User talk:Purplebackpack89/Archive 11

Vital article template on talk pages
Thank you for recently closing/archiving a bunch of nominations for vital articles. A bot went through recently and tagged articles on the vital list with a template on the talk page (at least for biology related vital articles; I'm not sure if other subjects have been tagged). I went through and removed the template for the recently delisted plants, and added it to the two newly listed plants. Checking talk pages for the template is something to maybe be aware of when you're closing vital article discussions. Although perhaps the bot can keep on top of changes to the vital list. See Talk:Stag beetle for an example of the template on a delisted vital article. Plantdrew (talk) 18:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I fixed the beetle you linked to. What we may want to do is run the bot every week or two to fix the problem  p  b  p  21:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Mills Act listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mills Act. Since you had some involvement with the Mills Act redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Fatidiot1234 (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited William Tecumseh Sherman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Pope (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) 09:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Department of Texas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Parker (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) 09:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Golden State Warriors, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Paul Neumann and Jeff Mullins (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) 09:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
—Bagumba (talk) 20:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 January newsletter
The 2014 WikiCup is off to a flying start, with, at time of writing, 138 participants. The is the largest number of participants we have seen since 2010. If you are yet to join the competition, don't worry- the judges have agreed to keep the signups open for a few more days. By a wide margin, our current leader is newcomer, whose set of 14 featured pictures, the first FPs of the competition, was worth 490 points. Here are some more noteworthy scorers:


 * and were the first people to score, for the good article Tropical Storm Bret (1981) and its good article review respectively. 12george1 was also the first person to score in 2012 and 2013.
 * scored the first ITN points for 2014 North American polar vortex.
 * scored points for an early good topic, finishing off Featured topics/She Wolf.
 * scored the first bonus points of the competition, for his work on Typhoon Vera.
 * has scored the highest number of bonus points for a single article, for the high-importance Jurassic Park (film).

Featured articles, featured lists, featured topics and featured portals are yet to play a part in the competition. The judges have removed a number of submissions which were deemed ineligible. Typically, we aim to see work on a project, followed by a nomination, followed by promotion, this year. We apologise for any disappointment caused by our strict enforcement this year; we're aiming to keep the competition as fair as possible.

Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may be interested to take part in The Core Contest; unlike the WikiCup, The Core Contest is not about audited content, but, like the WikiCup, it is about article improvement; specifically, The Core Contest is about contribution to some of Wikipedia's most important article. Of course, any work done for The Core Contest, if it leads to a DYK, GA or FA, can earn WikiCup points.

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 help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 19:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Ideas for vital articles (10'000)
Hello fellow vital project member, I had many ideas for additions to the vital 10'000 whilst away and busy. But thought I would ask others opinions of the 60+ articles that came into my mind before flooding the project talk page with them. If you have time let me know which articles you like and which you dislike, I am still looking for removals as well by the way. (see list here). Carlwev (talk) 05:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Some I could get behind are 3, 4, 7, 14, 16, 20, 28, 29, 31, 32, 35, 36, 39, 47, 48, 49, 56, 72, 74 and 98. 46 should be Suit (clothing).  61 was the subject of a swap proposal in Archive 18, perhaps posing it differently will get it passed.  p  b  p  15:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Height userbox
 D ip ta ns hu Talk 17:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

 D ip ta ns hu Talk 17:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on changes to the AfC mailing list
Hello Purplebackpack89! There is a discussion that your input is requested on! I look forward to your comments, thoughts, opinions, criticisms, and questions!

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.
 * This message was composed and sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 18:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 February newsletter
And so ends the most competitive first round we have ever seen, with 38 points required to qualify for round 2. Last year, 19 points secured a place; before that, 11 (2012) or 8 (2011) were enough. This is both a blessing and a curse. While it shows the vigourous good health of the competition, it also means that we have already lost many worthy competitors. Our top three scorers were:


 * , a WikiCup newcomer whose high-quality scans of rare banknotes represent an unusual, interesting and valuable contribution to Wikipedia. Most of Godot's points this round have come from a large set of pictures used in Treasury Note (1890–91).
 * , a WikiCup veteran and a finalist last year, Adam is also a featured picture specialist, focusing on the restoration of historical images. This month's promotions have included a carefully restored set of artist William Russell Flint's work.
 * , another WikiCup newcomer. WikiRedactor has claimed points for good article reviews and good articles relating to pop music, many of which were awarded bonus points. Articles include Sky Ferreira, Hannah Montana 2: Meet Miley Cyrus and "Wrecking Ball" (Miley Cyrus song).

Other competitors of note include:


 * , who helped take Thirty Flights of Loving through good article candidates and featured article candidates, claiming the first first featured article of the competition.
 * , who claimed the first featured list of the competition with Natalia Kills discography.
 * , who takes the title of the contributor awarded the highest bonus point multiplier (resulting in the highest scoring article) of the competition so far. Her high-importance salamander, now a good article, scored 108 points.

After such a competitive first round, expect the second round to also be fiercely fought. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2, but please do not update your submission page until March (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article 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 help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 00:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Nick Offerman page
Thank you for fixing his photo corner page. I could not figure out how to do it! I am still trying to get a new photo of him on but even though the photographer emailed them his permission they still deleted it and I can't upload it again! I'm so frustrated! Anyway, I just wanted to thank you for fixing the page and hopefully I can find an expert to get this much better photo on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmasst (talk • contribs) 20:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think if the copyright holder has given you permission to use the image, I believe there's a way to record that in the permissions. Once you post the correct permissions, the image should be safe from deletion  p  b  p  21:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Offerman Pic
I know you guys had fought about the picture before but I was only replacing the picture I don't care what goes there as long as it's not the one of him speaking. That's all. LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Then go back to the way we had it with no picture at all. There are a number of editors (me, Nmasst, plus another who commented on the talk page and another who reverted Stemoc in Feb) who believe the blondie pic (or its derivatives) is such a poor representation of him that we'd be better off with no pic at all  p  b  p  18:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I have not broken 3RR. Stemoc did on Tuesday night, and you have one more revert than I do today  p  b  p  18:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * For the record, on your decline for deletion on the picture due to "Existing Offerman pix at commons are not accurate representations of him.", that's not how this works. That picture is from an All Rights Reserved website and that picture is not released under the proper license for use on here. If your argument were valid that would give anyone the right to download a picture to here of any actor or person they wanted solely based on the principle that the free pictures in the commons are not to their liking. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * As I seem to recall, non-free images may be used sparingly when free images just don't cut it. When the only image of Offerman is blond and bearded and he's usually brunette and not-beard, that doesn't cut it IMO.  I concede that the image will probably be deleted, but it is my opinion that it should not.  p  b  p  19:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You are making one logical mistake here though: you are so much focussed on the perceived alternative "this non-free image versus that existing free image on Commons" that you overlook the fact that under our non-free content policy the question is quite a different one. It's "this non-free image versus any other, new free image that might not yet exist but could be created any time". With photos of living, public individuals, we never, as a matter of principle, resort to non-free photos, because we always assume that a free alternative could be created. So, I'm not removing your "di-disputed" tag from File:Nick Offerman Speaking.jpg, for now, because yes, formally you are indeed entitled to file such a tag, but please be advised that it doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding; it's such an obvious standard case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 March newsletter
A quick update as we are half way through round two of this year's competition. WikiCup newcomer (Pool E) leads, having produced a massive set of featured pictures for Silver certificate (United States), an article also brought to featured list status. Former finalist (Pool G) is in second, which he owes mostly to his work with historical images, including a number of images from Urania's Mirror, an article also brought to good status. 2010 champion (Pool C) is third overall, thanks to contributions relating to naval history, including the newly featured Japanese battleship Nagato. , who currently leads Pool A and is sixth overall, takes the title for the highest scoring individual article of the competition so far, with the top importance featured article Ian Smith.

With 26 people having already scored over 100 points, it is likely that well over 100 points will be needed to secure a place in round 3. Recent years have required 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) and 100 (2010). Remember that only 64 will progress to round 3 at the end of April. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page; if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article 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 help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 22:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 April newsletter
Round 3 of the 2014 WikiCup has just begun; 32 competitors remain. Pool G's was Round 2's highest scorer, with a large number of featured picture credits. In March/April, he restored star charts from Urania's Mirror, lithographs of various warships (such as SMS Gefion) and assorted other historical media. Second overall was Pool E's, whose featured list Silver certificate (United States) contains dozens of scans of banknotes recently promoted to featured picture status. Third was Pool G's who has produced a large number of good articles, many, including Falkner Island, on Connecticut-related topics. Other successful participants included, who saw three articles (including the top-importance Ian Smith) through featured article candidacies, and , who saw three lists (including the beautifully-illustrated list of plantations in West Virginia) through featured list candidacies. High-importance good articles promoted this round include narwhal from, tiger from and The Lion King from. We also saw our first featured topic points of the competition, awarded to and  for their work on the Sega Genesis topic. No points have been claimed so far for good topics or featured portals.

192 was our lowest qualifying score, again showing that this WikiCup is the most competitive ever. In previous years, 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) or 100 (2010) secured a place in Round 3. Pool H was the strongest performer, with all but one of its members advancing, while only the two highest scorers in Pools G and F advanced. At the end of June, 16 users will advance into the semi-finals. 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 help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 17:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Principality of Sealand
Thanks for you message about why you tagged this page. Just a friendly tip that when adding a fairy vague tag, it's always best to follow up with a detailed reason on the article's talk page. Or just fix the problem yourself. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

My alleged "canvasing" in regards to the Kevin S. Hamilton article nomination for deletion.
As a Wikipedia editor, I try to assume good faith. But I am still bothered by the comment you left me, because it seems clear you were automatically not assuming good faith and additionally "keeping tabs" on my edits in an effort to catch me doing something wrong. I'm no expert on Wikipedia policy. I freely admit that. But I don't believe any editor except an administrator has a right to monitor an account in order to catch another editor doing something wrong. And I have to say, that bothers me. If that is not what you were doing, I apologize. Now, as to the issue at hand, my alleged "canvasing" in regards to the Kevin S. Hamilton nomination for deletion, I would write a word or two in my own defense. If you were to do a little research into the previous interactions I have had with each of the editors I contacted regarding this matter, you would find that I have been at odds with each and every one of them at various times because our opinions differed. Those differences are now settled, but I can still clearly remember the impact they had on me. It seemed apparent that you weren't going to notify any of the other editors who have edited or had a potential interest in this article, so I did. And in those posts, while I did make my opinion known, I made it clear that they might have a different perspective than me. If that was against Wikipedia policy, then that was my mistake and I assure you I won't let it happen again. That being said, the beauty of Wikipedia is in its diversity of editors and their individual experiences, which, when added collectively, serves to produce articles that are well-rounded and adhere to all Wikipedia policies. I don't know how thoroughly you may have done your research. I have been an editor here for just over seven years. In that time, I have interacted with many editors, most of whom I found to be professional, all of whom I've learned treasured lessons from. Why then, when I found out this article was nominated for deletion, would I not contact such individuals and ask for them to weigh in? That is what I have done in the past on issues I feel strongly about. I do not know everything about my fellow editors either. I don't know how many of them (if any) would side with me. But I knew I could trust the editors I contacted to give their honest opinion on the issue. And that was my reason for contacting them. I may have made my own opinion known, but that doesn't automatically mean it is shared by any or all of the editors I contacted. And in what I posted, I merely extended to them an invitation to weigh in. If I unknowingly violated Wikipedia policy in doing so, then I apologize and assure you I will do my best to see that it doesn't happen again. I am firmly committed to an ideal that I once had with my signature here on Wikipedia: "We can disagree without being disagreeable." I still believe that to be true. That is why, having voiced my opinion and having invited other editors to voice their opinion, I will step away from the conversation. I don't intend to engage in debate. I've offered my two cents, and any interested editors can take that for what it's worth. Ultimately, I believe the determination of the consensus will be to keep the article. But whatever happens, I take comfort in knowing that I have done all I could to defend it. No response is needed to my comment, but if you have a response or need clarification about my perspective, reasoning, or anything else, please drop me a note on my talk page, as I don't habitually check other Wikipedia editor's pages for a reply. Best wishes for continued success in your Wikipedia editorship! --Jgstokes (talk) 05:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Place names in Mexico
You moved Senecu, Mexico to Senecu, Chihuahua citing, presumably Naming conventions (geographic names). However further disambiguation was not required as there seems to be only one Senecu in Mexico. --Bejnar (talk) 17:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Notification of a June AfC BackLog Drive
 Hello Purplebackpack89:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a  month long Backlog Elimination Drive!

The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from June 1, 2014 to June 30, 2014.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

The AfC helper script can assist you in tallying your edits automatically. To view a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. Sent on behalf of (t) (c) by &#123;&#123;U&#124;&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) using the MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Vital articles
I put them up for discussion months ago, and got no response whatsoever. It is ridiculous that so many key buildings and artworks are not on the list. Amandajm (talk) 04:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Here is the list:

Articles for adding and removing

 * Remove: Sistine Chapel is listed as a vital article under "Architecture". It is architecturally insignificant. The frescos should be listed elsewhere; see below


 * Add to History of Art, Pre-modern:
 * Italian Renaissance painting NOTE: this does not go under "Painting", along with the methods. It is a school of art.


 * Add to Vital Art/Works:
 * Tres Riches Heures - best known illuminated manuscript
 * Vitruvian Man - most famous drawing of all time
 * Sistine Chapel ceiling - obvious reasons
 * Brancacci Chapel - Masaccio. Incredibly influential on Renaissance painters
 * Scrovegni Chapel - Giotto's masterpiece, the greatest fresco cycle before Michelangelo


 * Add to Vital Art/Paintings
 * Primavera (Botticelli) - just as great as "Birth of Venus"
 * The Raft of the Medusa - groundbreaking realism
 * The Maids of Honour - regarded as possibly the greatest oil painting of all time
 * The Last Judgement (Michelangelo) - needs listing separately to the ceiling as it is a distinctly different work
 * American Gothic - an icon of American painting
 * Maesta (Duccio) - the greatest late Medieval masterpiece


 * Add to Sculpture:
 * Laocoön and His Sons - renowned Classical sculptural group of enormous influence
 * Elgin Marbles - the sculpture of the Parthenon
 * David (Donatello) - the most important bronze figure of the Early Renaissance
 * David (Verrocchio) - the contrasting figure by Leonardo's teacher
 * The Burghers of Calais - renowned group by Rodin
 * Ghiberti Doors - (that is what they are called. I have no idea what Wikipedia choses to call them, but this is what they should be found under.) The first major sculptural work of the Renaissance; all the young artists cut their teeth on these doors.


 * Add to Architectural styles: I believe that this has been acted upon
 * Romanesque architecture
 * Gothic architecture
 * Renaissance architecture
 * Baroque architecture
 * Classical architecture
 * Gothic Revival architecture


 * Add to Architecture/buildings:
 * St Paul's Cathedral - Christopher Wren's masterpiece
 * Florence Cathedral - Brunelleschi, in the building of the dome, changed the role of the architect.
 * Fallingwater - Frank Lloyd Wright's acknowledged masterpiece
 * St Mark's Basilica - of unique importance as a work of late Byzantine
 * Abbey of Saint Denis - the choir and ambulatory were the first structure to combine all the burgeoning elements of Gothic architecture
 * Cologne Cathedral - the most significant Gothic building in Germany
 * San Vitale, Ravenna - the supreme masterpiece in a collection of Early Christian/Byzantine buildings of Ravenna
 * Durham Cathedral (yes, it is on my list of things to fix.) with Pisa Cathedral, it is one of the greatest Romanesque buildings in the world. Moreover, it has the first ribbed vault and the earliest flying buttresses.
 * Pisa Cathedral - the greatest Romanesque building south of the Alps.
 * Wells Cathedral - the earliest building to truly embody the Gothic style.

Amandajm (talk) 05:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you could transfer this to wherever it needs to go, to get acted upon. Amandajm (talk) 07:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a lot of proposals. Which are your top ten?  p  b  p  14:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * This isn't an overwhelming list. It doesn't require a lot of work. This is a list that any five people on an Art team ought to be able to look at, immediately recognise the importance of nearly every item, and say "Yes, of course! How did we miss Fallingwater, The Maids of Honour and Laocoon and His Sons?" The process should hardly be more than ticking a box.
 * There are a handful of items for which the name might not be so familiar: Scrovegni Chapel, Brancacci Chapel might not be known by name, but the works of Giotto and Masaccio that they contain are common knowledge to any student of the arts.

On the other hand, a non-specialist might not know the particular architectural significance of Durham Cathedral and Wells Cathedral as against some of the other cathedrals. I have stated what their significance is. The importance of San Vitale is not so well known as it should be.
 * Please indicate the page that they are to go to. Amandajm (talk) 03:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said last night, it's Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded. Proposals don't work the way your list is set up, adds or removals are generally proposed one at a time in separate threads.  p  b  p  04:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows Calendar
You are invited to join the discussion at Articles for deletion/Windows Calendar. Thanks. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Skateman
I've expanded the Skateman article a little bit. Think that's enough to cancel the AfD? DS (talk) 21:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Loring D. Dewey
@Purplebackpack89. Thanks for adding the Presbyterian category to Dewey, but could you explain me why you deleted the other. Historian (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed categories for the following reasons: 1) He was overcategorized, 2) He was in categories meant for events, not people, and 3) He was in both parent and daughter categories when he should have just been in daughter categories. p  b  p  18:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Dr Sudha Kankaria
Hello Purplebackpack89. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Dr Sudha Kankaria, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * OK...FWIW, somebody else deleted it p  b  p  17:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but not per A1. After Malik declined the tag, he tagged it with an A7. I deleted it based on that criterion.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW, since you blocked the creator, could you close the COIN I started? p  b  p  19:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Revert on Vital_articles/Expanded/Arts
Hmmm… Not sure why you say that the piano is a percussion instrument. String instrument lists the piano, and Piano classifies it as a chordophone. Keyboard instruments also lists the piano as a chordophone. Just because the sound is initiated by hitting the strings with a hammer doesn't mean that the piano is a percussion instrument. The sound is produced by vibrating strings, which makes it a chordophone. If my edit is incorrect, it seems that the pages I mentioned are incorrect too? MichiHenning (talk) 03:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Butterfield Overland Mail in Indian Territory, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fort Smith (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) 08:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 June newsletter
After an extremely close race, Round 3 is over. 244 points secured a place in Round 4, which is comparable to previous years- 321 was required in 2013, while 243 points were needed in 2012. Pool C's was the round's highest scorer, mostly due to a 32 featured pictures, including both scans and photographs. Also from Pool C, finished second overall, claiming three featured articles, including the high-importance Grus (constellation). Third place was Pool B's, whose contributions included featured articles Russian battleship Poltava (1894) and Russian battleship Peresvet. Pool C saw the highest number of participants advance, with six out of eight making it to the next round.

The round saw this year's first featured portal, with taking Portal:Literature to featured status. The round also saw the first good topic points, thanks to and the 2013 Atlantic hurricane season. This means that all content types have been claimed this year. Other contributions of note this round include a featured topic on Maya Angelou's autobiographies from, a good article on the noted Czech footballer Tomáš Rosický from and a now-featured video game screenshot, freely released due to the efforts of.

The judges would like to remind participants to update submission pages promptly. This means that content can be checked, and allows those following the competition (including those participating) to keep track of scores effectively. This round has seen discussion about various aspects of the WikiCup's rules and procedures. Those interested in the competition can be assured that formal discussions about how next year's competition will work will be opened shortly, and all are welcome to voice their views then. 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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. and 18:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)