User talk:Pzoxicuvybtnrm/Archives/Archive3

Good Article review of Arizona State Route 72
Just a reminder that the Good Article review for Arizona State Route 72 is still on hold. You have not worked on the article since May 21 when I posted my most recent comments. There are only two items for you to work on before the article will be ready to be promoted. I would prefer that we wrap up this GAN in the next few days; I do not want to fail the article due to inaction on your part. I understand if real life has taken you away from Wikipedia, but I would like some communication on your end as to whether that is the case.  V C  21:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * For some reason my schedule has tightened and I won't be able to get to the issues. It would be okay if you failed the article and I address the issues and renominate sometime in the future. &mdash;  P C  B  17:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Jinke Road GA nomination
Hi, I reviewed the article you expanded on the Jinke Road metro station. There are just a few comments to clear up, and you can find them right here. --Starstriker7(Talk) 03:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The article is really close to achieving GA, but I failed it for now because the issues were not addressed in a timely manner. When you return, don't hesitate to put it back up; the issues I had with the article were minimal, at best. --Starstriker7(Talk) 15:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Colorado Wiknic
All Wikipedians are cordially invited to the Colorado celebration of the 2011 Great American Wiknic on June 25. We will meet Saturday afternoon from 3:00 to 5:00 at the D Note, 7519 Grandview Avenue in Arvada. Please e-mail Jacques Delaguerre at Special:EmailUser/Jaxdelaguerre if you plan to attend. Be there or be square! – Buaidh  22:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for WikiProject United States to support WikiProject Colorado
It was recently suggested that WikiProject Colorado, to which you are a member, may be inactive or semi-active and it might be beneficial to include it in the list of projects supported by WikiProject United States. After reviewing the project it appears that there haven't been much active discussion on the talk page in some time and the only content updates appear to be simple maintenance so being supported by a larger project might be beneficial. I have begun a discussion on the projects talk page to see how the members of the project feel about this suggestion. Another user has added the project to the WPUS template and I added it to the list of supported projects in the WPUS main project page but before I take any further action I wanted to contact each of the active members for their input. --Kumioko (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Rschen7754 06:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you plan to address the comments? --Rschen7754 18:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

revert messages
Could you please leave more verbose commit messages when you revert changes? ex: Animation codec, no reason left for reverting commits. Cheers! Rogerdpack (talk) 14:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry concerning this particular case. I usually revert without messages because I believe they are vandalism. In this case, I was probably wrong. &mdash;  P C  B  14:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In addition, I was using rollback, so I can't leave any edit summary. I probably should have reverted it. &mdash;  P C  B  14:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Rschen7754 22:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ping. --Rschen7754 10:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * — JCbot (talk) 01:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Junction lists
Hi. I've noticed you've added a couple junction lists to Nevada roads articles lately. When you do, for Nevada or any other state, can you start using the "jctint" family of templates to form the tables? These include jcttop for the header, jctint for the rows and jctbtm or legendrjl for the footer. I know they take a bit of getting used to, but USRD is attempting to standardize the appearance of junction tables and make future updates much simpler. Thanks. --  LJ  ↗  09:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As a side note, CA uses CAint. The templates work the same way, but there are plans to add metric equivalents to the jctint templates. Thanks to our wonderful postmile system, that wouldn't turn out so well, so CA needs to use a different template. --Rschen7754 09:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, sorry but I got used to the wikitable stuff. &mdash;  P C  B  02:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Understandable, and no worries. When I started editing Nevada road articles, I was using California articles as a guide so I hard-coded all the tables I did. I just recently made the switch and began converting NVRD junction lists whenever working on articles. --  LJ  ↗  07:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Arizona State Route 92's GA Review
Hi, I've completed the review on the article you nominated. Just a few nitpicks, and you should be set to pass. :) --Starstriker7(Talk) 05:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Lingkong Road Station
I would like to remind you that Lingkong Road Station has been at GA review for six days now, without any action being taken. Please see Talk:Lingkong Road Station/GA1. The general rule is that if a review has one week for issues to resolved or it will default to a fail. If you have merely overlooked the review or there are other special circumstances, I will be more that happy to extend the review, but please let me know, either on the review page or on my talk page (I will not be keeping a tab on your talk page, so please do not respond here). Regards, Arsenikk (talk)  21:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2012 WikiCup
Hello, and welcome to the 2012 WikiCup! The competition officially begins at the start of 2012 (UTC) after which time you may begin to claim points. Your submission page, where you must note any content for which you wish to claim points, can be found here, and formatting instructions can be found in hidden comments on the page. A bot will then update the main table, which can be seen on the WikiCup page. The full rules for what will and will not be awarded points can be found at WikiCup/Scoring. There's also a section on that page listing the changes that have been made to the rules this year, so that experienced participants can get up-to-date in a few seconds. One point of which we must remind everyone; you may only claim points for content upon which you have done significant work, and which you have nominated, in 2012. For instance, articles written or good article reviews started in 2011 are not eligible for points.

This round will last until late February, and signups will remain open until the middle of February. If you know of anyone who may like to take part, please let them know about the comeptition; the more the merrier! At the end of this round, the top 64 scorers will progress to the next round, where their scores will reset, and they will be split into pools. Note that, by default, you have been added to our newsletter list; we will be in contact at the end of every month with news. You're welcome to remove yourself from this list if you do not wish to hear from us. Conversely, those interested in following the competition are more than welcome to add themselves to the list. Please direct any questions towards the judges, or on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn (talk) and The ed17 (talk) 17:55, 31 December 2011 (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 00:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

USRD WikiProject Newsletter, Winter 2012

 * —  Imzadi 1979  →   22:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Your ACR
Do you plan to address the remaining issues on the CO 74 ACR? --Rschen7754 08:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If you make no attempt to resolve the issues remaining within 14 days, the ACR will be closed. --Rschen7754 10:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I plan on addressing them sometime, but my schedule has tightened quite a bit. Go ahead and close it; eventually, I will address the issues and renominate. &mdash;  P C  B  02:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, if you plan on working it within the next month or so I can leave it open; just wanted to make sure you hadn't forgotten. --Rschen7754 02:17, 12 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) 00:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Forgetting to log in
Special:Contributions/74.62.48.50 is me; I continually forget to log in. I am not trying to sockpuppet.