User talk:Nurmsook/Archive 6

Shea Weber GA
I've reviewed the article and placed it on hold. Some work to do, but definitely do-able. Lemme know if you have any questions about by comments. Good luck! Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 11:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've gone through and addressed the issues you identified in the review. Let me know if you want any further changes. Cheers! – Nurmsook!  talk...  23:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Nathan MacKinnon
The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Leafs pics
Thanks for the heads up, I scan through her photos a couple of times a week, they are a great resource. If you see something that can improve the Schenn article - by all means, go ahead. I keep an eye on it, but I like seeing what other people can add as well. :) Canada Hky (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

College hockey
 Grsz 11 05:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 January newsletter
We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. Signups are now closed, and we have 129 listed competitors, 64 of whom will make it to round two. Congratulations to, who, at the time of writing, has a comfortable lead with 228 points, followed by , with 144 points. Four others have over 100 points. Congratulations also go to, who scored the first points in the competition, claiming for Talk:Hurricane King/GA1, , who scored the first non-review points in the competition, claiming for Dognapping, and who was the first in the competition to use our new "multiplier" mechanic (explanation), claiming for Grigory Potemkin, a subject covered on numerous Wikipedias. Thanks must also go to Jarry1250 for dealing with all bot work- without you, the competition wouldn't be happening!

A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round two is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, 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 22:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 February newsletter
So begins round two of the WikiCup! We now have eight pools, each with eight random contestants. This round will continue until the end of April, when the top two of each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers of those remaining, will make it to round three. Congratulations to (first, with 487 points) and  (second, with 459), who stormed the first round. finished third with 223. Twelve others finished with over 100 points- well done to all of you! The final standings in round one can be seen here. A mere 8 points were required to reach round two; competition will no doubt be much more fierce this round, so be ready for a challenge! A special thanks goes, again, to for dealing with all bot work. This year's bot, as well as running smoothly, is doing some very helpful things that last year's did not. Also, thanks to for some helpful behind-the-scenes updating and number crunching.

Some news for those who are interested- March will see a GAN backlog elimination drive, which you are still free to join. Organised by WikiProject Good articles, the drive aims to minimise the GAN backlog and offers prizes to those who help out. Of course, you may well be able to claim WikiCup points for the articles you review as part of the drive. Also ongoing is the Great Backlog Drive, looking to work on clearing all of the backlogs on Wikipedia; again, incentives are offered, and the spirit of friendly competition is alive, while helping the encyclopedia is the ultimate aim. Though unrelated to the WikiCup, these may well be of interest to some of you.

Just a reminder of the rules; if you have done significant work on content this year and it is promoted in this round, you may claim for it. Also, anything that was promoted after the end of round one but before the beginning of round two may be claimed for in round two. Details of the rules can be found on this page. For those interested in statistics, a running total of claims can be seen here, and a very interesting table of that information (along with the highest scorers in each category) can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, 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 23:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Travis Turnbull


The article Travis Turnbull has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * The subject of this article does not appear to meet the general notability guideline or the WP:NHOCKEY guideline for ice hockey players. I am unable to find significant coverage of this person in third party sources.

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. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Onthegogo (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Travis Turnbull for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Travis Turnbull 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/Travis Turnbull 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 good 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. Onthegogo (talk) 19:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 March newsletter
We are half way through round two of the WikiCup, which will end on 28 April. Of the 64 current contestants, 32 will make it through to the next round; the two highest in each pool, and the 16 next highest scorers. At the time of writing, our current overall leader is with 231 points, who leads Pool H.  (Pool G) also has over 200 points, while 9 others (three of whom are in Pool D) have over 100 points. Remember that certain content (specifically, articles/portals included in at least 20 Wikipedias as of 31 December 2010 or articles which are considered "vital") is worth double points if promoted to good or featured status, or if it appears on the main page in the Did You Know column. There were some articles last round which were eligible for double points, but which were not claimed for. For more details, see WikiCup/Scoring.

A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round three is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, 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 01:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 April newsletter
Round 2 of the 2011 WikiCup is over, and the new round will begin on 1 May. Note that any points scored in the interim (that is, for content promoted or reviews completed on 29-30 April) can be claimed in the next round, but please do not start updating your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. Fewer than a quarter of our original contestants remain; 32 enter round 3, and, in two months' time, only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. , who led Pool F, was our round champion, with 411 points, while 7 contestants scored between 200 and 300 points. At the other end of the scale, a score of 41 was high enough to reach round 3; more than five times the score required to reach round 2, and competition will no doubt become tighter now we're approaching the later rounds. Those progressing to round 3 were spread fairly evenly across the pools; 4 progressed from each of pools A, B, E and H, while 3 progressed from both pools C and F. Pools D and G were the most successful; each had 5 contestants advancing.

This round saw our first good topic points this year; congratulations to and  who also led pool H and pool B respectively. However, there remain content types for which no points have yet been scored; featured sounds, featured portals and featured topics. In addition to prizes for leaderboard positions, the WikiCup awards other prizes; for instance, last year, a prize was awarded to (who has been eliminated) for his work on In The News. For this reason, working on more unusual content could be even more rewarding than usual!

Sorry this newsletter is going out a little earlier than expected- there is a busy weekend coming up! A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, 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 19:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:2011WU19WLClogo.png
Thanks for uploading File:2011WU19WLClogo.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 00:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 May newsletter
We're half way through round 3 of the 2011 WikiCup. There are currently 32 remaining in the competition, but only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. , of pool D, is our overall leader with nearly 200 points, while pools A, B and C are led by, and  respectively. The score required to reach the next round is 35, though this will no doubt go up significantly as the round progresses. We have a good number of high scorers, but also a considerable number who are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. Also, an important note concerning nominations at featured article candidates: if you are nominating content for which you intend to claim WikiCup points, please make this clear in the nomination statement so that the FAC director and his delegates are aware of the fact.

A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, 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 23:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments
on the request for rollback. They are very germaine to the matter and certainly appropriate. Toddst1 (talk) 16:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Chilliwack Chiefs (disambiguation)
Hello. I just placed an G6 tag on Chilliwack Chiefs (disambiguation), this is because it is only disambiguating two items and one of these is the primary topic. Please consider instead placing a hat note to the other item at Chilliwack Chiefs (1990–2006); although it seems like currently no page exists for this item. In this case you might consider creating a page first. Thanks, France 3470   ( talk ) 18:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Another thought. I suppose alternatively, if you feel there is no primary topic, 'Chilliwack Chiefs' could redirect to the dab page, which would make it valid. However I know nothing about hockey so it would have to your call or if you believe it contested you could request a move. However the 2011 team would still require an associated link.- France 3470  ( talk ) 18:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You actually bring up a valid point. I've just been going around trying to clean up all of these junior hockey team articles but it really does make more sense to have the new team at Chilliwack Chiefs and the old team at Chilliwack Chiefs (1990–2006) and then have a hat-note at both pages. So I certainly do not oppose the speedy, I just overlooked that at an option in my editing fury haha. Thanks! – Nurmsook!  talk...  18:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad I was able to be helpful. (: France 3470   ( talk ) 18:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There is actually a page move discussion about that right now on the Talk:Quesnel Millionaires page. -DJSasso (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Junior A teams
I agree with what you posted and I disagree. Although Quesnel and Chilliwack are examples of two fairly past popular franchises... I find a lack of merit in their existence as anything other than a footnote on their current incarnation's article for one major reason... no one cares enough about either of them enough to write a real history for either of them... which is a sad reality... I did a crapload of research to get the stats for Quesnel... a friend did the same hard work for Chilliwack... which I then tabulated and posted... I don't OWN this research, but we DID do it... and it bothers me to no end when great franchises have not enough interest for a proper history... but then people feel strongly that it should sit there with a list of numbers and an intro sentence... maybe a logo... and gather dust, despite the fact that the general disinterest in the team they are all of a sudden interested in has moved on while they have not... this is not you, this is just over a half decade of frustration on Wikipedia and these teams being expelled... I love these teams, I love doing statistical research to give these articles some general notability... but could someone who lived near these teams, grew up with these teams, lived and breathed these teams please add something to the articles? I currently see no justification in the existence in either article... but that might just be my disappointment talking. It is sad to see a team like Quesnel... decades old... and no one cares enough to write its history. DMighton (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you've posted here because I was about to get your input on something I'm about to get started. I can see where you're coming from, but you you have to remember that there is no deadline to Wikipedia and stubs are okay. I've been going through the BCHL team pages (the league I'm most familiar with), and I agree with you. The content is shit. But what really pisses me off about them is how the lineages of each franchise are horribly inaccurate. Take the Chiefs, for instance. If we were to only have a single Chiefs page, it quite simply is inaccurate. The 1990–2006 incarnation of the Chiefs moved to Langley and don't really have anything to do with this new team. So to put everything at one page is confusing, wrong, and constitutes original research in that we are essentially saying that "this is the same franchise". So many of these current franchise articles are so horribly inaccurate that I've gotten frustrated to the point of wanting to do something about it. My goal over the rest of the summer is to correct the lineages and make sure that separate franchises remain just that. Cities often re-use the name of a defunct team, and that's fine, but Wikipedia needs to distinguish this to ensure we aren't conducting original research. I'm probably going to take a lot of flack for doing it, because there will be those hated stub articles, but honestly, from what I see at these articles, why would you want to edit them? They're supposed to contain prose about sometimes 5 or 6 previous teams. That's crazy! I have no interest in writing about 5 or 6 teams. I want to write about the one team that's a part of that lineage that played in my town, you know? Ultimately, my goal for the rest of the summer is to improve BCHL articles. I'll add what prose I can find, but it largely will be stats. I just want to make you aware of this, because honestly, I'm going to create a lot of change. And I know that you are one of the most prominent junior A contributors. So if you ever see any problems with what I do, give me a shout, but I think we'll be able to agree that Wikipedia will be better at the end. And of course, one of the things I see this starting with is leaving the Millionaires article where it is, on using the currently disambiguated Chilliwack Chiefs page for the team. – Nurmsook!  talk...  22:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am aware of the "No Deadline" rationale... it is just really hard when you are the only person who looks at an article for sometimes 5+ years. The BCHL is a special league... not only because of its history, but also because of its big budget teams and near Major Junior skill level... all I ask is that if you have interest in revamping the BCHL (which it needs)... please also look into the Rocky Mountain Junior Hockey League and the Pacific Junior A Hockey League... both of which I've done all the standings for... but neither has any flair, just like the BCHL articles... I'm working hard to get many other leagues up to par in Ontario right now.. and that is a challenge in itself... for stats and playoff brackets... my research collection is here: http://icehockey.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_Canadian_Junior_A_Seasons_(Post-1970)  ...you will find all of BC Jr. A hockey complete here.
 * As for "the same franchise" thing... it is a matter of perspective... in Ontario, when a franchise is sold... its lineage goes with it... from what you are saying... I take that in BC you guys don't see it that way... that it is a new team every time it is sold? Is that what you are saying?  DMighton (talk) 23:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The lineage certainly goes with it. But a lot of these articles are set up to be that lineage goes by town, not team. Often in the BCHL, when a team moves away from a town, a new team moves right back in (this was more prevalent in the 70s and 80s). A lot of these articles now confusingly associate the team that moved away with the new team (ie: Kamloops team from 1970–1981 moves away, some other team moves to Kamloops for 1981–1990, and the articles then states that the franchise went uninterrupted, when really it's two distinct franchises). It's mostly just a matter of that for me, although I do firmly believe that any team that has been around at least 10-15 years should have its own article as opposed to 3 or 4 teams jumbled into one (ie: the BCHL teams that preceded the Trail Smoke Eaters). I'll do what I can to improve the others you mentioned, but my focus for the meantime certainly is the BCHL specifically (although many current teams migrated from those leagues, so there will be crossover). – Nurmsook!  talk...  04:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree.... lineage should follow bill-of-sale... not go by town... I think that is just an attribute of how complicated the BCHL history can be to someone on the outside looking in... if you can better it... all the power to you... DMighton (talk) 13:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 June newsletter
We are half way through 2011, and entering the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; the semi-finals are upon us! Points scored in the interim (29/30 June) may be counted towards next round, but please do not update your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. 16 contestants remain, and all have shown dedication to the project to reach this far. Our round leader was who, among other things, successfully passed three articles through featured article candidates and claimed an impressive 29 articles at Did You Know, scoring 555 points. Casliber led pool D. Pool A was led by, claiming points for a featured article, a featured list and seven good article reviews, while pool C was led by , who claimed for two good articles, ten articles at Did You Know and four good article reviews. They scored 154 and 118 respectively. Pool B was by far our most competitive pool; six of the eight competitors made it through to round 4, with all of them scoring over 100 points. The pool was led by, who claimed for, among other things, three featured articles and five good articles. In addition to the four pool leaders, 12 others (the four second places, and the 8 next highest overall) make up our final 16. The lowest scorer who reached round 4 scored 76 points; a significant increase on the 41 needed to reach round 3. Eight of our semi-finalists scored at least twice as much as this.

No points were awarded this round for featured pictures, good topics or In the News, and no points have been awarded in the whole competition for featured topics, featured portals or featured sounds. Instead, the highest percentage of points has come from good articles. Featured articles, despite their high point cost, are low in number, and so, overall, share a comparable number of points with Did You Know, which are high in number but low in cost. A comparatively small but still considerable number of points come from featured lists and good article reviews, rounding out this round's overall scores.

We would again like to thank and  for invaluable background work, as well as all of those helping to provide reviews for the articles listed on WikiCup/Reviews. Please do keep using it, and please do help 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.

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, for those interested, though it appears that neither are completely accurate at this time. 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 23:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Starting a task force
Hi Nurmsook,

I'm very impressed by your success in starting the Vancouver Canucks task force and wanted to ask you for any advice you might have about how I might go about doing the same for the Chicago Blackhawks. I'm very new to Wikiprojects but am willing to learn; I can't believe no one has taken some initiative to better the pages of my favorite team! Thanks for your time. Dimaspivak (talk) 23:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Shea Weber has been reviewed
In case you haven't noticed, I just wanted to notify you that Shea Weber has been reviewed. Hope it was worth the wait! Cheers, Res Mar 02:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

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 11:39, 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 00:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 03:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 04:18, 22 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 12:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Calabe1992 (talk) 02:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)