User talk:Lankiveil/Archive 7

WikiCup 2011 July newsletter
We are half way through the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; there is less than a month to go before we have our final 8. Our pool leaders are (Pool A, 189 points) and  (Pool B, 165 points). The number of points required to reach the next round is not clear at this time; there are some users who still do not have any recorded points. Please remember to update your submissions' pages promptly. In addition, congratulations to PresN, who scored the first featured topic points in the competition for his work on Thatgamecompany related articles. Most points this round generally have, so far, come from good articles, with only one featured article (White-bellied Sea Eagle, from ) and two featured lists (Hugo Award for Best Graphic Story, from PresN and Grammy Award for Best Native American Music Album, from ). Points for Did You Know and good article reviews round out the scoring. No points have been awarded for In the News, good topics or featured pictures this round, and no points for featured sounds or portals have been awarded in the entire competition. On an unrelated note, preparation will be beginning soon for next year's WikiCup- watch this space!

There is little else to be said beyond the usual. Please list anything you need reviewing on WikiCup/Reviews, so others following the WikiCup can help, and please do help if you can by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup- points are, of course, offered for reviews at GAC. Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 11:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 July newsletter
The finals are upon us; we're down to the last few. One of the eight remaining contestants will be this year's WikiCup champion! 150 was the score needed to progress to the final; just under double the 76 required to reach round 4, and more than triple the 41 required to reach round 3. Our eight finalists are:


 * , Pool A's winner. Casliber has the highest total score in the competition, with 1528, the bulk of which is made up of 8 featured articles. He has the highest number of total featured articles (8, 1 of which was eligible for double points) and total did you knows (72) of any finalist. Casliber writes mostly on biology, including ornithology, botany and mycology.
 * , Pool B's winner and the highest scorer this round. PresN is the only finalist who has scored featured topic points, and he has gathered an impressive 330, but most of his points come from his 4 featured articles, one of which scored double. PresN writes mostly on video games and the Hugo Awards.
 * , Pool A's runner-up. Hurricanehink's points are mostly from his 30 good articles, more than any other finalist, and he is also the only finalist to score good topic points. Hurricanehink, as his name suggests, writes mostly on meteorology.
 * , Pool B's runner-up. Wizardman has completed 86 good article reviews, more than any other finalist, but most of his points come from his 2 featured articles. Wizardman writes mostly on American sport, especially baseball.
 * , the "fastest loser" (Pool A). Miyagawa has written 3 featured lists, one of which was awarded double points, more than any other finalist, but he was awarded points mostly for his 68 did you knows. Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, including dogs, military history and sport.
 * , the second "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Resolute's points come from his 9 good articles. He writes mostly on Canadian topics, including ice hockey.
 * , who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool A). Most of Evan's points come from his 10 good articles, and he writes mostly on meteorology.
 * , who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Phil's points come from his 9 good articles, 4 of which (more than any other finalist) were eligible for double points. He writes mostly on aeronautics.

We say goodbye to our seven other semi-finalists,, , , , , and. Everyone still in the competition at this stage has done fantastically well, and contributed greatly to Wikipedia. We're on the home straight now, and we will know our winner in two months.

In other news, preparations for next year's competition have begun with a brainstorming thread. Please, feel free to drop by and share any thoughts you have about how the competition should work next year. Sign ups are not yet open, but will be opened in due course. Watch this space. Further, there has been a discussion about the rule whereby those in the WikiCup must delcare their participation when nominating articles at featured article candidates. This has resulted in a bot being created by new featured article delegate. The bot will leave a message on FAC pages if the nominator is a participant in the WikiCup.

A reminder of the rules: any points scored after August 29 may be claimed for the final round, and please remember to update submission pages promptly. If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 September newsletter
We are on this year's home straight, with less than a month to go until the winner of the 2011 WikiCup will be decided. The fight for first place is currently being contested by, and , all of whom have over 200 points. This round has already seen multiple featured articles (1991 Atlantic hurricane season from Hurricanehink and Northrop YF-23 from Sp33dyphil) and a double-scoring featured list (Miyagawa's 1948 Summer Olympics medal table). The scores will likely increase far further before the end of the round on October 31 as everyone ups their pace. There is not much more to say- thoughts about next year's competition are welcome on the WikiCup talk page or the scoring talk page, and signups will open once a few things have been sorted out.

If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 12:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

List of 3-2-1 Penguins! episodes
Hi, Lankiveil. I would like to create the article "List of 3-2-1 Penguins! episodes," which was previously deleted by you. For references, I would primarily use the episode guides from TV Guide (http://www.tvguide.com/tvshows/3-2-1-penguins/episodes/282731), Zap2it (http://tvlistings.zap2it.com/tv/3-2-1-penguins/episode-guide/EP00859193/2008), and the IMDb (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1114703/episodes). Let me know what you think. Thanks.—Quick and Dirty User Account (talk) 01:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 October newsletter
The 2011 WikiCup is now over, and our new champion is, who joins the exclusive club of the previous winners: (2007),  (2008),  (2009) and  (2010). The final standings were as follows:



Prizes for first, second, third and fourth will be awarded, as will prizes for all those who reached the final eight. Every participant who scored in the competition will receive a ribbon of participation. In addition to the prizes based on placement, the following special prizes will be awarded based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, the prize is awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round.


 * The Featured Article Award:, for his performance in round 2. matched the score, but Casliber won the tiebreaker.
 * The Good Article Award:, for his performance in round 4.
 * The Featured List Award:, for his performance in round 4. matched the score, but Miyagawa won the tiebreaker.
 * The Recognised Topic Award (for good and featured topics):, for his performance in round 3.
 * The Did You Know Award:, for his performance in round 1.
 * The In the News Award:, for his performance in round 1.
 * The Reviewer Award (for good article reviews):, for his performance in round 3.

No prize was awarded for featured pictures, sounds or portals, as none were claimed throughout the competition. The awards will be handed out over the next few days. Congratulations to all our participants, and especially our winners; we've all had fun, and Wikipedia has benefitted massively from our content work.

Preparation for next year's WikiCup is ongoing. Interested parties are invited to sign up and participate in our straw polls. It's been a pleasure to work with you all this year, and, whoever's taking part in and running the competition in 2012, we hope to see you all in January! J Milburn and The ed17 00:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Cape Wickham Lighthouse
Materialscientist (talk) 00:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad images arbitration case
An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Evidence. Please add your evidence by, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

2012 WikiCup
Hi! As you've previously expressed interest in the competition, I'm just letting you know that the 2012 WikiCup is due to start in less than 24 hours. Signups are open, and will remain so for a few weeks after the beginning of the competition. The competition itself will follow basically the same format as last year, with a few small tweaks to point costs to reflect the opinions of the community. If you're interested in taking part, you're more than welcome, and if you know anyone who might be, please let them know too- the more the merrier! To join, simply add your name to WikiCup/2012 signups, and we will be in touch. Please feel free to direct any questions to me, or leave a note on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! You are receiving this note as you are listed on WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Please feel free to add or remove yourself. EdwardsBot (talk) 01:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

IAR again
The roads people are back at it again, they have started a deletion discussion without notifing the Australian project. Bidgee (talk) 04:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Vitali Klitschko vs. Tomasz Adamek
Would you reconsider your close of the above AfD, while I accept there is no consensus to delete the article, none of the !keeps addressed the lack of sourcing to show the article meets WP:EVENT it should be closed as "no consensus" or re-listed. Mt king  (edits)  07:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

missing word?
Hi, I was wondering, is there a word missing from this close? I get what you want to say but could you have a look and clarify, thanks - Youreallycan (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I thought that was what you meant. Would you tweak the close to clarify please? Youreallycan (talk) 13:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

May I pick your brain?
Hi,

Are you still interested in the idea of at least some non-admins being able to view deleted pages? I understand that the proposal was shot down previously by foundation counsel; however I believe I have at least two possible answers to their concerns.

One possibility is to make this prospective (apparently the antonynm of retrospective although I'm not so sure) - that is to say that only edits deleted after its implementation can be viewed. For revisions such as libelous edits or copyright violations and so on, there can be a hard delete, lying some way between this soft delete and oversight, which will function just like a present deletion. Admins could also have the power to toggle a deletion from hard to soft (or to undelete) - so selected deletions made before this feature is implemented could be made soft.

The second possibility is to introduce a procedure somewhat like RFA where users are given permission to view deleted edits by the community. As admin privileges are currently granted not just based on trust in general, but also on trust that the tools will be used appropriately, there is a much greater pool of users who would be eligible to be given this permission.

And of course, it is perfectly possible to use both of these systems at once.

I have cross posted this to a few users who were active in the discussion in 2008 - I don't feel this is a violation of CANVASS because I have not made the proposal myself - the reality is I need an experienced Wikipedia with some "street cred" to make it. I already attempted to steer a discussion of a similar proposal this way, but sadly that discussion is irretrievable (see here - or even better, don't!). Because I have posted this to a few users, I would be greatful if you would reply at User_talk:Egg Centric/Proposal and perhaps we can get a discussion going!

Thank you!

Egg Centric 23:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S. - silly me, I forgot to link to the original discussion in 2008. Here it is: Village_pump_(proposals)/Persistent_proposals/Straw_poll_for_view-deleted

Betacommand
As one of the admins who blocked Betacommand/Delta in the 12 month period leading up to the present ArbCom case, it would be helpful if you could look over the questions here and see how much information you can recall.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  00:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

A quick rules clarification before the regular notices: If you are concerned that another user is claiming points inappropriately, please contact a judge to take a look at the article. Competitors policing one another can create a bad atmosphere, and may lead to inconsistencies and mistakes. Rest assured that we, the judges, are making an effort to check submissions, but it is possible that we will miss something. On a loosely related note: If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. However, the reviewer felt that a few things need to be fixed before it is accepted. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text to the top of the article.)
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, you can use the edit button at the top of the article, near the search bar
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Help desk or the [ reviewer's talk page]. Alternatively you can ask a reviewer questions via live help
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia!  Chzz  ► 23:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

"Cricket"
I've uploaded all the images and am starting on the proofreading and assembling. Moondyne (talk) 12:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The judges would like to point out two quick rules reminders. First, any content promoted during the interim period (that is, on or after 27 February) is eligible for points in round 2. Second, any content worked on significantly this year is eligible for points if promoted in this round. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which would otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk &bull; email) and The ed17 (talk &bull; email) 00:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

RFA
Thanks for your support vote. I believe I did submit my RFA to soon but thanks. I plan on applying in 2-6 months hopefuly you will still support my request. TucsonDavid U . S . A . 11:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

It has been observed that the backlogs at good article candidates are building up again. While the points for good article reviews will be remaining constant, any help that can be offered keeping the backlog down would be appreciated. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk &bull; email) and The ed17 (talk &bull; email) 23:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for history merge
Hi Lankiveil, I was wondering if you could do a history merge for some of Laura's works, as you had done it for several of her articles (I'm covering her DYKs right now). Could you history merge User:LauraHale/Kiel Brown with Kiel Brown  and User:LauraHale/Fergus Kavanagh with Fergus Kavanagh? Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds about right, yes. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot! Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9
Hi. When you recently edited Fergus Kavanagh, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Champions Trophy and World Cup (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Eadward Muybridge
Thanks for protecting the page - As the heavy vandalism has continued; please extend the protection. Thanks...Modernist (talk) 10:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Pol430 talk to me 19:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 April newsletter
Round 2 of this year's WikiCup is over, and so we are down to our final 32, in what could be called our quarter-finals. The two highest scorers from each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers overall, have entered round 3, while 30 participants have been eliminated. Pool B's remains our top scorer with over 700 points; he continues to gain high numbers of points for his good articles on The X-Files, but also Millennium and other subjects. He has also gained points for a good topic, a featured list, multiple good article reviews and several did you knows. Pool E's was second, thanks primarily to his biology articles, with Pool H's  coming in third, with an impressive 46 did you knows, mostly on the subject of baseball. Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both scored over 600 points. Pools E and H proved our most successful, with each seeing 5 members qualify for round 3, while Pools C and D were the least, with each seeing only 3 reach round 3. However, it was Pool G which saw the lowest scoring, with a little under 400 points combined; Pool H, the highest scoring group, saw over triple that score.

65 points was the lowest qualifying score for round 3; significantly higher than the 11 required to enter round 2, and also higher than the 41 required to reach round 3 last year. However, in 2010, 100 points were needed to secure a place in round 3. 16 will progress to round 4. In round 3, 150 points was the 16th highest score, though, statistically, people tend to up their game a little in later rounds. Last year, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 points were needed. Guessing how many points will be required is not easy. We still have not seen any featured portals or topics this year, but, on the subject of less common content types, a small correction needs to be made to the previous newsletter: File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg, our first featured picture, was the work of both and, the latter of whom has also gone on to score with File:Map of the Battle of Guam, 1944.svg. Bonus points also continue to roll in; this round, earned triple points for her good articles on William the Conqueror and the Middle Ages, Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both earned triple points for their work on Western Jackdaw, now a good article,  earned triple points for her work on lettuce and work by  to ready antimony for good article status earned him triple points. managed to expand Vitus Bering far enough for a did you know, which was also worth triple points. All of these highly important topics featured on 50 or more Wikipedias at the start of the year.

An article on the WikiCup in the Wikimedia Blog, "Improving Wikipedia with friendly competition", was posted at the end of April. This may be of interest to those who are signed up to this newsletter, as well as serving as another way to draw attention to our project. Also, we would again like to thank and, for continued help behind the scenes. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk &bull; email) and The ed17 (talk &bull; email) 23:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail
Pine(talk) 11:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Australia Malta Locator.png listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Australia Malta Locator.png, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Australia Zimbabwe Locator.png listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Australia Zimbabwe Locator.png, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 00:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
--Dirk Beetstra T C 08:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ opened
An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 12, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 01:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 May newsletter
We're halfway through round 3 (or the quarter finals, if you prefer) and things are running smoothly. We're seeing very high scoring; as of the time of writing, the top 16 all have over 90 points. This has already proved to be more competative than this time last year- in 2011, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 was the lowest qualifying score. People have also upped their game slightly from last round, which is to be expected as we approach the end of the competition. Leading Pool A is, whose points have mostly come from a large number of did you knows on marine biology. Pool B's leader,, is for the first time not our highest scorer at the time of newsletter publication, but his good articles on The X-Files and Millenium keep him in second place overall. leads Pool C, our quietest pool, with content in a variety of areas on a variety of topics. Pool D is led by, our current overall leader. Nearly half of Casliber's points come from his triple-scored Western Jackdaw, which is now a featured article.

This round has seen an unusually high number of featured lists, with nearly one in five remaining participants claiming one, and one user,, claiming two. Miyagawa's featured list, 1936 Summer Olympics medal table, was even awarded double points. By comparison, good article reviews seem to be playing a smaller part, and featured topics portals remain two content-types still unutilised in this competition. Other than that, there isn't much to say! Things are coming along smoothly. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Moreton Bay Symphony Orchestra (MBSO)
Hi, I'd like you to reconsider your close of Articles for deletion/Moreton Bay Symphony Orchestra (MBSO). The valid keepers were based on "would 'appear to satisfy WP:GNG", not that it actualy did. It was explained later that those sources fell short and that eplaination was not refuted. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

AIV
I'd have blocked for vandalizing AIV...you are soft :) T. Canens (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Notification
I have mentioned you at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Evidence. If you wish to comment please take note of the guidelines at the top of the page and either the same page or Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Workshop may be suitable. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Fæ (talk) 09:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Estonian Sports Museum
Are there some sources for the stuff from the estonian:wiki? I'd like to take the article to the front page as DYK but it would need a citation per paragraph at least. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 14:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

UFC 148 DRV
I'm confused. You said when closing the deletion review that I can create a draft article in userspace to move into mainspace in the future. I thought that is what this deletion review was about? The original article was deleted by an admin because of a lack of sources. I rewrote the article and found plenty of secondary sources, and went to DRV in order to get my NEW article moved from userspace into mainspace. The reason I couldn't just move it to mainspace is because the topic name is being taken up by a redirect page, taking you to a summary of my topic in an omnibus article.

So where do I go from here to get my article into mainspace? The admin who closed the original afd told me to take it to DRV... and now it looks like he's just wasted my time by pointing me in the wrong direction. Gamezero 05  17:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I do think there is something off about this close Lankiveil. When one wishes to restore previously deleted material because the reason for deletion no longer applies, DRV is one option (the other is to just restore it and see what happens, but that can be viewed as pointy and would be unwise in the MMA area given the heat there).  Thus the fact that the DRV looked like an AfD is because it basically was intended to.  That's really not a problem with the DRV, it's just the nature of this type of DRV.  Further A) there is no need to allow a userspace draft--that's generally always permissible (other than WP:FAKEARTICLE) and B) a userspace draft was already presented in the DRV.  It may be that I'm just misunderstanding the close, but it sounds like at least one other user is too.  Could you clarify or fix as needed? Thanks, Hobit (talk) 19:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hobit, I just reviewed Article Incubator. I see nothing there about incubation being a process that derives from the talk page of the article.  On the contrary, it states, "It generally is inappropriate to incubate an article without a deletion process."  It also mentions that one of the routes to the incubator is from DRV.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)\
 * Hate to hold a conversation on someone else's talk page, but I didn't follow your point here. I don't think I was talking about incubation so I feel you took a left and I took a right.  Could you explain again?  Sorry I'm being slow.  Is this in reference to a comment made on the AfD or one here?  Hobit (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * About four days ago I asked you, "How do you feel about "incubate" until seven days after the event?" Your response was the last comment in the DRV.  FYI, Unscintillating (talk) 23:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec) Yes, basically what I was getting at was what you've outlined at "A", but I didn't agree there was a reasonable consensus to do "B". With that said, after looking at it a bit I'm not 100% sure that I stand by that, while I'm still a little worried that the discussion was tainted by sockpuppets, the remaining points don't look as solid as they did when I looked at it last night.  I would like to request a day or so to have a think... or if you can find another admin willing to move the draft to mainspace I suppose I wouldn't get too worked up over that.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC).
 * I'm not sure there were many sockpuppets. Maybe that one IP editor. But there were some single purpose accounts. But even if you don't count those, there were 6 good editors with a diverse background of edits who favored the draft being moved to article space. Those people are: Uzma Gamal, Cavarrone, Armbrust, Alzarian16, Hobit, and Bigdottawa. There were 4 editors who were against moving the article to main space... and one of those was the closing admin of the original article. And another one of those editors, Mtking, has been trying to get all UFC articles deleted... so he acts almost as a SPA concerned with trying to delete UFC articles. So there were 6 neutral editors favoring a move to article space, while there were 2 neutral editors against a move to main space. Gamezero  05  18:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @Lankiveil, sure I'm happy to wait. It was an odd discussion that's for certain. Hobit (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yea, so how come my policy based argument about how UFC 148 determines the champion of a top laegue was completely ignored? JonnyBonesJones (talk) 11:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I just saw your comment to Gamezero05 about the DRV. You do realize that consensus is not a vote right? That hordes of SPAs come out of the woodwork is a defining hallmark of the MMA enthusiast community. I strongly suggest you undo your revision of the closure as your bending to pressure to change the DRV rationale 5 days after the original closure will simply embolden the SPA enthusiasts to continue disrupting Wikipedia with their stripe of editing. Hasteur (talk) 12:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are unhappy, I suggest you nominate the article for deletion once it hits mainspace again. Until then, this discussion is over.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC).
 * Lankiveil, I appreciate your revision. There is one problem I have before I can move the article to mainspace. The page for UFC 148 is currently a protected re-direct page. Could you unprotect it so that I may put my article in it's place since there is not a need for a redirect page anymore. Here is the link to the redirect page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=UFC_148&redirect=no  This one as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=UFC_148:_Silva_vs._Sonnen_II&redirect=no  Thanks.  Gamezero  05  17:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This was actually completed by another admin. Gamezero05  talk  17:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Hasteur. It seems that the window for discussion ends just when a new need for discussion begins.  Where has a single proponent of the keep camp ever argued that there is a need to get this on Wikipedia mainspace earlier than one week after the event?  Is that not the very meaning of consensus?  The damage to the encyclopedia will begin at the time that the article is returned to mainspace until after the event.  The idea that an AfD can adequately review the notability of an event whose notability is in flux is a well-known flaw.  There is another out here, simply endorse the page protection as it now exists, which ends on July 7.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * While initially requesting that this issue be handled by the DRV closer, Scottywong has thanked Dennis Brown for removing the page protection. Therefore, I withdraw my request for a response.  Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 11:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Brunei women's national football team
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It was the idea of Mentoz85 to include your contribution in the credit. see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know/Preparation_area_2&diff=next&oldid=498569441 You can take the cridit if you wish, or ignore it, or even delete it! The choice is yours. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Authority control integration
Thanks very much for your comments on the authority control proposal on the Village Pump. We've refined it and worked out some more details after the discussion, and there is now a community Request for Comment to approve it being implemented. Any comments gratefully received! Andrew Gray (talk) 10:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Justin Bieber on Twitter for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Justin Bieber on Twitter is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Justin Bieber on Twitter until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

Informing you of this nomination because of your previous participation in the Justin Bieber on Twitter merge into Justin Bieber discussion.--LauraHale (talk) 03:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Cambodia women's national football team
Yngvadottir (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 June newsletter
Apologies for the lateness of this letter; our usual bot wasn't working. We are now entering round 4, our semi-finals, and have our final 16. A score of 243 was required to reach this round; significantly more than 2011's 76 points, and only a little behind 2010's 250 points. By comparison, last year, 150 points in round 4 secured a place in the final; in 2010, 430 were needed. Commiserations to Pool A's, who scored 242 points, missing out on a place in the round by a whisker. However, congratulations to Pool B's, whose television articles have brought him another round victory. Pool A's came second overall, with an impressive list of biological did you knows, good articles and featured articles. Third overall was Pool D's, with a long list of contibutions, mostly relating to baseball. Of course, with the points resetting every round, the playing field has been levelled. The most successful Pool was Pool D, which saw seven into the final round. Pool B saw four, C saw three and Pool A saw only the two round leaders.

A quick note about other competitions taking place on Wikipedia which may be of interest. There are 13 days remaining in the June-July GAN backlog elimination drive, but it is not too late to take part. August will also see the return of The Core Contest- a one month long competition first run in 2007. While the WikiCup awards points for audited content on any subject, The Core Contest about is raw article improvement, focussing heavily on the most important articles on Wikipedia. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 11:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

2012 Australian Summer Paralympians article help request
Hey. In honour of Australia at the 2012 Summer Paralympics, I'm trying to get articles created about members of the team who don't have articles yet. This is a fairly big job and I could use a bit of assistance. If you have time, can you add information and sources to articles, add pictures to articles (Flickr? Commons?), fix prose on articles where sources have been included now (mostly men's athletics) and otherwise help prep them for DYK? I'd be happy to give you credit at DYK for all the articles you help improve. Thanks in advance. --LauraHale (talk) 05:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 July newsletter
We're approaching the beginning of 2012's final round. Pool A sees as the leader, with 300 points being awarded for the featured article Bivalvia, and Pool B sees  in the lead, with 10 good articles, and over 35 articles eligible for good topic points. Pool A sees in second place with a number of articles relating to baseball, while Pool B's  follows Grapple X, with a variety of contributions including the high-scoring, high-importance featured article on the 2010 film Pride & Prejudice. Ruby2010, like Grapple X, also claimed a number of good topic points; despite this, not a single point has been claimed for featured topics in the contest so far. The same is true for featured portals.

Currently, the eighth-place competitor (and so the lowest scorer who would reach the final round right now) has scored 332, more than double the 150 needed to reach the final round last year. In 2010, however, 430 was the lowest qualifying score. In this competition, we have generally seen scores closer to those in 2010 than those in 2011. Let's see what kind of benchmark we can set for future competitions! As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 22:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 09:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 August newsletter
The final is upon us! We are down to our final 8. A massive 573 was our lowest qualifying score; this is higher than the 150 points needed last year and the 430 needed in 2010. Even in 2009, when points were acquired for mainspace edit count in addition to audited content, 417 points secured a place. That leaves this year's WikiCup, by one measure at least, our most competitive ever. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:
 * 1) once again finishes the round in first place, leading Pool B. Grapple X writes articles about television, and especially The X-Files and Millenium, with good articles making up the bulk of the score.
 * 2) led Pool A this round. Fourth-place finalist last year, Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, and has reached the final primarily off the back of his massive number of did you knows.
 * 3) was second in Pool B. Ruby2010 writes primarily on television and film, and scores primarily from good articles.
 * 4) finished third in Pool B. Casliber is something of a WikiCup veteran, having finished sixth in 2011 and fourth in 2010. Casliber writes on the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. Over half of Casliber's points this round were bonus points from the high-importance articles he has worked on.
 * 5) came second in Pool A. Also writing on biology, especially marine biology, Cwmhiraeth received 390 points for one featured article (Bivalvia) and one good article (pelican), topping up with a large number of did you knows.
 * 6) was third in Pool A. Muboshgu writes primarily on baseball, and this round saw Muboshgu's first featured article, Derek Jeter, promoted on its fourth attempt at FAC.
 * 7) was fourth in Pool A. She writes on a variety of topics, including horses, but this round also saw the high-importance lettuce reach featured article status.
 * 8) is another WikiCup veteran, having been a finalist in 2009 and 2010. He writes mostly on mycology.

However, we must also say goodbye to the eight who did not make the final, having fallen at the last hurdle:, , , , , , and. We hope to see you all next year.

On the subject of next year, a discussion has been opened here. Come and have your say about the competition, and how you'd like it to run in the future. This brainstorming will go on for some time before more focused discussions/polls are opened. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 September newsletter


We're over half way through the final, and so it is less than a month until we know for certain our 2012 WikiCup champion. currently leads, followed by, and. However, we have no one resembling a breakaway leader, and so the competition is a long way from over. Next month's newsletter will feature a list of our winners (who are not necessarily only the finalists) and keep your eyes open for an article on the WikiCup in a future edition of The Signpost. The leaders are already on a par with last year's winners, but a long way from the huge scores seen in 2010. That said, a repeat of the competition from 2010 seems unlikely.

It is good to see that three-quarters of our finalists have already scored bonus points this round. This shows that, contrary to criticism that the WikiCup has received in the past, the competition does not merely incentivise the writing of trivial articles; instead, our top competitors are still spending their time contributing to high-importance articles, and bringing them to a high standard. This does a great service to the encyclopedia and its readers. Thank you, and good work!

The planning for next year's WikiCup is ongoing. Some straw polls have been opened concerning the scoring, and you can now sign up for next year's competition. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 19:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi I want to ask if it possible to recover a page deleted since 2010 this one-> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WinPure If that's possible i will edit all the promotional info on it before posting it again. Thanks in advance

Regards LandiLandi166 (talk) 19:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Stephanie Morton
From what I can see, Stephanie Morton is a Tandem (UCI) guide. This should actually be made more clear in Para-cycling classification. She rode with Felicity Johnson. --LauraHale (talk) 00:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

GeoffBradley
Quick query. Any action against this users pre-emptive socks also listed at AIV? Thanks.  Pyrop e  23:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Great, that's what I was hoping. I've been digging back through the last few days and there seem to be another couple of them (User:Nayanlaldas and User:Edvardbrns). What do you reckon to getting the site itself blacklisted? Thanks again.  Pyrop e  00:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Already have done, unfortunately. See User:Alex Koper III. Sheesh.  Pyrop e  00:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Armed Forces Recreation Center Reunions
The article is an attempt at communication, which is a valid speedy deletion criterion. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 01:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 October newsletter
The 2012 WikiCup has come to a close; congratulations to, our 2012 champion! Cwmhiraeth joins our exclusive club of previous winners: (2007),  (2008),  (2009),  (2010) and  (2011). Our final standings were as follows:



Prizes for first, second, third and fourth will be awarded, as will prizes for all those who reached the final eight. Every participant who scored in the competition will receive a ribbon of participation. In addition to the prizes based on placement, the following special prizes will be awarded based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, the prize is awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round.


 * The featured article award goes to, for four featured articles in the final round.
 * The good article award also goes to, for 19 good articles in the second round.
 * The list award goes to, for three featured lists in the final round.
 * The topic award goes to, for three good topics (with around 40 articles) in round 4.
 * The did you know award goes to, for well over 100 DYKs in the final round.
 * The news award goes to, for 10 in the news items in round 3.
 * The picture award goes to, for two featured pictures in round 2.
 * The reviewer award goes to both (14 reviews in round 1) and  (14 reviews in round 3).
 * Finally, for achieving an incredible bonus point total in the final round, and for bringing the top-importance article frog to featured status, a biostar has been awarded to.

Awards will be handed out in the coming days; please bear with us! This year's competition also saw fantastic contributions in all rounds, from newer Wikipedians contributing their first good or featured articles, right up to highly experienced Wikipedians chasing high scores and contributing to topics outside of their usual comfort zones. It would be impossible to name all of the participants who have achieved things to be proud of, but well done to all of you, and thanks! Wikipedia has certainly benefited from the work of this year's WikiCup participants.

Next year's WikiCup will begin in January. Currently, discussions and polls are open, and all contributions are welcome. You can also sign up for next year's competition. There will be no further newsletters this year, although brief notes may be sent out in December to remind everyone about the upcoming competition. It's been a pleasure to work with you all, and we hope to see you all in January! J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Hiya
Well... thanks for being in agreement :) Anthere (talk)

Thanks for the welcome. Still learning how to use talk etc. Probably won't be updating anything for work until sometime next year but in the meantime trying to learn about WP by checking out the Wikiversity etc. Gabe (talk) 21:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)GabeMcCann

Proposed deletion of Parish of North Brisbane, Queensland


The article Parish of North Brisbane, Queensland has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * a cadastral division only- content belongs in another article

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi!
I was working on a page for a bass player by the name of Barry Dunaway. Unfortunately Barry himself tried making changes incorporating a link resulting in deletion. I was wondering if you could please userfy the article so a can work it offline and get it up to specs. Thanks! Kinda new at this! Phaze1todd (talk) 01:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Information
I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My 76 Strat  (talk) 10:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi!
Lankiveil, is there a way I can work it offline? There was alot of useful information in the deleted version I could use. I just want a chance to gather references and format it in accordance to Wiki guidelines offline and then resubmit. Can it still be Userfy'd? I'm new at this but eager to learn! Thanks! Phaze1todd (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/UFC 158
Can you please expand your rational for this keep demonstrating how you weighed up each argument, specificity which of the sources you felt were not routine in nature ?  ✍   Mtking  ✉ 05:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * CaSJer felt the coverage was routine ? Of the !vote keeps a fair number failed to address the reasons for failing policy and should in my view have been discounted.  ✍   Mtking  ✉ 05:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't feel that there is anything like a consensus that this article is policy compliment, and I feel that the AfD has not been closed with due weight given to thoes who addressed policy vs those who just !voted keep. None of those advocating keep demonstrated how it meet policy. It is very easy to come up with tones of sources on any professional sports event, (try looking for coverage on any ot this weekends NFL games) it does not mean that they are worthy of an encyclopedia article.  ✍   Mtking  ✉ 06:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Figure It Out Episode List
I don't know why people didn't like it. It's just like any other episode list on here, and those aren't being deleted.

Anyway, I was wondering if I could get a copy of the Season 6 section of the deleted article?

Thank you. - Amaury (talk) 21:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for UFC 158
An editor has asked for a deletion review of UFC 158. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.  ✍   Mtking  ✉ 00:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 starting soon
Hi there; you're receiving this message because you have previously shown interest in the WikiCup. This is just to remind you that the 2013 WikiCup will be starting on 1 January, and that signups will remain open throughout January. Old and new Wikipedians and WikiCup participants are warmly invited to take part in this year's competition. (Though, as a note to the more experienced participants, there have been a few small rules changes in the last few months.) If you have already signed up, let this be a reminder; you will receive a message with your submissions' page soon. Please direct any questions to the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! J Milburn 19:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Shotouts
Gun_politics_in_Australia looks like a real western to me... SatuSuro 00:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

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

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 01:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Independent review needed
Dear Lankiveil, if you get a chance, can you please independently take a look at the deletion of Mediox []. I will modify the article in any way possible just to preserve the invention of the multimedia fast food tray. MDEngineer (talk) 09:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 February newsletter
Round 1 is now over. The top 64 scorers have progressed to round 2, where they have been randomly split into eight pools of eight. At the end of April, the top two from each pool, as well as the 16 highest scorers from those remaining, will progress to round 3. Commiserations to those eliminated; if you're interested in still being involved in the WikiCup, able and willing reviewers will always be needed, and if you're interested in getting involved with other collaborative projects, take a look at the WikiWomen's Month discussed below.

Round 1 saw 21 competitors with over 100 points, which is fantastic; that suggests that this year's competition is going to be highly competative. Our lower scores indicate this, too: A score of 19 was required to reach round 2, which was significantly higher than the 11 points required in 2012 and 8 points required in 2011. The score needed to reach round 3 will be higher, and may depend on pool groupings. In 2011, 41 points secured a round 3 place, while in 2012, 65 was needed. Our top three scorers in round 1 were:
 * , primarily for an array of warship GAs.
 * , primarily for an array of did you knows and good articles, some of which were awarded bonus points.
 * , due in no small part to Canis Minor, a featured article awarded a total of 340 points. A joint submission with, this is the highest scoring single article yet submitted in this year's competition.

Other contributors of note include:
 * , whose Portal:Massachusetts is the first featured portal this year. The featured portal process is one of the less well-known featured processes, and featured portals have traditionally had little impact on WikiCup scores.
 * , whose Mycena aurantiomarginata was the first featured article this year.
 * and, who both claimed points for articles in the Major League Baseball tie-breakers topic, the first topic points in the competition.
 * , who claimed for the first full good topic with the Casting Crowns studio albums topic.

Featured topics have still played no part in this year's competition, but once again, a curious contribution has been offered by : did you know that there is a Shit Brook in Shropshire? With April Fools' Day during the next round, there will probably be a good chance of more unusual articles...

March sees the WikiWomen's History Month, a series of collaborative efforts to aid the women's history WikiProject to coincide with Women's History Month and International Women's Day. A number of WikiCup participants have already started to take part. The project has a to-do list of articles needing work on the topic of women's history. Those interested in helping out with the project can find articles in need of attention there, or, alternatively, add articles to the list. Those interested in collaborating on articles on women's history are also welcome to use the WikiCup talk page to find others willing to lend a helping hand. Another collaboration currently running is an an effort from WikiCup participants to coordinate a number of Easter-themed did you know articles. Contributions are welcome!

A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 11:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Santa Maria Domenica Mazzarello, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cardinal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Your comments are invited on four current FDC proposals
Hello! As you may know, we've opened the community review period for the current funding round in the Funds Dissemination Committee process. I noticed that in the past you expressed interest in the FDC, since you were a nominee for the ombudsperson. I'd like to invite you to review the 4 proposals (totaling $1.3 million USD) that were submitted to the FDC, and to ask questions and share comments about those proposals. You can help to ensure that they have high potential for impact regarding the movement's goals. The FDC especially values comments by community members and will take them into account when they prepare their recommendations. Let me know if you have any questions! --Katy Love, Senior Program Officer, Funds Dissemination Committee, Wikimedia Foundation, 22:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Natalie Gauci
I'm intending to edit the above article, you have recently dePRODed it and I have started a discussion on some issues at the article's talkpage. If interested I'd appreciate a second set of eyes to tackle the tone, expression and accuracy of the article. Dive in when you can.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've had a go at updating the article, providing her more recent work. I'm certain to have made some errors and would appreciate a second pair of eyes having a look, if you have the time.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for semi-protecting the article, also check the article's talkpage. I'm specifically worried about the possibility of a private phone number being supplied so openly by User talk:Shri207. Even if it is not legitimate it still breaches privacy issues.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 11:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Tomorrow's Symposium
Just a quick reminder to everyone who has indicated their interest on-wiki. The Wikimedia in Higher Education symposium at The University of Sydney is on tomorrow. We have a full day of speakers and workshops, and about 45-50 participants. Don't worry if you haven't officially registered, a few extra won't hurt. See you there. --99of9 (talk) 02:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Manor Hotel, Mundesley
No way was the result anything other than a keep. It had one delete vote only!!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  13:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC:Infobox Road proposal
WP:AURD (Australian Roads), is inviting comment on a proposal to convert Australian road articles to. Please come and discuss. The vote will be after concerns have been looked into.


 * Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Roads/RfC:Infobox Road proposal

You are being contacted as a user who participated in previous discussions proposing the deletion of, this RfC does not propose that.

Nbound (talk) 07:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 16:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Kindly provide me Anukriti_Gusain page for Sandbox.
Kindly provide me Anukriti Gusain page for Sandbox. Gokulchandola (talk) 06:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Gamma-Dynacare Medical Laboratories

 * I would like to try to recreate the article Gamma-Dynacare Medical Laboratories which you have deleted. I put forward possible revisions to address any problems with any copyright information on the talk page which has since been deleted. These revisions also removed any "promotional" sounding information which was addressed as an issue. Even though some of the text of the article was deemed to not meet copyright standards the topic still remains notable as Gamma-Dynacare has been named a top company for the entire country of Canada. A top company in Toronto, and a top company in Ottawa (the nations capital) by various organizations. As a top company in the country it is surely notable. I don't want to just recreate the page the same though; and thus wanted to post this here so that I go about it through the proper channels. To recreate this page I would also like access to the previous text and talk page to use the suggestions I put forth before which removed any "promotional" or copyright information but simply listed the facts about the country. Any help you can provide in this process would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Magnetawan (talk) 02:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I will attempt to recreate this page here: User:Magnetawan/Gamma-Dynacare Medical Laboratories then hopefully I can create an revision which is sufficient for use in the main article. I would apprectiate any information from the original article you may be able to provide. I do not know how to access the old article if possible. Magnetawan (talk) 02:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your message on my talk page. I have recreated the article. In its current form it should meet notability standards. References include the following independent sources: Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail, CanadasTop100.com, Bloomberg Businessweek, and The Winnipeg Free Press. As well careful attention has been paid to concerns regarding copyrights in the original article. Magnetawan (talk) 00:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The first wiki-concert
Hi, Please express your opinion on the meta:Grants:WM UA/Free Vocal Music concert, as the wiki-concert is planned on May, 15, and we need to know the GAC decision at least a day in advance. --Perohanych (talk) 21:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Iberoconf 2013
Dear Lankiveil, I'd like to ask for your comments on our pending grant for Iberoconf 2013. Thanks in advance, --ProtoplasmaKid (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Harumph
Articles for deletion/Klee Irwin (2nd nomination) What was the policy-based reasoning to keep? There are literally NO SECONDARY SOURCES. Is it OKAY to stitch together a hit job of primary sources to disparage a living person on Wikipeida? When closing these debates one needs to dig into the facts of the matter, not just count the bold words "Keep" or "Delete". Jehochman Talk 02:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou for moving Anukriti Gusain article to my Sandbox.
Thank you for moving Anukriti Gusain article to my Sandbox. Gokulchandola (talk) 12:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

RfA
H! Thanks for the commiserations/congratulations, although I'm inclined to lean towards the former. :) I considered running a few times - Sarah suggested it once, as did a couple of others I respected, but I've never really wanted the tools. But these days I think I'll be more useful in some areas with than I am without them, so it was time to give in. - Bilby (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Feedback on Foundation Grant
A reply has been posted here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:Aislinn_Dewey/Distribute_WikiReaders_to_Schools — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashstar01 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Stu Klitenic for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether if Stu Klitenic should be deleted or not. The conversation will be held at the Articles for deletion/Stu Klitenic until a consensus is held and everyone is welcome to join the conversation. However, do not remove the AfD message on the top of the page. Ashbeckjonathan 04:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Elgar's Special Survey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hawthorn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Zayeem (talk) 08:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you please userfy "The Sammus Theory"?
Can you please userfy "The Sammus Theory" article, which was recently deleted at AfD? Thanks! --Jax 0677 (talk) 11:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Australian plebiscite, 1917, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Victoria (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 June newsletter
We are down to our final 16: the 2013 semi-finals are upon us. A score of 321 was required to survive round 3, further cementing this as the most competitive WikiCup yet; round 3 was survived in 2012 with 243 points, in 2011 with 76 points and in 2010 with 250 points. The change may in part be to do with the fact that more articles are now awarded bonus points, in addition to more competitive play. Reaching the final has, in the past, required 573 points (2012, a 135% increase on the score needed to reach round 4), 150 points (2011, a 97% increase) and 417 points (2010, a 72% increase). This round has seen over a third of participants claiming points for featured articles (with seven users claiming for multiple featured articles) and most users have also gained bonus points. However, the majority of points continue to come from good articles, followed by did you know articles. In this round, every content type was utilised by at least one user, proving that the WikiCup brings together content contributors from all corners of the project.

Round 3 saw a number of contributions of note. claimed the first featured topic points in this year's competition for her excellent work on topics related to Maya Angelou, the noted American author and poet. We have also continued to see high-importance articles improved as part of the competition: was awarded a thoroughly well-earned 560 points for her featured article Middle Ages and 102 points for her good article Battle of Hastings. Good articles James Chadwick and Stanislaw Ulam netted 102 and 72 points respectively, while 72 points were awarded to  for each of Władysław Sikorski and Emilia Plater, both recently promoted to good article status. Collaborative efforts between WikiCup participants have continued, with, for example, and  being awarded 180 points each for their featured article on Boletus luridus.

A rules reminder: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on the 29/30 June, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. We are currently seeing concern about the amount of time people have to wait for reviews, especially at GAC- if you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 10:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

you closed the AFD but its still listed on its page
Obad-Hai still links to an open AFD, but you just closed that one.  D r e a m Focus  12:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like a tool burp. Luckily User:Ultraexactzz beat me to fixing it!  Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC).
 * No worries - lots of these are showing up on the bad afd list, and it's a simple fix. Usually it's an AFD where the article moved after the debate began so the tools don't know where to find the article - but that doesn't look like the case here. I dunno. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia Chapters Survey
Hello Lankiveil,

I've just seen you updaiting reports of Wikimedia Australia and I would like to invite you and your chapter to take a part in a survey on WM Chapters. As I briefly explained, it is an effort agreed during WCA meetings, taken to start gathering information about us and present it visibly. First presentation will be given in Hong Kong.

I know it is an additional work and the survey could use more elaboration, but someone needed to start it. Survey can be responded on a dedicated meta subpage or in other form if it is more suitable for the chapter. Your subpage is here.

Thanks for your help,

aegis maelstrom δ 12:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 July newsletter
We're halfway through this year's penultimate round, and the competition is moving along well. Pool A's currently leads overall, while Pool B's  is second. Both leaders are WikiCup veterans, and both have already scored over 600 points this month. If the round were to end today,, with 274 points, would be the lowest-scoring participant to make it through. This indicates that participants will need a score comparable to last year's (573, the highest ever) to qualify for the final. The high scores this year are a testament both to the quality of participants and to the increased focus on significant content (eligible for bonus points) in this year's competition. So far this round, both Sasata and have made up over half of their score through bonus points, with, for example, high importance FA koala earning Sasata a total of 440 points (from a multiplier of 4.4) and high-importance GA sea earning Cwmhiraeth a total of 216 points (from a multiplier of 7.2). Other articles on important topics submitted this round include a featured article on the Norman conquest of England by, and good articles on Nobel laureate in literature Henryk Sienkiewicz, Nobel laureate in physics Hans Bethe, and the noted Japanese aircraft carrier Hiryū. These articles are by, and Sturmvogel_66 respectively.

Other than that, there is not much to report! If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 August newsletter
This year's final is upon us. Our final eight, in order of last round's score, are:
 * , a WikiCup newcomer who has contributed on topics of military history and physics, including a number of high-importance topics. Good articles have made up the bulk of his points, but he has also scored a great deal of bonus points. He has the second highest score overall so far, with more than 3000 points accumulated.
 * , another WikiCup veteran who reached the finals in 2012, 2011 and 2010. He writes on a variety of topics including botany, mycology and astronomy, and has claimed the highest or joint highest number of featured articles every round so far this year. He has the third highest score overall, with just under 3000 points accumulated.
 * , 2012 WikiCup champion, who writes mostly on marine biology. She has also contributed to high-importance topics, seeing huge numbers of bonus points for high-importance featured and good articles. Previous rounds have seen her scoring the most bonus points, with scoring spread across did you knows, good articles and featured articles.
 * , a WikiCup veteran who finished in second place in 2012, and competed as early as 2009. He writes articles on biology, especially mycology, and has scored highly for a number of collaborations at featured article candidates.
 * , the winner of the 2010 competition. His contributions mostly concern Naval history, and he has scored a very large number of points for good articles and good article reviews in every round. He is the highest scorer overall this year, with over 3500 points in total.
 * , who is competing in the WikiCup for the second time, though this will be her first time in the final. A regular at FAC, she is mostly interested in British medieval history, and has scored very highly for some top-importance featured articles on the topic.
 * , a finalist in 2012 and 2011. He writes on a broad variety of topics, with many of this year's points coming from good articles about Star Trek. Good articles make up the bulk of his points, and he had the most good articles back in round 2; he was also the highest scorer for DYK in rounds 1 and 2.
 * 1) has previously been involved with the WikiCup, but hasn't participated for a number of years. He scores mostly from restoration work leading to featured picture credits, but has also done some article writing and reviewing.

We say goodbye to eight great participants who did not qualify for the final:, , , , , , ,. Having made it to this stage is still an excellent achievement, and you can leave with your heads held high. We hope to see you all again next year. Signups are now open for the 2014 WikiCup, which will begin on 1 January. All Wikipedians, whatever their interest or level of experience, are warmly invited to participate in next year's competition.

This last month has seen some incredible contributions; for instance, Cwmhiraeth's Starfish and Ealdgyth's Battle of Hastings—two highly important, highly viewed pages—made it to featured article status. It would be all too easy to focus solely on these stunning achievements at the expense of those participants working in lower-scoring areas, when in fact all WikiCup participants are doing excellent work. A mention of everything done is impossible, but here are a few: Last round saw the completion of several good topics (on the 1958, 1959 and 1962 Atlantic hurricane seasons) to which 12george1 had contributed. Calvin999 saw "S&M" (song), on which he has been working for several years, through to featured article status on its tenth try. Figureskatingfan continued towards her goal of a broad featured/good topic on Maya Angelou, with two featured and four good articles. ThaddeusB contributed significantly to over 20 articles which appeared on the main page's "in the news" section. Adam Cuerden continued to restore a large number of historical images, resulting in over a dozen FP credits this round alone. The WikiCup is not just about top-importance featured articles, and the work of all of these users is worthy of commendation.

Finally, the usual notices: If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 06:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

(((new article to be created)))
" The monument cost 1800 Australian pounds to complete, and was unveiled by the Governor, Sir Matthew Nathan". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maganda1 (talk • contribs) 07:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC) --Maganda1 (talk) 07:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Odab-Hai merge proposal
There is an ongoing discussion here in which you may be interested. You closed the AFD on Obad-Hai at the beginning of July as no consensus to delete and it may help the discussion if you could explain your rationale behind the close. Thank you.Vulcan&#39;s Forge (talk) 01:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Phelps Article
Lankiveil Thanks for topping up my comment on Phelps & Pinochet I may start a petition on Change.Org. Is it appropriate to reference this on Phelps' Wikipedia page? Thanks AndreMarti68 AndreMarti68 (talk) 00:14, 16 September 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) 23:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

More about collective membership marks
Hi, Craig. :) You mentioned that you would like to see more information about collective membership marks and the WMF's thoughts about them in your comment at Community Logo/Request for consultation. I just wanted to let you know that Yana has responded with more information at m:Talk:Community Logo/Request for consultation. Thanks! --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 11:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Two closes there... Northamerica1000(talk) 22:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Breeze Barton merge
As you participated in Articles for deletion/Breeze Barton, you may be interested to learn that I have opened a discussion to propose merging the article's contents to List of Marvel Comics characters: B. Feel free to comment.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 20:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Nathaniel Raymond Deletion Review
Lankiveil, I think part of the reason for the decision to Snow Keep the Nathaniel Raymond Afd was the unreasonableness of the nomination. Everyone who disagreed with the nominating editor was accused of being a sockpuppet, and no matter how much evidence of Raymond's notability was presented, they said that it was insignificant. No evidence was presented that Raymond failed to meet WP:BLP, and this whole thing appears to be some sort of personal or professional vendetta against Raymond, rather than a legitimate notability question. I'm not a big fan of WP:SNOW as I think that its vague and self-contradictory. However, WP:SK provides for a speedy keep for "nominations which are made solely to provide a forum for disruption." DavidinNJ (talk) 19:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

vandalism yet again
The protection you put on Kidnapping of Hannah Anderson expired, and the first edits happening after that was an Ip Address with no other edits vandalizing the page with slander to a living person, getting reverted by two different editors, then posting as the new editor WeSeekTheTruth42 who was reverted by a third editor. All seem to try to be making it sound like she was lying and actually responsible for the crimes. Can you give it longer protection?  D r e a m Focus  17:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 October newsletter
The WikiCup is over for another year! Our champion, for the second year running, is. Our final nine were as follows:

All those who reached the final win prizes, and prizes will also be going to the following participants:


 * wins the FA prize, for four featured articles in round 4, worth 400 points.
 * wins the GA prize, for 20 good articles in round 3, worth 600 points.
 * wins the FL prize, for four featured lists in round 2, worth 180 points.
 * wins the FP prize, for 23 featured pictures in round 5, worth 805 point.
 * wins the FPo prize, for 2 featured portals in round 3, worth 70 points.
 * wins the topic prize, for a 23-article featured topic in round 5, worth 230 points.
 * wins the DYK prize, for 79 did you know articles in round 5, worth 570 points.
 * wins the ITN prize, for 23 in the news articles in round 4, worth 270 points.
 * wins the GAR prize, for 24 good article reviews in round 1, worth 96 points.
 * The judges are awarding the Oddball Barnstar to, for some curious contributions in earlier rounds.
 * Finally, the judges are awarding the Geography Barnstar for her work on sea, now a featured article. This top-importance article was the highest-scoring this year; when it was promoted to FA status, Cwmhiraeth could claim 720 points.

Prizes will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!

Congratulations to everyone who has been successful in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and a particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition. While it has been an excellent year, errors have opened up the judges' eyes to the need for a third judge, and it is with pleasure that we announce that experienced WikiCup participant Miyagawa will be acting as a judge from now on. We hope you will all join us in welcoming him to the team.

Next year's competition begins on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; it is open to all Wikipedians, new and old. Brainstorming and discussion remains open for how next year's competition will work, and straw polls will be opened by the judges soon. Those interested in friendly competition may also like to keep an eye on the stub contest, being organised by Casliber. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2014 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 01:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Tahita Bulmer
Obviously I am not neutral here, but there was sufficient consensus for a merge & redirect at this AFD for it to be implemented. GiantSnowman 11:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggested a merge/redirect, but took it to AFD as I also had concerns about notability. One other editor suggested a 'Redirect to her band', and another suggested a 'Merge to her band'. So that's basically three out of four editors (75%) calling for a merge and/or redirect to her band article. GiantSnowman 12:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. GiantSnowman 12:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Chris Joss
Hi, chris joss here, I didn't create this page that's been online for years, I've noticed it wasn't up to date, I saw that phrase at the bottom "this is a stub feel free to expand it" so I did. I thought it would be of interest to share informations only I have, but understand your need for external sources to be entitled to publish them here, therefore I've removed 90% of them.

I'll add that contrary to your affirmation, any quick research will return enough entries for criterias #1 #2 #5 and #10 of WP:MUS to be met.

The music used in these movies, TV series, commercials etc... is taken from my albums, released by an important indie label (meeting the description in criteria #5), which is distributed in the US by Fontana, a division of Universal, and worldwide by various large distributors, and digitally distributed worldwide by Ingrooves/Fontana, also a division of Universal.

The track "I want Freedom" available in all Macintosh since 2009 has been reported to be downloaded and streamed 500.000 times in April 2013 alone. To proove this figure I would have to make public some privileged document, so I won't, but I think that entitles me to have a page, that was already there before I made these autobiographical changes, inspired by the reading of pages on wikipedia about artists I admire, not specially famous and that don't meet the criterias you require for my page to exist.

Someone had removed the years of activity 1987-present to replace by 1987 - 2010, which was accepted although there is no source reflecting an end of activity in 2010. To me releasing records worldwide, charting in the US, is proof enough of an activity, therefore I've re-changed my years of activity to 1987-present — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberto Rouflakess (talk • contribs) 23:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet Explorer 1
Hi.

I hope I am not catching you in a busy time. I wanted to talk to you about your closure of Articles for deletion/Internet Explorer 1 because I am afraid I believe you may have misinterpreted the consensus.

I am sure you can see that the participants are divided into two groups: Proponents of keeping and proponents of a merger.
 * The four proponents of a merger (please do not miss User:Peter James) consistently believe that Internet Explorer 1 is an article fork and content in the main article suffices. Unlike what you advised in the closing statement, both WP:AfD and WP:DELETE states that merger, as an alternative to deletion, should definitely be discussed and is on the table as an option.
 * The six proponents of keeping the article, however, did not have a consistent and valid reason that can form a consensus. Two just couldn't dream a title called "Internet Explorer 1" not having an article! Two said that a merger would increase the size of the already oversized main article. Well, this still doesn't rule out deletion or a close merger and their concern is no longer valid, since the main article size is dropped by 30 kB (from ~120 kB to ~90 kB); we knew this is going to happen. Finally, two said that the article has potential for expansion. However, this article has had 13 years for expansion and has already promised such expansion two years ago but never fulfilled. Given the fact that it is a fork and its existence is not essential for the said expansion, WP:ATD-M seems to be in order.

Overall, we have four people with a consensus that meets standing article policies, four people who want the article kept but their reasons are neither consistent nor compliant with existing policies (that represent the community consensus) and two people with emotional insecurity. It seems to me that there is a consensus for merger but none for delete or keeping.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Noted. I request your patience while I consider and compose a response to your points.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC).
 * Having reviewed the discussion, I have to disagree with your points on the following grounds:
 * Merge is possibly a valid way forward, but the article was nominated for deletion, not merge. If there's a clear consensus for a Merge then obviously that can be an outcome of a deletion discussion, however in this case I do not believe there was a clear consensus for that course of action (with nearly half of participants saying they didn't want a merge)
 * Less than half of those who responded preferred "merge" over "keep", and the views of the "merge" !voters were not in my view sufficiently compelling or policy-based to overrule the majority.
 * If this were a BLP or other sensitive topic I might be swayed a little more by your zeal for deleting this particular article, but the article contents are clearly uncontroversial and it's not a huge problem if it takes another six years (not thirteen, as the article was only created in 2007) for the article to be significantly expanded.
 * I hadn't realised at the time, but it looks like the content from this article has been used in a cut-and-paste merge to Internet Explorer versions, meaning that at least the original article history needs to be kept somewhere for copyright purposes.
 * Accusing those who disagree with you of "emotional insecurity" is in my view petty and juvenile. Likewise, accusing an editor, who as far as I can see was acting in entirely good faith, of being "too biased" for making a call you disagree with is far from optimal.
 * I hope this clarifies my reasoning for you. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC).
 * Hi.
 * You have my gratitude for reassessing the situation. Although I am less than convinced, let us say we have a difference of opinion and respectfully agree to disagree. In any case, a merge did take place, without my intervention, and is yet unopposed. So, it seems we do have a consensus after all.


 * However, I must insist on one point: I always assume good faith. That said, emotional insecurity and bias do not contradict good faith. People may be biased or emotionally insecure in best of the faith. It is a known fact that people do submit invalid recommendations to AfDs, including WP:PLEASEDONT that are borne out of emotional insecurities. If it was not the case, Wikipedia would never have needed any admins. That I disagree with them doesn't mean I am assuming bad faith or accusing anyone.


 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 10:49, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Ammo (Musician) Deletion
Hi there - I'm the creator of the original http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammo_(musician) page which you nominated for deletion. I'd like to ask for you to userfy it so that I can update it with better sources. I think the two main issues for this article is that, first, some of the original legitimate sources were deleted and, second, due to the nature of the name "Ammo" finding new sources is difficult unless you know exactly what to search for. Ammo is a producer and songwriter, so when googling, "Ammo producer" and "Ammo songwriter" will return much better results. Pls let me know best way to proceed. Thanks! Empty_bottle1234 (talk)