge is two-time WikiCup champion Cwmhiraeth.

The judges for the 2017 WikiCup are, , and.

Signups are open now and will remain open until 5 February 2017. You can sign up here.

If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The WikiCup
I am trying to find how the WikiCup pages are set up so I delved into your contributions record for the turn of the year 2013/2014. I found some of the answers to my questions, but I am wondering about the page Participant5. So far I have set up an initial Round 1 scoreboard for 2017 here but some of the information on entrants is missing, this happens when they are entering for the first time and have no flag. I guess the "Participant5" page is connected with this and a template is involved, as I see plenty of information there when I click the edit button. Any advice you can give me on setting up the pages would be welcome. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This part's a bloody nightmare, but it's something I inherited. To keep the archive pages functional, you have to create a new template every year; that's we have WikiCup/Participant through WikiCup/Participant7; you'll want WikiCup/Participant8. Then you have to fill it in manually. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Right, thanks. I'll see what I can do. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Roving mauler
Hello JMilburn, I am wondering if the sources that were on the roving mauler article are sufficient for notability? I think they are similar to those on the thought eater, even though the roving mauler was very much a one-note creature. 65.126.152.254 (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting; the thought eater was only just over the bar, for me, and I've seen plenty of articles about fictional elements with better sources deleted. That said, appearing on two lists doesn't hurt, even though, as you say, the roving mauler isn't at all significant within the game. I certainly wouldn't think it a bad result if it was kept at AfD; I don't think it would be unreasonable for you to revert 's edit if you think that his call was wrong in this case. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe. I don't want to do anything that leads to more conflict, which is what undoing anything that user does ultimately leads to. But thanks for your input, I do find that helpful. 65.126.152.254 (talk) 18:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * My two cents is that sources like those are ultimately trivial, most of the time just silly clickbait without any real substance. No reason to exclude them from an article, but also no reason to base an article around them. TTN (talk) 19:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 December 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Carnism
The most frustrating thing about this topic is that passing mention of the word is taken as cast iron proof that it's a widespread term, but actually all the reading I have done positions it ina tiny fringe of the vegan movement, and as the cited source says, it's Melanie Joy's term for meat culture and virtually unused outside of her work and discussion thereof. It's a term coined to tribalise food politics, but it hasn't worked. Guy (Help!) 10:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you're exaggerating. Academics come up with new concepts and ideas all the time, but few catch on to the extent that carnism has. There are plenty of academic studies not by Joy which use the concept (not just mention Joy's work, but actually utilise carnism as a lens though which to engage in their research). More are coming out every month; I'm sure you can appreciate how long research can take to be done/published, meaning that the impact of Joy's work is inevitably slow to come to light. You don't have to like the idea, and I accept that it has its problems (though disagree with your assessment of it), but it has currency in certain corners of academia, from psychology to animal studies/human-animal studies to psychology to sociology to philosophy. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the term is used by a minority of the tiny minority who study diet fads, and a slightly larger minority of those engaged in pseudoscientific work to bolster their ideology. Guy (Help!) 15:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's used by anyone who studies diet fads. (Or, at least, I've not seen anyone using it in that context.) How much of this research have you read? I also see no basis for the serious (i.e., potentially career-affecting) accusation of "pseudoscience", unless you take the view that all/most social-scientific research is pseudoscientific. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:34, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!
From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Sabre Wulf FAC
Hey Josh, wanted to send a note that Sabre Wulf (an article you reviewed for GA) is up for featured consideration if you have the time/inclination to review: Featured article candidates/Sabre Wulf/archive1. I'd appreciate your feedback. Happy holidays, czar  21:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I had seen the nomination; best of luck with it. I'm afraid I can't make any promises, but will try to drop by. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

January 2017 at Women in Red
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 02:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC) via MassMessaging

4th GA Cup - Round 2
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Michael Allen Fox
— Maile (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Peer review/Keechaka Vadham/archive1
Hello, Josh, and Happy New Year to you. I plan to take this to FA. Do let me know if you wish to leave comments at the PR page by pinging me. Thanks. — Ssven2  Looking at you, kid 07:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Bad faith
It is bad faith when within 15 minutes an editor opposes an articles promotion by linking to false information and making inaccurate statements. That is the first thing any other editor will see and will immediately dismiss it. All of the non-comic stuff was taken out, the media section has a summary per MOS. If that isn't an accurate display of bad faith I don't know what is.

I'm genuinely incensed here that Curly Turkey can say " These are the minor and superficial changes that have been made since the first FAC closed. I hope you don't think you can just keep throwing this back at FAC until it happens to slip through." which is a completely baseless and defamatory accusation when I last listed it fifteen goddamn months ago, and you've made a comment accusing ME of bad faith for challenging him on that. Wtf J? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you want me to say. Your approach in this candidacy so far comes across as weirdly defensive (if not outright aggressive), much as it did last time. Additionally, it's not fully clear to me that you A) Understand the worry that Curly and I raised last time or B) Have any sincere interest in working to alleviate it. Regardless of who is and is not acting in bad faith (and/or who is being "defamatory", which is an unpleasantly legalistic term...), this isn't really the most productive way to enter the FAC process. Based on the topic alone, I would be really interested in reviewing this article, but I can't say I'm particularly thrilled about the prospect right now. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The worry raised I didn't agree with. The comic character is the character, anything else is a derivative. But despite disagreeing I still did what was asked and excised anything not primarily related to the comic incarnation, I believe I fully took the concerns raised aboard even if I fundamentally disagreed with the reasoning behind them and the damage I felt it did to the article. These were my personal feelings but to meet the FAC requirements I did take yours and Curlys concerns on board and enacted them. I agree I was defensive, but that was because as I explained above, it took me 15 months to get the courage to nominate the article again after the stress of the previous one, and within 15 minutes it had been derailed by an inaccurate statement. So yes, I was somewhat perturbed. I apologise for that. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Mate I'm trying to be understanding here, but at what point does a reviewer just become disruptive? He's opposing it now based on a debate he's having with another user citing "instability" of the article. The Disambiguation title is not one of the Featured article criteria. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The featured article criteria do require stability, and if the content of an article/an article's subject/an article's focus is set to shift after its promotion, it's pretty clearly unstable. If you feel that Curly is being disruptive (to be clear, I do not think that he is) then your best bet is to talk to the FAC directors. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * All articles can and will shift after a promotion. That something may happen in the future is not a reasonable reason to derail a nomination. Someone derailing a nomination, MULTIPLE nominations, with false statements, a "My way or the highway" approach and a complete obliviousness to the original character being the goddamn base character when several people say otherwise is disruptive. That this disruption is ignored is bad but it's seemingly encouraged and supported by people meant to represent the FAC process. I've nominated multiple articles successfully to FA, this article is the only one where I feel like I'm taking crazy pills because all reason is chucked out the window, one person is allowed to hold up the entire thing, and I'm treated like the bad guy for creating a great article that exemplifies the best of Wikipedia. Keep your review J, I need it about as much as I need your help. And yes, you can consider that defensive. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Award

 * Thanks! Best of luck with the inevitable FAC! Josh Milburn (talk) 00:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Cliff Cave County Park
J Milburn, new hooks have been proposed for this nomination, since you had issues with the previous ones. Do they address your concerns? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Does this mean the nomination can be approved? You were the original reviewer, so either it's up to you to add a tick or point out what's left to do before a tick can be awared, or we need to find a new reviewer to do so. If the latter, please let me know. Thanks again. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Very well; consider it ticked! Josh Milburn (talk) 01:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Clare Palmer
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Clare Palmer 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 Jclemens -- Jclemens (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Clare Palmer
The article Clare Palmer you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Clare Palmer for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jclemens -- Jclemens (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

AfD
Hi, I was surprised to read the recent AfD discussion on Dimitris Vardoulakis. It was odd that WP:AUTHOR was not mentioned, as publishing academics can also qualify under this SNG. In any case, I asked the closing admin to move it to my userspace: User:K.e.coffman/Dimitris Vardoulakis. I generally don't do articles on philosophers, I mostly create articles on historians (User:K.e.coffman), but I would be surprised if someone tried to nominate them for deletion. I also commented at the Articles for deletion/Diego Bubbio discussion. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Articles for deletion/Benjamin Franks was the other one. I was really put out by the discussions, and, frankly, they shook any plans I had to write about academics in the future. The whole discussion (including the spinoff at WT:GNG...) stunk. It felt like people saw that the academics in question didn't meet WP:ACADEMIC (whether they did or didn't I do not know- that seemed to be the most common assertion, however) and took that to mean that they couldn't possibly be notable, coming up with increasingly bizarre arguments to that effect (book reviews don't count because they're "standard", books are notable but authors are not, academic journals are worse sources than newspapers...). I eventually had to step away. I wonder what you think the best thing to do here would be? Josh Milburn (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I'm not saying that I won't be writing about academics again, but those discussions did make me question my plans. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I think we should form specific juries in every field to decide whether an article is notable or not. For example, I think referring to citations is not an appropriate criterion in philosophy (as opposed to empirical sciences). The people who are to judge about an article should themselves be familiar with that article's atmosphere (in this case, philosophy). --Ali Pirhayati (talk) 15:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Alas, I don't think that kind of proposal will get off the ground; it's just not really in the democratic spirit of Wikipedia. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My feeling, to be clear, is that we already have good guidelines in place: WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR and, for those that this misses, WP:ACADEMIC. Sadly, these guidelines just don't seem to be followed in practice (or idiosyncratic readings of these guidelines are put forward). This may come down to a difference of opinion when it comes to the "big picture". I'm pretty happy with the idea that a great many mid-to-late career academics are notable; others may not be. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I feel that WP:AUTHOR needs to be invoked more clearly for publishing academics when they come up for discussion. What I was surprised at was that "the reviews [for academic books] ... are considered routine". I recall one AfD where a TV personality authored a cookbook, and was kept as author because of a couple of trivial reviews. If an academic writes several books, which are published in academic publishers and are reviewed by other scholars, that should count for something, I believe. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely. I suspect people will disagree because they fear this will "open the floodgates", because (if you'll excuse my sarcasm) just anyone can publish a book with a university press that is reviewed in multiple scholarly journals. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Re:FPC
I saw your note at the FPC. For the record, I am not looking for a debate either, but for perspective I will volunteer that at this time I find the protestors to be incredibly disrespectful to Hillary Clinton. She said in her concession speech, and I quote, "Donald Trump is going to be our president, we owe him an open mind and a chance to lead." Despite this, all I have seen over the last three days are people so consumed by hatred that they can not even honor Hillary's final request as a presidential nominee, and in my eyes that speaks poorly of the photographed crowd (or any of the others that have gathered). Now I'm certain that in due time I'll be protesting over some decision made or not made by trump, and I am certain of that because even the guys I have voted for have eventually let me down, but to me its seems prudent to give the man chance. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's very hard for me to reply to this- I'm not going to argue with you, but neither do I want you to think that I'm acquiescing. You're welcome to whatever perspective you want, but I'm not sure why you want to make snipes at FPC. This is particularly problematic when you're dismissing the heartfelt appeals of a number of individuals (some of them, based on the picture, young children) as being the cries of "sore losers", and made doubly problematic when the people you're dismissing belong to a demographic that (it has been reliably documented) already face a hard time on Wikipedia. I think it's better for all of us if we keep our personal politics off Wikipedia, especially if we are unable to make political claims without dismissing/attacking those who hold different views. Josh Milburn (talk) 03:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll pick up the argument, Josh., we go way back (2008, at least!), so I hope you'll take this comment in the spirit it's intended.
 * Exactly where does "This doesn't show anything special about protesting other than how many sore losers there are in Hillary's camp" fit into the featured picture criteria? You've written FAs, so you certainly know that comments like "I don't like this article" or "I disagree with the premise of this article's subject" aren't relevant, and it's exactly the same at FP. An image doesn't have to be emblematic of protesting in general to be featured; it just has to demonstrate a specifically notable protest, like this one. Please don't needlessly antagonize people. Thanks. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

The world in which we live in
''...currently living in Kingston, Ontario. In the real world, I'm ...''
 * You mean Kingston, Ont., is not in the real world? Sca (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a matter of debate. FourViolas (talk) 17:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Damnit- I was going to make the same joke. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Always good to know what's real and what is not. Sca (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Clare Palmer
The article Clare Palmer you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Clare Palmer for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jclemens -- Jclemens (talk) 06:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

February 2017 at Women in Red
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

The Klingon Way
> That's great. Do you have a reference?
 * No, I don't, except for: "see: The Klingon Way, passim (or: pp. 1-214) - cannot be found". Someone has put a wrong information in the Irish newspaper, someone has transferred it to this article, I have corrected it already three times, maybe the whole sentence should be deleted as a mistaken information? noychoH (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok. I think it's worth keeping the line in, as that was one of the better sources that mentioned the book. Sorry if I was a little snippy. How about "The book was noted in the Irish Times for including a recipe for "Duani lizard skins", as well as lyrics to the "Warrior's Anthem",[6] but these are found in the Klingon for the Galactic Traveller,[ref with page numbers] and not in The Klingon Way.[ref with no page numbers]" That way, we can keep the reference, but retain accuracy while avoiding uncited claims. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I fully agree with you, accept your proposal, when I have time I will look for page numbers in KGT - but how to give: "[ref with no page numbers]" to TKW? - (and why, first of all? The whole article is about TKW, references are already given elsewhere). I have also found some better references to the TKW in the mean time (in some theses, accessible online), but now I have them archived on my external disk and I have some urgent work to do, so I cannot search for them now. Later on a bit noychoH (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * A reference to TKW "passim" would work, but just a full citation with no page numbers would be fine. Be careful with theses; PhD theses are probably OK, but MA theses only when they have become significant, and undergraduate theses basically never. See WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news
 * A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
 * Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
 * Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news
 * When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
 * Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
 * The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration
 * The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries
 * JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

A tie
So, it appears we're tied for 9th place at 44 points. I know you've competed in this Cup before. From my cursory overview it looks like there has never been a tie going into the next bracket. Do you expect we both advance? Chris Troutman ( talk ) 18:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess we do. Good luck. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 21:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well this is fun. Not sure how competitive I'll be in the next round, but who knows! Best of luck. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

4th GA Cup - Round 3
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi.
I don't know if I'm allowed to ask this, but if you are still an GA reviewer, could you review an article for me? I just wanted to know if you were available before I mention the article. -- MCMLXXXIX 15:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I am actively involved in GA reviewing (I have two on the go at the moment), but I'd rather not commit to reviewing an article before I know what it's about; I generally avoid sports, for example. I recommend going ahead and nominating it if you're happy that it's where it needs to be; in my experience, the process is normally pretty good (if often slow). I'll take a look, but I can't promise to pick up the review, or that I'll promote it if I do! Josh Milburn (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok. Well, here. -- MCMLXXXIX 16:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * A fair way outside of my comfort zone, to be honest; I'll certainly take a look, though! Josh Milburn (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Just in case you don't want to review it for GA, there is a peer review opened. I would appreciate your comments. -- MCMLXXXIX 16:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 February 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Per your suggestion
Created Thomas Russell Sullivan. Just an FYI. --RL0919 (talk) 06:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That's great! Love the lead image- you could surely get a great DYK out of that, if you haven't nominated a hook already. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but DYK isn't really my thing. Last one I worked on was 2014, and someone else nominated it. You (or any onlookers) are 100% welcome to nominate a DYK for any article I create/expand/GA, if you think one is worthy. I can help add sourcing if it isn't present for the hook you want to use; just don't want to deal with the nominating and hook writing. --RL0919 (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand; I'll consider nominating it. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

The WikiCup
I have a WikiCup newsletter sitting ready to send in my sandbox, but I don't know how to send it. Can you help? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've given you the mass-messenger userright, and now you will be able to use Special:MassMessage. Place the newsletter receiver list in the first box, a title ("March 2017 WikiCup newsletter" or something) in the second box and the message in the third. I recommend closing it with something like this:

Thanks,, and


 * The five tildes give only the date, rather than having the bot sign it. Once you've done this, preview the message, make changes as appropriate and send. Couldn't be simpler- gone are the days of AWB or encouraging someone else's bot to do it! Josh Milburn (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I will give it a try shortly. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2017).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Amortias • Deckiller • BU Rob13
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Ronnotel • Islander • Chamal N • Isomorphic • Keeper76 • Lord Voldemort • Shereth • Bdesham • Pjacobi

Guideline and policy news
 * A recent RfC has redefined how articles on schools are evaluated at AfD. Specifically, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist.
 * AfDs that receive little participation should now be closed like an expired proposed deletion, following a deletion process RfC.
 * Defender, HakanIST, Matiia and Sjoerddebruin are our newest stewards, following the 2017 steward elections.
 * The 2017 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Góngora, Krd, Lankiveil, Richwales and Vogone. They will serve for approximately 1 year.

Technical news
 * A recent query shows that only 16% of administrators on the English Wikipedia have enabled two-factor authentication. If you haven't already enabled it please consider doing so.
 * Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
 * A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017 WikiCup newsletter
And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. It would have been 5 points, but when a late entrant was permitted to join the contest in February, a promise was made that his inclusion would not result in the exclusion of any other competitor. To achieve this, the six entrants that had the lowest positive score of 4 points have been added to the 64 people who otherwise would have qualified. As a result, some of the groups have nine contestants rather than eight. Our top four scorers in round 1 were:


 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 Cas Liber, last year's winner, led the field with two featured articles on birds and a total score of 674.
 * 🇪🇺 Iry-Hor, a WikiCup newcomer, came next with a featured article, a good article and a tally of 282 bonus points for a score of 517. All these points came from the article Nyuserre Ini, an Ancient Egyptian pharaoh,
 * 🇯🇵 1989, another WikiCup newcomer, was in joint third place at 240. 1989 has claimed points for two featured lists and one good article relating to anime and comedy series, all of which were awarded bonus points.
 * Peacemaker67 shared third place with five good articles and thirteen good article reviews, mostly on naval vessels. He is also new to the competition.

The largest number of DYKs have been submitted by Vivvt and The C of E, who each claimed for seven, and MBlaze Lightning achieved eight articles at ITN. Carbrera and Peacemaker67 each claimed for five GAs and Krishna Chaitanya Velaga was well out in front for GARs, having reviewed 32. No featured pictures, featured topics or good topics yet, but we have achieved three featured articles and a splendid total of fifty good articles.

So, on to the second round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Mistake in GA Cup Finals
I made a serious mistake in the GA Cup finals, and advanced too many people. I'm very sorry, but you were one of those competitors. ROund 3 was your last round, I'm sorry. If you started any reviews since then, I am willing to take those on. Again, very sorry.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me  &#124;  See what I have done  ) 15:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it! Josh Milburn (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for understanding!-- 3family6 ( Talk to me  &#124;  See what I have done  ) 05:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Once again...
Many thanks for the GAN, Josh! Hope that all is well. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * My pleasure! Josh Milburn (talk) 02:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

4th GA Cup - The Final
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

On this day, 11 years ago...

 * Congrats! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:22, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Help with GAN Review
Hello again. Thank you for your help with the Kazon. I have been working on a page for the Vidiians and I have recently put it up for GAN. I was wondering if you could review it as you were a big help last time. I understand that it is a busy time of the year so it is okay if you do not have the time or energy for this. Hope you have a wonderful weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That's fantastic! I'm thrilled to see the article nominated and will certainly consider reviewing it. I am pretty swamped with real-world stuff right now, so if I do take on the review, it will probably be done very bitty-ly, and may take a little while. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your support. And no worries; there is absolutely no rush with it. I was just curious since you were very helpful with the previous review, but it is probably better to wait for now and focus on real-world stuff. I am also trying to limit my time on Wikipedia as I have a lot of real-world stuff right now too so I know what you mean. Aoba47 (talk) 23:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I've already taken it on! Looking forward to spending some time with the article. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Annora Brown
Hello! Your submission of Annora Brown 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! Yoninah (talk) 13:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Another Ealing comedy
Hi J Milburn, I hope all is well. You've been kind enough to review articles on two previous GANs for Ealing comedies, Passport to Pimlico and Whisky Galore! (1949 film). I now have the third (and probably best) from that year, Kind Hearts and Coronets, which I have recently nominated. If you have time to review this I would be most grateful, but I understand if you are already busy elsewhere. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for this note; I had actually already taken a look! I would love to take this on, but have an awful lot on my plate right now. I will pick it up in due course if no one else does in the mean time, but it may be a little while before I get to it. Either way, best of luck with the nomination! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks: we'll see if anyone picks it up in the meantime. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 14:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Annora Brown
— Maile (talk) 12:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Precious four years!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Far Harbor
Hey J Milburn, since the closure of the FA nomination of Fallout 4: Far Harbor, I've tried to get it up to FA standards based on what you and others said in the nomination, and suggestions outside of that. I'd love to know your opinion on the article now and if there are any improvements that could be made. The page is here if you wish to leave any comments. Cheers, Anarchyte ( work  &#124;  talk )  11:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't reply sooner; I'm watching the page, but I'm really swamped at the moment, so may not be able to make it to the review. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Bill (Inside No. 9)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Bill (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 Argento Surfer -- Argento Surfer (talk) 20:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Devil of Christmas
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Devil of Christmas 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 Argento Surfer -- Argento Surfer (talk) 13:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

DYK for The Devil of Christmas
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Bill (Inside No. 9)
The article The Bill (Inside No. 9) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Bill (Inside No. 9) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Argento Surfer -- Argento Surfer (talk) 17:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

May 2017 at Women in Red
And for special price Josh I will throw in one of these...

May 2017 WikiCup newsletter
The second round of the competition has now closed, with just under 100 points being required to qualify for round 3. YellowEvan just scraped into the next round with 98 points but we have to say goodbye to the thirty or so competitors who didn't achieve this threshold; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Our top scorers in round 2 were:


 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 Cas Liber, led the field with five featured articles, four on birds and one on astronomy, and a total score of 2049, half of which came from bonus points.
 * 🇯🇵 1989 was in second place with 826 points, 466 of which were bonus points. 1989 has claimed points mostly relating to anime and Japanese-related articles.
 * Peacemaker67 took third place with two FAs, one GA and seven GARs, mostly on naval vessels or military personnel, scoring 543 points.
 * Other contestants who scored over 400 points were Freikorp, Carbrera, and Czar. Of course all these points are now wiped out and the 32 remaining contestants start again from zero in round 3.

Vivvt submitted the largest number of DYKs (30), and MBlaze Lightning achieved 13 articles at ITN. Carbrera claimed for 11 GAs and Argento Surfer performed the most GARs, having reviewed 11. So far we have achieved 38 featured articles and a splendid 132 good articles. Commendably, 279 GARs have been achieved so far, more than double the number of GAs.

So, on to the third round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Devil of Christmas
The article The Devil of Christmas you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Devil of Christmas for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Argento Surfer -- Argento Surfer (talk) 13:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2017). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight

Guideline and policy news
 * An RfC has clarified that user categories should be emptied upon deletion, but redlinked user categories should not be removed if re-added by the user.
 * Discussions are ongoing regarding proposed changes to the COI policy. Changes so far have included clarification that adding a link on a Wikipedia forum to a job posting is not a violation of the harassment policy.

Technical news
 * You can now see a list of all autoblocks at Special:AutoblockList.
 * There is a new tool for adding archives to dead links. Administrators are able to restrict other user's ability to use the tool, and have additional permissions when changing URL and domain data.
 * Administrators, bureaucrats and stewards can now set an expiry date when granting user rights. (discuss, permalink)

Miscellaneous
 * Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Why is there something? article ; Keep or Delete?
Hi Josh please could you review Why is there something rather than nothing?, and give a 'Keep' or otherwise view? All best User:JCJC777 —Preceding undated comment added 07:05, 3 May 2017‎
 * Hi JCJC777; I may come back to the discussion, but it looks to be going in the right direction. I would generally advise against messages like this, though; they can come across as inappropriate canvassing. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of The Riddle of the Sphinx (Inside No. 9)
Hello! Your submission of The Riddle of the Sphinx (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! ISD (talk) 17:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

DYK for The Bill (Inside No. 9)
Vanamonde (talk) 05:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Riddle of the Sphinx (Inside No. 9)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Riddle of the Sphinx (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 Numerounovedant -- Numerounovedant (talk) 18:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

DYK for The Riddle of the Sphinx (Inside No. 9)
—David Levy 03:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Another one

 * Also, Josh could you take a look at my current FAC? Thanks either way. Numerounovedant   Talk  07:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Riddle of the Sphinx (Inside No. 9)
The article The Riddle of the Sphinx (Inside No. 9) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Riddle of the Sphinx (Inside No. 9) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Numerounovedant -- Numerounovedant (talk) 07:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Empty Orchestra
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Empty Orchestra 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 Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2017).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Doug Bell • Dennis Brown • Clpo13 • ONUnicorn
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg ThaddeusB • Yandman • Bjarki S • OldakQuill • Shyam • Jondel • Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news
 * An RfC proposing an off-wiki LTA database has been closed. The proposal was broadly supported, with further discussion required regarding what to do with the existing LTA database and defining access requirements. Such a tool/database formed part of the Community health initiative's successful grant proposal.
 * Some clarifications have been made to the community banning and unblocking policies that effectively sync them with current practice. Specifically, the community has reached a consensus that when blocking a user at WP:AN or WP:ANI, it is considered a "community sanction", and administrators cannot unblock unilaterally if the user has not successfully appealed the sanction to the community.
 * An RfC regarding the bot policy has closed with changes to the section describing restrictions on cosmetic changes.

Technical news
 * Users will soon be able to blacklist specific users from sending them notifications.

Miscellaneous
 * Following the 2017 elections, the new members of the Board of Trustees include Raystorm, Pundit and Doc James. They will serve three-year terms.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Request for help with FAC
Hello again! I hope that everything is going well for you. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide any feedback/commentary on my current FAC. I understand that it is a busy time of the year so I completely understand if you do not have the time or energy to look at this nomination. Thank you either. Great work with your current projects; have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message; I'm working (verrrryyyyy slowllyyyyy) on episode articles at the moment; for a very different kind of programme, but I'd like to take a look if I can! I'm pretty busy at the moment, and this weekend is likely packed, but hopefully next week some time. Feel free to remind me if I'm a no-show... Josh Milburn (talk) 02:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Take as much time as you need as I just put it up for FAC last week so it will be up there for a while. Good luck with current projects, and let me know if there is anything that I can do to help you with those. Hope you have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 02:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I was just going to take a first look-through when I saw that the article had already been promoted. I clearly don't have nearly enough time for Wikipedia any more! Josh Milburn (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries; I think it was more so because it got a lot of commentary in a very short amount of time (I posted the FAC at the beginning of the month) so I am just as surprised at how quickly it went through. Hope your day is going well so far. If you would like, you can check out my new FAC.Aoba47 (talk) 22:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 June 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Empty Orchestra
Hello! Your submission of Empty Orchestra 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! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Empty Orchestra
Vanamonde (talk) 05:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 June 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Astronomica FAN
Hi there! Several months ago, you reviewed my article Astronomica for GA status. Well, since then, I've put in a lot of work into it and am currently nominating it at FAN. I was wondering if you would be willing to peek at the article and maybe leave some comments on the FA nomination page? I'd love to see this article be the best it can be! Thanks.--<font color="#B22222">Gen. Quon <font color="#708090">(Talk)   15:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thrilled to see this going to FAC; I will watch with interest and certainly try to contribute, though I seem to have less and less time for Wikipedia! Josh Milburn (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)