User talk:Sp33dyphil/Archive 5

The WikiProject: Good Articles Newsletter (January 2013)
This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 14:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dassault Rafale, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Canard (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) 11:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassadors update
Hi! You're getting this message because you are or have been a Wikipedia Ambassador. A new term is beginning for the United States and Canada Education Programs, and I wanted to give you an update on some important new information if you're interested in continuing your work this term as a Wikipedia Ambassador.

You may have heard a reference to a transition the education program is going through. This is the last term that the Wikimedia Foundation will directly run the U.S. and Canada programs; beginning in June, a proposed thematic organization is likely to take over organizing the program. You can read more about the proposal here.

Another major change in the program will take effect immediately. Beginning this term, a new MediaWiki education extension will replace all course pages and Ambassador lists. (See Course pages and Help:Education Program extension for more details.) Included in the extension are online volunteer and campus volunteer user rights, which let you create and edit course pages and sign up as an ambassador for a particular course.

If you would like to continue serving as a Wikipedia Ambassador — even if you do not support a class this term — you must create an ambassador profile. If you're no longer interested in being a Wikipedia Ambassador, you don't need to do anything.

First, you need the relevant user rights for Online and/or Campus Ambassadors. (If you are an admin, you can grant the rights yourself, for you as well as other ambassadors.) Just post your rights request here, and we'll get you set up as quickly as possible.
 * Please do these steps as soon as possible

Once you've got the ambassador rights, please set up at a Campus and/or Online Ambassador profile. You can do so at:
 * Special:CampusAmbassadorProfile
 * Special:OnlineAmbassadorProfile

Going forward, the lists of Ambassadors at Special:CampusAmbassadors and Special:OnlineAmbassadors will be the official roster of who is an active Ambassador. If you would like to be an Ambassador but not ready to serve this term, you can un-check the option in your profile to publicly list it (which will remove your profile from the list).

After that, you can sign on to support courses. The list of courses will be at Special:Courses. (By default, this lists "Current" courses, but you can change the Status filter to "Planned" to see courses for this term that haven't reached their listed start date yet.)

As this is the first term we have used the extension, we know there will be some bugs, and we know the feature set is not as rich as it could be. (A big wave of improvements is already in the pipeline. And if you know MediaWiki and could help with code review, we'd love to have your help!) Please reach out to me (Sage Ross) with any complaints, bug reports, and feature suggestions. The basic features of the extension are documented at Course pages, and you can see a tutorial for setting up and using them here.

In the past, the Education Program has had a pretty fragmented set of communication channels. We're trying to fix that. These are the recommended places to discuss and stay up-to-date on the education program:
 * Communication and keeping up to date
 * 1) The education noticeboard has become the main on-wiki location for discussion of the Education Program. You can post there about broad education program issues as well as issues with individual courses.
 * 2) The Ambassadors Announce email list is a very low-traffic announcements list of important information all Ambassadors need to be aware of. We encourage all Ambassadors (and other interested Wikipedians) to subscribe to the list; follow the instructions on the link to add your email address.
 * 3) If you use IRC regularly, or need to try to reach someone immediately, the  IRC channel is the place to find me and fellow Ambassadors.

We now have an online training for Ambassadors, which is intended to be both an orientation about the Wikipedia Ambassador role for newcomers and the manual for how to do the role. (There are parallel trainings for students and for educators as well.)
 * Ambassador training and resources

Please go through the training if you feel like you need a refresher on how a typical class is supposed to go and where the Ambassadors fit in, or if you want to review and help improve it. If there's something you'd like to see added, or other suggestions you have for it, feel free to edit the training and/or leave feedback. A primer on setting up and using course pages is included in the educators' training.

The Resources page of the training is the main place for Ambassador-related resources. If there's something you think is important as a resource that's not on there, please add it.

Finally, whether or not you work with any classes this term, I encourage you to post entries to the Trophy Case whenever you see excellent work from students or if you have great examples from past semesters. And, as always, let students (and other editors!) know when they do things well; a little WikiLove goes a long way!

--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dassault Rafale, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Flight controls (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) 11:25, 30 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) 00:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yesterday was the arbitrary cut-off point... I suppose I could slip you in if you tell me a flag. J Milburn (talk) 10:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

February 2013 Wikification Drive
Hi there! I thought you might be interested in WikiProject Wikify's February Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. We'll be trying to reduce the backlog size by over 500 articles and we need your help! Hard-working participants in the drive will receive awards for their contributions. If you have a spare moment, please join and wikify an article or tell your friends. Thanks!

Welcome to the 2013 WikiCup!
Hello, Sp33dyphil, and welcome to the 2013 WikiCup! Your submissions' page is here. The competition begins at midnight UTC. The first round will last until the end of February, at which point the top 64 scorers will advance to the second round. We will be in touch at the end of every month! A few reminders:
 * The rules can be found here. There have been a few changes from last year, which are listed on that page.
 * Anything you submit must have been nominated and promoted in 2013, and you need to have completed significant work upon it in 2013. (The articles you review at good article reviews does not need to have been nominated in 2013, but you do need to have started the review in 2013.) We will be checking.
 * If you feel that another competitor is breaking the rules or abusing the competition in some way, please let a judge know. Please do not remove entries from the submissions' pages of others yourself.
 * Don't worry about calculating precisely how many points everything is worth. The bot will do that. The bot may occasionally get something wrong- let a judge know, or post on the WikiCup talk page if that happens.
 * Please try to be prompt in updating submissions' pages so that they can be double-checked.

Overall, however, don't worry, and have fun. It doesn't matter if you make the odd mistake; these things happen. Questions can be asked on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn and The ed17 17:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

your revert
here was not helpful. Please make yourself familiar with the new interwiki feature of Wikidata. Thx. -- 109.48.76.201 (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II
It looks like we edit-conflicted there, sorry about that. It looks like we were trying to do something similar. The article has become hopelessly bloated and need to go on a diet. --John (talk) 09:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey it's cool man no big deal. In hindsight you got rid of more stuff than my edit, -- that's what I wanted. This article needs to go on a jog to lose some weight. Keep it up --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 11:20, 24 February 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) 11:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify April Drive
Hi there! I thought you might be interested in WikiProject Wikify's April Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. We'll be trying to reduce the backlog size by over 500 articles and we need your help! Hard-working participants in the drive will receive awards for their contributions. If you have a spare moment, please join and wikify an article or tell your friends. Thanks!

-- Message delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject Wikify.

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) 22:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually....a easy favor?
I've been doing 'Authority Control' edits to bio pages on peeps from the early 1800's. I think I'm doing it the 'right' way, but I've seen references to it several ways, and I could use a second eye real quick to see if my edits to this stub look "Wiki Style" correct, if you know what I mean. The article that's a good example is John Till Allingham‎...it needed several things. Should only take a sec... :)

Revent (talk) 08:57, 22 April 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) 15:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Boeing 767
This is a note to let the main editors of Boeing 767 know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on June 2, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or one of his delegates (,, and ), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/June 2, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The Boeing 767 is a mid-size, wide-body twin-engine jet airliner built by Boeing Commercial Airplanes. It was the manufacturer's first wide-body twinjet and its first airliner with a two-crew glass cockpit. The aircraft features two turbofan engines, a conventional tail, and for reduced aerodynamic drag, a supercritical wing design. Designed as a smaller wide-body airliner than preceding aircraft such as the 747, the 767 has a capacity of 181 to 375 persons and a design range of 3850 to 6385 nmi, depending on variant. The original 767-200 entered service in 1982, followed by the 767-300 in 1986 and the 767-400ER, an extended-range variant, in 2000. Versions for freight and military use have also been created. The aircraft was initially flown on domestic and transcontinental routes, before becoming the first twin-engined airliner to receive regulatory approval for extended overseas flights. In 1986, Boeing initiated studies for a higher-capacity 767, ultimately leading to the development of the 777, a larger wide-body twinjet. In the 1990s, the 767 became the most frequently used airliner for transatlantic flights between North America and Europe. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre
{||}

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre
{||}

Vietnam Airlines
Hello Sp33dyphil, it's been a long time since we're not in touch. Hope you're doing fine. Just passed to ask you a question: Don't you think it's better to use ch-aviation to support the fleet table from now on? I mean, I've using aerotransport, but it seems the former provides more information, except for the fleet age. I'll wait for your response to proceed with this. Regards.--Jetstreamer Talk 10:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Jetstreamer and thanks. I hope you're doing fine too. I think that Ch Aviation is a more professional website than the database, and it is more up to date. But since it doesn't have the fleet age, I think we should use Ch Aviation for the table and Aerotransport for the fleet age. Thoughts? --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 09:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I actually added Ch-aviation as a source for the fleet table at Surinam Airways. That reference also provides the fleet age, but only for premium users, so I agree with you that having Ch-aviation for the description of any fleet (it provides a thorough description that includes tail numbers) and Aerotransport is a good combination for any article. Thanks for the comment. Kind regards.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:48, 16 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) 09:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vietnam Airlines, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page VASCO (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) 11:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jetstar Pacific Airlines, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page VASCO (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) 11:10, 17 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) 23:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK RfC

 * As a listed GA participant, you are invited to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the question of whether Good Articles should be eligible to appear in the Did You Know? slot in future. Please see the proposal on its subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click this link. Thank you in advance. Gilderien Chat&#124;Contributions 02:54, 1 August 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 Vietnam Airlines destinations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hub (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) 11:12, 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) 05:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

No. 38 Squadron RAAF
Hi, and thanks for your edits to this article. Would you be interested in posting a review in the FAC at Featured article candidates/No. 38 Squadron RAAF/archive1? It's been open for a couple of weeks now and hasn't attracted many comments. Please post a critical review if you don't think that the article is up to scratch. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 04:00, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=571880158 your edit] to Hamas may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * a deadline for "collaborators" to turn themselves in, or they will be pursued "without mercy.” {{Cite news|url=http://www.timesofisrael.com/rights-group-pans-hamas-for-not-probing-executions/|

Re: HTC One FA
....we actually fixed a lot of those issues, if not all of them. ViperSnake151  Talk  02:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill [talk] 17:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Desert GAN
On the GAN page you wrote "The article has done a great job explaining the physical geographic and biogeographic aspects of the the desert. However, I have misgivings about the exact definition of the desert, in particular the use of of the words "rainfall" and "precipitation", which are essential to the topic. This issue can be sorted out easily. However and more importantly as regard to whether the GA status could be attained or not, the article has not provided a broad coverage of the topic. It does not elaborate much on desert warfare and leaves out desert farming altogether – the "See also" section doesn't even have a link to that article. Solely because of the lack of coverage about desert farming, I think a quick-fail is applicable here. Please give me your thoughts on this particular matter."

Thank you for the detailed review, - I note what you say about the coverage being incomplete. It was not my intention to proceed to FAC as I think the criterion of comprehensiveness there would be difficult to fulfil. Nor do I actually agree with you about comprehensiveness with regard to the GAN criteria because the coverage is broad, it is just not broad enough. If you give me some time, I will work on the issues you raise and the article will get improved. If you quick fail this nomination I will do nothing further to the article and your effort in producing a long list of improvements needed will be wasted. So I would appeal for some time (2 weeks?) to improve the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ... and by the way, I have done 63 GA reviews and never quick failed one yet. Nor would I do so unless I thought it was a complete non-starter, always giving the nominator a chance to work on improvements. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. FN 4 at GA criteria says, "This requirement [3a] is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics." I wouldn't have mind giving you time to improve the article had it had a sentence or two on desert farming, as all the other issues I think are quite manageable. My understanding is that there is a distinction between being comprehensive and being broad in coverage -- a GA article has to be broad but not comprehensive. Being detailed is one thing, giving an overview is another -- this article has no overview whatsoever of desert farming. My mention of FAC is irrelevant to the issue at hand. And no, I don't think my effort in reviewing the article would be wasted if I quick-failed the GAN -- the issues would have to be addressed sooner or later. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 09:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Million awards!

 * Do feel free to add the appropriate user box if you feel it necessary, or give the awards to editors who were also major contributors to the articles. See the Million Award page for further details. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 22:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I see you've been editing core topics yourself! Keep up the good work!♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * :) --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 09:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thank you!  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  05:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.

Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:


 * Views/Day : Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
 * Quality : Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.

The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:


 * Content : Is more content needed?
 * Headings : Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
 * Images : Is the number of illustrative images about right?
 * Links : Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
 * Sources : For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Follow-up = World Endometriosis Research Foundation/tag error issue
Hello Sp33dyphil- thank you very much offering me feedback in regards to my "error tag" problem on the World Endometriosis Research Foundation article I am attempting to update. I believe I have caused unintentional confusion as a result of errors I made while citing sources (I am new to Wikipedia editing). I used the website template instead of the journal template and then entered information incorrectly. Below are the correction I have made to the article. Your assistance is greatly appreciated. Please advise. Jejjej2000 (talk) 09:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

References[edit]

Jump up ^ Nnoaham, Kelechi E.; Sivahami Sivananthan, Lone Hummelshoj, Crispin Jenkinson, Premila Webster, Stephen H. Kennedy, Krina T. Zondervan (2009). "Multi-center studies of the global impact of endometriosis and the predictive value of associated symptoms". Journal of Endometriosis 1 (1): 36 – 45.

Jump up ^ Nnoaham, Kelechi E.; et. al (September 2012). "Developing symptom-based predictive models of endometriosis as a clinical screening tool: results from a multicenter study". Fertility and Sterility. Volume 98 (Issue 3): 692–701.e5.


 * Hello Sp33dyphil- I clearly understand your advise now and have spent several hours figuring out that there are very defined recommended Wikipedia protocols to follow when editing/updating an article of which, I have unfortunately not followed. Would you suggest I remove my edits and either add them to the articles talk page or my Sandbox to best achieve my goal of updating this article correctly? Or are you available to continue to guide/advise me to achieve it's successful posting? I should have the additional sources summarise for your review by Friday, 4/Oct - unfortunately personal matters need my attention at present. Thank you again for taking the time to assist me thus far and I do apologise again for my unintentional errors. Please advise. Jejjej2000 (talk) 07:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello Sp33dyphil- Yes, I would agree that WERF is not a large organization/charity although it is making important contributions to the field of endometriosis research and thus I felt it was important that it's Wikipedia article be updated and sources referenced. I have identified 9 sources, but it has been a rather time consuming process. I have been working in my "sandbox" both on Friday and today but unfortunately have not yet fully completed the article. I will continue working on it tomorrow and confirm with you once finished. Thank you again for your advise/guidance.Jejjej2000 (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello Sp33dyphil- I believe establish I have been able to successfully identify sources for the WERF's article I initially attempted to just update back on 25/Sept. Additionally, I have inserted the WERF logo and a Contents box to the article. These changes/edits have only been made in my sandbox. I welcome your feedback. Thank you. Jejjej2000 (talk) 16:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
For your c/e of Casimir Pulaski. I've addressed your clarification requests with this edit, I hope it indeed answers all of them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * @User:Piotrus: I've had a look at your clarifications and made some minor changes; I am satisfied with the article. I need some feedback on my copy-editing skills, so please provide some comments ie. where and how I can improve, and a rating. Let's hope the article will go well at FAC. Regards, --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 04:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I found your c/e helpful, and I like the clarifications with editor comments, so thumbs up. I'll let you know when the article goes at FAC! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

GOCE requests
Hi Sp33dyphil. When you do a GOCE Request, please don't delete it without archiving it. Instead, just tag it done in the GOCE/REQ section. After it's deleted, even if we don't completely overlook it, whoever archives it has to go dig in the history file to retrieve the details. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 20:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * @Stfg: It's been a while since I have taken on board a GOCE request; I should have read the instructions. My apologies. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 22:09, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Cyril
I massively deleted text off Cyril Rioli's page because it was duplicated further down the page. As for his wikitable it was three seasons out off date and the information could be retrived from AFL tables which I could not be bother to update. Now that you have restored Cyril's page you can see the duplication for yourself. Prehaps you could fill in Cyril's missing years. Purrum (talk) 09:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Purrum: Because the table is missing the stats from 2011 to 2013, you remove all those from 2008 to 2010? Sorry, what am I missing? --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 09:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Islam
Hello! In your edit on my edit, you said that Ahmadiyya are not notable enough to warrant that level of detail. Based on the coverage they get in the media and the speaking tour their khalifa is on, they seem notable. In my edits, I cited to BBC and PBS, both being reputable sources. What would be notable enough? Also, as it has Sunni origins, I felt it best to place Ahmadiyya under the Sunni section. Salaamthebody (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Salaamthebody: Simply put, there are barely more than 10 million Ahmadiyya Muslims in the world, barely one percent of the total Muslim population. In addition, they hold various beliefs relating to Jesus' death and second coming that do not conform with the Quran, and as such are considered heretical. For these reasons they should not be given undue weight as you have done. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 04:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * talkpage stalker swoops in... Always tricky to handle cases like this. But it is important to separate Notability, and the lesser WP:NOTEWORTHY, which should govern whether a topic deserves an article to itself, and whether a topic deserves mention in other topic-related articles.  There is such a thing as an utterly-non-mainstream religion, which is considered heretical, and is just barely Notable enough to have their own article.  In cases like that, mentioning the tiny barely-notable religion in other articles AT ALL would be promotional, since they are  so far towards the frontier that they have not gained any real acceptance.  See the WP:ONEWAY rule for that case.
 * That said, it seem pretty clear to me from the statistics you quote -- 10 million followers and 1% of the population -- that in fact Ahmadiyya has *already* gained real acceptance. In science, they would be called an Alternative Minority Viewpoint, and although they would not deserve prominence out of line with WP:UNDUE, they absolutely positively *would* get mentioned on most pages dealing with Islam, most pages dealing with the countries where Ahmadiyya is above 1% of the local demographics, and so on.  Even though they only are 1% of the total Muslim population, because of their controversial stances, they almost certainly are mentioned in more than 1% of the reliable sources, right?  Wikipedia should mirror the sources, when deciding questions about how much weight Ahmadiyya should be given in some article or other.
 * For an example of what I'm talking about, see political party and politics in the United States. Ahmadiyya as a subset of the Muslim population is about as strong -- demographically speaking -- as the Libertarian Party as a subset of the voting population.  Libertarians get mentioned in passing twice, and in a full sentence (about noteworthy third parties) in the main political-party article.  In the USA article, it gets two mentions (including one in the intro-paragraph) and two full sentences (in two different subsections) plus a see-also link.  Just guessing here, but Ahmadiyya might merit a mention-in-passing in the main Religion article, and a couple sentences plus a see-also in the Muslim article, plus stronger weight in articles about Demographics of $country or especially Religion of $country where they are significant.  Looking it up, there is a mention in Religion plus a see-also; but in the Muslim article, they get passing-buried-mention-in-a-footnote, which seems wrong; ahh, but there is a redirect to the Islam article, which gives them two sentences and a redirect.  So the weight seems proper, for those articles.
 * Still, it would be a shame to lose the extra info provided by Salaamthebody, especially the PBS/BBC cites. Here is my attempt at a rewrite, staying within the two-sentence WP:UNDUE limitation.


 * * ((current)) Ahmadiyya is an Islamic movement founded by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad that began in India in the late 19th century and is practiced by millions of people around the world. Ahmadiyyas are divided into two subgroups, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement.


 * * ((suggest)) Ahmadiyya is an Islamic reform movement (with Sunni roots) founded by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad that began in India in 1889 and is practiced by over ten million people around the world. Ahmadiyyas are divided into two subgroups, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community (5th Khalifa of Ahmad the subordinate prophet) and the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement (6th Emirate of Ahmad the  second coming).


 * Ideally, would need some sources (or failing that some snark-tags) for these phrases: reform, Sunni roots, 1889, fifth, Khalifa, subordinate prophet, sixth, Emir, second coming slash messiah.  But the main article on the religion agrees with what Salaamthebody said. I think it's helpful to say the sub-movements are split both in terms of leadership-type and also a key piece of theology. HTH.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Put this request on the Islam talkpage, article is self-protected, and Salaamthebody never got back to me. Asked Toddy if they would review it, they look like a regular at that article. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello! Sorry for the delay! The edit looks good. Thanks for your thorough explanation and your help.  Much appreciated!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salaamthebody (talk • contribs) 21:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations!
"Military history reviewers' award" from AustralianRupert

Your GA nomination of Sukhoi Su-35
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sukhoi Su-35 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- 16:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Desert GA
Thank you for doing such a thorough GA review of Desert. You put a lot of effort into the review and the article was improved as a result. Although it could be called a FA-type review, I am not inclined to go for FA, at the moment at least. The difference between a good article and a normal article seems a more worthwhile gap to bridge to me than the difference between a GA and a FA. The minute attention detail required at FAC I find offputting. Then again, with an article with wide scope such as Desert, I might get bogged down again in the interminable suggestions about possible omissions that we had at the Sea FAC. Anyway, thank you for taking on the review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Cwmhiraeth: No worries. It has been a laborious review, but I am happy to have chipped in and immensely pleased with the fruits of our efforts. If you have a long-standing GAN that nobody is willing to review in the future, I'd be happy to do it, given I have enough spare time. Anyway, I want to see Desert on the main page, sooner or later. Cheers, --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 05:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot
Thank you very much for the World War Barnstar for getting Capture of Jenin to GA. I really appreciate the thought. All the best, --Rskp (talk) 05:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Rskp: No, thank *you* for doing what you're doing. If you need anything, please ask. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 06:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Now that you mention it, :D I have got several problems at the moment which I've been trying to nut out. Can you give me some advice regarding the Move Review of the ANZAC Mounted Division here or some perspective on the Copyright violations issue at the Capture of Damascus (1918) here . In both cases there are reams of posts to plow through, but any thoughts you might have, will be gratefully received. :) --Rskp (talk) 06:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding the Capture of Damascus article, I think the article overuses block-quotes. Although the Copyright tag is unwarranted, you would need to remove a lot of those quotes. I barely use them, so I wouldn't have a clue if it is hard to get rid of them or not. Unless I'm missing something, that's my take on the issue. Regarding the move request, I've got no comment. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 07:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. While I understand the need to rework the quotations in this article, I'm most interested to see you think the Copyright tag is unwarranted. Do you know if there are any steps which can be taken to stop or at least censure this action by an IP and Jim Sweeney (the 264th most active editor)? --Rskp (talk) 22:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the action you'd like to take might be an over-reaction. In any case, you have removed the template without anymore objections from Jim Sweeney -- let's try not to turn this issue into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Instead focus should be directed towards addressing the quote issue itself. Let's not get distracted. --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 11:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand me entirely. I have no idea what actions you think "I would like to take." I was asking you if anything could be done to stop this type of disruptive editing. --Rskp (talk) 00:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I was anticipating (wrongly so) some hostile action :P Since the issue had passed, I don't think any action should take place. --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 09:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. --Rskp (talk) 22:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Volubilis
It's now nearly a month since I nominated this article for FA and I'd like to get any remaining issues resolved. Could you please take a look again at Featured article candidates/Volubilis/archive1 and let me know if you are happy with the current state of play? Prioryman (talk) 18:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Harrier
I replied (!) on Cwmhiraeth's talk page. Maybe something useful. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Adoption
Hi, dyphil. I need an adoption. Would you please help me. The list of my articles I have written is in my user page. My last article is Emamzadeh Ahmad. I think this article may have some language problems. If yes, would you correct it for me? Thank you. Diako1971 20:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Diako1971, thank you for giving me a chance to impart my knowledge about the writing process on Wikipedia. Your edit history tells me that you have been an editor for three years, so I presume you have a very basic understanding of the site's policies and guidelines, especially those that relate to content creation. If you are not, I recommend you read No original research, Verifiability and Neutral point of view. At the moment I am busy with issues outside of Wikipedia, but in due course, I will have a look at your articles, specifically Emamzadeh Ahmad, to see how I could help. I will also have a closer look at your edits to see if there are any issues I could rectify. Regards, --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 11:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Brayton
Hi, I'm Brayton, an Australian student interested in Philosophy. I have been passionate about improving world access to knowledge with free, high quality web material. I only recently joined Wikipedia as an editor, but have been reading for some time. I am aware of the community ethos, and would appreciate your guidance. I have yet to make a page, though I assure it will be substancial. I am not very interested in Anti-vandalism, but I do however value members who are. I think Wikipedia and Wikitionary are the best mediums for learning word history and etymology, while a great source to both teach others(such as other students needing assistance) and to experience literal, psychological/sociological and philosophical material. Thanks, Hope you can handle guiding me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilosophyBrayton (talk • contribs) 04:48, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Brayton, thank you for spending your valuable time to contribute to Wikipedia. First off, I'd like to inform you that this adoption will span about 6 months, so I hope I can impart as much knowledge I have about this site as possible within that timeframe. If that's OK, sometimes I may have to request the insight of other editors who are more experienced than I am.


 * Secondly, I'd like to know what sorts of topics you are interested in, and what you intend to do on Wikipedia. I assume, from your username, that you are concerned primarily with philosophy, but I'd like to know if you have any other interests.
 * In your post you said that you're "not very interested in Anti-vandalism" -- if you instead intend to focus primarily on writing articles and doing content creation, I believe you've come to the right place. Can you confirm this assumption? Cheers, --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 05:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's certainly the right assumption. I wish to primarily focus on content creation and verifying present information. I'm interested in Philosophy, Sciences, Literature, anthropology and sociology. If I know anything appropriate concerning etymology I'll add that, but I am limited in that field. Thanks. 6 months sounds great! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilosophyBrayton (talk • contribs) 06:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, but I do have one question troubling me, how do I "pronounce" your Username? Is it SpeedyPhil? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilosophyBrayton (talk • contribs) 06:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) Great, you sound like my ideal adoptee. I am interested in sociology too, sounds like we have established a common ground.
 * 2) Yes that's correct, although I prefer to be called just "Phil".
 * Anyway, let's get started. Do you have access to any publications about the topics above, and is there one or two articles that you'd like to improve, or see improved, atm? --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 07:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

ATM I think my expertise Is not exhaustive enough to create many new pages, but one that I would say is crucial is "Bio-Ethics". I will try to figure out creating a page, but that's it for now. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilosophyBrayton (talk • contribs) 02:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You should probably start editing to get the ball rolling. Cheers, --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 10:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

GAN for North American AJ Savage
I don't know why you want another pair of eyes to validate your review of the article, but I need the review to be complete before the end of the month, one way or another. There are only a few things left to do on the Su-35 article before I can promote it, BTW.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * From my perspective, the article is certainly a GA. I just wanted to make sure that I haven't missed anything. Having reviewed Desert, my most exhaustive GA review yet, I feel I have done a sub-par job of this article. If nobody gives their opinion shortly, I will quickly promote the article. Regards, --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 04:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, you could compare it to some of the other aircraft GAs to see if I missed anything that needs to be covered in more detail. I just want to put it to bed because there aren't very many Aviation people who review GANs and the wait for a second reviewer could be practically indefinite. I mentioned your request on the Aircraft talk page a few days ago and you can see what results have happened since.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Constance Stokes
Hi there, I've responded at Featured article candidates/Constance Stokes/archive1; thank you for those comments. hamiltonstone (talk) 09:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Nokia Lumia 2520
Hi! Is the Nokia Lumia 2520 Nokia's first tablet? Surely not! This is a tablet computer: Nokia 770 Internet Tablet, i.e. a small computer which is tablet shaped in form. Tablet is simply a form-factor. It is described on a number of sources as their first Windows Tablet (or similar), see here for example Nokia World: First Windows Tablet, Big Lumia Phone, and Instagram (Finally). I see that the The Australian article describes it as Nokia's first tablet, but they're wrong, sources do get some things wrong now and then. Also, the Nokia 770 is mentioned in the tablet computer article, here Tablet_computer. --Danrok (talk) 13:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, I did not know that so thank you for the correction and heads up. It's good to know that somebody's got my back. --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 07:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Trouted
You have been trouted for: For good measure. ;)

Trouted
You have been trouted for: For good measure. ;) -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 11:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sukhoi Su-35
The article Sukhoi Su-35 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sukhoi Su-35 for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- 03:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
 SKATER  T a l k 08:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Replied again.-- SKATER  T a l k 09:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.

Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:


 * Views/Day : Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
 * Quality : Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.

The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:


 * Content : Is more content needed?
 * Headings : Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
 * Images : Is the number of illustrative images about right?
 * Links : Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
 * Sources : For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sukhoi Su-35, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages J-20 and J-31 (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) 11:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

AV8-B - publisher italics and also See Also section
Morning Phil. I've been going through the previous FAC for AV-8B, and a couple of points occurred to me.

First, Nikki says "Don't italicize publishers". We now seem to have just one publisher that still seems to be italicised, namely ref 88, Federation of American Scientists. Does this need changing?

Second, there was something of a kerfuffle on the FAC (and elsewhere) about the "See also" section. To me, the current See Also section doesn't look especially bloated, although most of the entries aren't sourced and some of them are already wikilinked in the main body of the article. Do you feel there's a need to make any changes here?

I'm still going over the prose, so please don't nominate it yet! :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the publisher issue. Regarding "See also", I've added a source for Boeing X-32 and removed the rest that are unsourced. I really don't think such links should require a reference, and that it is ultimately the contributor's discretion whether a link is included or not. --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 07:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Now partly reverted by Fnlayson, but I can see where he's coming from and I don't see how anyone could reasonably complain about what's now in the section. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

AV-8B lead - "following the political split"
This is a new(ish) sentence in the expanded lead that has never (I think) been looked over by Dank and similarly expert copyeditors:

"Following the political split, McDonnell Douglas proceeded to extensively redesign the earlier AV-8A Harrier to create the AV-8B."

First problem with this is the split infinitive. Now, we wouldn't of course say "proceeded to redesign extensively", but instead I've recast that sentence to drop the split infinitive. My version loses the sense of the redesign being a lengthy process, but I think it is still adequate:

"Following the political split, McDonnell Douglas extensively redesigned the earlier AV-8A Harrier to create the AV-8B."

Now, the political split to which it is referring, is at the end of the preceding paragraph; "Due to budgetary constraints, however, the UK abandoned the project in 1975."

The jump between "budgetary" and "political" is very jarring. Now, admittedly it would have been a politician that made the decision, but it wasn't really a political split between the UK and US, or even between parts of their governments. I think what we need here is something like "Following the UK withdrawal"? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion sounds good. I've made the change. The previous wording was, admittedly, slightly awkward, but I didn't know of any other way of expressing it. Thanks for the rewording! --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 05:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

AV-8B - deep air support versus battlefield air interdiction
I've asked Dank about the FAC-controversial "deep air support" text in the first paragraph of McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II. (Worth noting - the original controversy at that FAC was due to the sentence phrasing and structure, not specifically whether deep air support is readily comprehensible to the ordinary reader or not.)

On Dank's viewpoint I've tweaked it around a bit, so that close air support is linked (again) and deep air support now has a (shorter) explanation of what it is, in parentheses.

However, at User talk:Dank, Sturmvogel rightly raises the question, is "deep air support" really a thing anyway, and should we be repeating the source's use of it? Can we just use the more normal phrasing? Please comment there.

(Sorry for fragmenting this a bit, seemed to make sense at the time!) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I am following the post over at Dank's talk page. Sorry for my lack of knowledge about the topic of aerial interdication -- I was, I think, using the terminology in Nordeen's book. I no longer have access to the publication, so I have to wait for Fnlayson to verify this issue. I agree with Sturm, and would like to see the wording changed to battlefield interdiction, but let's wait for Fnlayson's verification first.
 * One issue that might turn up at FAC is the use of "USMC" and "Marine Corps" -- I'm using the former to refer to the institution, while "Marine Corps" is used in the article to describe USMC-related material and divisions such as "Marine Corps F/A-18", "Marine Corps AV-8B", "Marine Corps 15th MEU" etc. What are your thoughts on such differences? --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 05:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Ping! --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 12:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll get back to this properly on, hopefully, Friday/Saturday. The article still needs quite a lot of work I think. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter
Books and Bytes Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013 by , Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved... New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted. New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis?? New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration Read the full newsletter ''Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)''

Emamzadeh Ahmad
Hi. The correct pronounciation of the word in Persian is "Emamzadeh", and not "Imamzadeh". I wanted to rename the article Imamzadeh to "Emamzadeh", but I saw that there is a disambiguation page with this title. Would you please rename Imamzadeh to "Emamzadeh". There are some aticles that have title "Imamzadeh", but there are also many articles that have correct pronounciation "Emamzadeh". About your second issue, "Emamzadeh" is completely different from "mosque" and we can not say mosque complex. About the reference you mentioned, the same reference refer to the whole article. If you mean that I should put it at the end of each paragraph, OK I'll do it. Diako1971 11:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have a lot of knowledge regarding the transliteration of Persian words into English, but I do know that, with Arabic, there can be various English transliterations of the same Arabic word -- is it the case with this article? You would need to initiate a discussion at WT:ISLAM to sort out this issue regarding pronunciation and to inform others of your intent to move the articles which you think is wrongly titled. With respect to references, at the very minimum, you need to have one reference per paragraph, see WP:CITE for further information. Thoughts? --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 08:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Removal of maintenance tag
I noticed that you removed a maintenance tag here, without addressing it per wp:lede. Nor did you leave an explanation in an edit summary. Was wondering why. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The article does have a lead, as there is a definition of the topic in the very first sentence. As far as I know, it contains elements of the lead. Regards, --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 23:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. Nearly all of the text of the article is in one section at the beginning.  If you look at wp:lede, it calls for a lead section before the table of contents and the first heading that serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects.  What we have in the beginning of the article does not summarize what follows it in later sections.  It is (nearly) the entire article, and not at all a summary of what follows.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, considering that the Nokia Lumia 1520 is the same size as the leads of other article, it'd be quite redundant, I think, to summarize a topic that already has a limited coverage as it is. I'd wait until the phone is released and all the reviews are out before re-organizing the article so that it can have its own lead. For now, I'm willing to give the second and third paragraphs their own sections, but even that would only hinder the flow of the article. Regards, --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 23:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Per wp:lede, I think it would be fine to simply have a lede of a sentence or so. As it is, it has none.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I've moved the paragraphs, since much of what is written in the first para is only suitable for the lead. --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 23:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks great. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

nexus 5 lead
So, what problem do you have with the Nexus 5 lead that I put in? You just reverted it without any explanation why. ViperSnake151  Talk  06:44, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, *I* reverted without any explanation? I should be asking you this question. What do you think "A reader would ask, 'Why is Google marketing an LG phone?'" was? --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 09:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I meant the last reversion where you did not provide an explanation at all. So basically, because its a Nexus device, primary credit for it automatically goes to Google instead of LG? ViperSnake151   Talk  15:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. It's all in the name. LG agreed to omit "LG" from "Nexus 5", and Nexus is a Google brand. --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 00:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Nokia Lumia 1520
The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

AV-8B - lack of detail in later parts of Development section
The first two sub-sections of the "Development" section go into a reasonable amount of detail about what was being developed, the changes in each phase of development, etc.

However, the parts of that section discussing the NA variant and the AV-8B Plus, do not spend a single word explaining what the NA or Plus variant are. Such details are entirely confined to the much later "Differences between versions" sub-section. This is inadequate, since anyone reading the development section would want to know at least something about the changes being made, without having to finish reading the article first.

Of course it's relatively easy to guess that the NA version had some sort of infra-red sensor added, but not that there were other significant changes too. Equally, one needs to be told that the main change in the Plus is a radar added in the nose, so that one knows what the private ventures and MoUs and programs and contracts are actually for.

Of course, the bulk of this detail needs to be kept in the later "Design" section where it is now, but there needs to be at least some mention of the essentials in the earlier part. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've made the clarifications in this edit and this edit. --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 23:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Some repetition needs fixing re last delivery
In the fifth and sixth paragraphs of McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II, the fact that the last AV-8B was a remanufacture to Plus standards delivered to Spain in 2003, is repeated. I can't think how to restructure this, so please give it a try. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've reworded the sentence and added the quote from Nordeen's book. --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 23:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The last sentence of the first paragraph of McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II is still substantially identical to the third sentence of the second paragraph of that section. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Reworded. --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 04:34, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The 72 ex-Brit Harriers
The first sentence of the penultimate paragraph of McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II seems to contradict the paragraph before it. If the USN purchased the 72 aircraft in November 2011, then the USMC were not thinking about acquiring the 72 aircraft in March 2012 - they already had them. The difference is what they were planning to do with them. Am I interpreting this correctly? Please make this section make sense. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You got that right. The USN acquired British Harrier IIs for spare parts. AFM "confirmed" that the USMC intended to fly them. --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 23:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Lift improvement devices on fuselage
Am I right in thinking these only "capture the reflected engine exhaust" when near the ground? (Penultimate paragraph of McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II) (just let me know and I'll tweak the text) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. Here's the quote from Flight International, "The strakes on the underside of the fuselage and the fence create an enclosure which captures the reflected jet exhaust during take off and landing." --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 23:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

commonly known as Day Attack
Another perhaps even more stupid question, were the initial AV-8Bs commonly known as the "Day Attack" variant even before the NA variant was proposed or available or widely used? I'm guessing not? (just let me know and I'll tweak the tense) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It wasn't an official name, so I've reworded the two instances of "Day Attack". --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 23:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

AV-8B ... smiths
Our article says "In June 1987, as a private venture, BAe, McDonnell Douglas and Smiths Industries signed an MoU for the development of what was to become the AV-8B Plus"

Our article also says "use voice commands to issue instructions to the aircraft, using a system developed by Smiths Aerospace"

Wikipedia says the two are totally different companies, and implies the first-named has little to do with aviation.

Should we be using Smiths Aerospace for both? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah, just realised they were not actually different at the time... perhaps? Is this certain, and if it is certain, can we make it clearer for the reader? Either way, we need to change where at least some of the wikilinks point to. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oops, the article uses "Smiths Industries". --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 23:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, great job on all of this! As you can see, there is lots to do, more to come when I get time. It's great to see the article looking so much better thanks to you and others. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I should be thanking you. Appreciate your work. --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 00:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Composite sttructure performance improvements
The last sentence of McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II says that the use of composites improved the aircraft's performance "dramatically". Please can you check if the source cited says something equivalent to "dramatically" - I'm a little sceptical that a ~200kg weight saving can make a dramatic performance improvement on a ~10,000kg aircraft. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Removed. The reduction in weight partly contributed to the enhanced operating characteristics -- the wing re-design had a bigger impact. --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 04:34, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Thanks. Iainstein (talk) 02:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Question about your userpage
Sorry that I am asking you this but, is that Arnold in binaries numbers? Sorry. <span style="font-family:'Arial',cursive"> Miss Bono  [hello, hello!]  15:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello Miss Bono, nice to see you, this is 74. Actually, I'm halfway willing to bet the person in the numerals is Phil.  Hard to tell with those big dark sunglasses, though.  :-)  &mdash; 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed that is Arnold in binaries. I'm surprised the page didn't manage to crash your browser. --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 22:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Log in so I can give you a Humour Barnstar :p --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 22:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Aww, shucks. :-)   Thanks for the kind words Phil, but as it turns out, I'm philosophically opposed to logins, so no offense, but I must turn aside your kind offer into other channels.  Please give Miss Bono the humor barnstar in my place.  That'll give her a confidence-boost, and she does good work, so I can assure you she absolutely deserves it.  As for myself, I already suffer from overconfidence, so your best bet with me is to stay as much in the critique-zone as you can.  Call me 74, btw, easier to type.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Awww, thank you both :D And thanks for the barnstar :D<span style="font-family:'Arial',cursive"> Miss Bono  [hello, hello!]  13:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

airborne paratrooper and mechinf sniper
Hello, noticed your just-a-thought post over at WP:RETENTION. Sorry you got shot down. :-)   For a project dedicated to pillar four, people are kinda prickly there.  Anyways, I think your idea is great, not least because it's quite similar to *my* idea.  ;-)

Left you a reply over there, chiding you for saying "lesser roles" when clearly you just meant "fewer-bytes-per-edit-roles", and giving some military and software-engineering analogies for the central concept, that might help people de-pricklify their connotative interpretations. Further up the same talkpage, I already tried pitching team-superhero slash speed-dating ideas, which fell on deaf ears. You are already in the adopt-a-wikipedian project, right? Were you just thinking that WP:RETENTION was a good way to advertise that existing project, or are you thinking shorter-duration pairings can be made to work? Feel free to ping my talkpage, if you reply and I don't respond promptly. Thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply and support. You explained my thoughts really really well, better than I did. Yes I am in the adopt-a-Wikipedia, although that is going nowhere atm. My post had nothing to do with adoption though. I just thought my suggestion achieve two things:
 * get new editors involved in content creation straight away, and
 * lend support to existing content creators.
 * I really think short-duration pairings can work, but the specifics would need to be discussed first. Regards, --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 23:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, come discuss it then! :-)      I'm in dire need of reinforcements.  Suggest we pair up:  you make the short comments that cut to the heart of the idea, and attract a lot of attention, and I'll follow along to mop up any perceived slights that your terseness accidentally provokes.  But yes, your idea is spot on.  Per the discussion with Anne Delong about her original days on wikipedia, suggest that a great place for beginning editors is the AfC submission queue.  There are no WP:NINJA folks watching the articles in that queue, since they aren't in mainspace yet, after all.  There are plenty of copy-edit errors, low-hanging-fruit that even a beginner will find a target-rich-environment.  If you like this as a suggested operations-theatre for paired-wikihero missions, suggest it over on the WP:RETENTION talkpage, and we'll see if Anne likes the idea or not.  Ping my talkpage if you need a mop-up operation to put something into more verbosity.  (The one downside to being an anon is lack of a watchlist.)  Thanks for improving wikipedia.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Lockheed Martin SR-72
The DYK project (nominate) 00:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 01:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

on getting shot down in flames, part deux
Okay, my turn to stick my foot into my mouth.

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Editor_Retention

User_talk:Anne_Delong

You made 101 sarcastic, I made one of our best editors think I was a pig-man.

((deleted a new idea... rather than wiki-pairing of two people, we should concentrate on wiki-teams of N people... where N is assumed to be five... but where the software *permits* N=2 and even N=1 "team"-sizes. I'll post a new section over on the talkpage, called 'wiki-pairing is bad but maybe wiki-teaming is good?' or somesuch. No offense! Because I think wiki-pairing is great....))

Anyways, I still think the core idea is a good scheme. I'll sit back a bit, and see if anybody else comments. You are welcome to hop in, of course, or gab with me here if you prefer. Thanks for improving wikipedia, see you around. p.s. In other news, Dennis the founder of WP:RETENTION has wikiRetired, saying the place just wasn't as fun as it used to be, in the good old days; see bottom of WP:RETENTION page. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The editor of the week thing was/is relatively organic, and although I initially said I'd never go near anything quite so cheesy (perhaps partly because some of the early attempted seletions were silly), the selfsame scheme later turned up on the talkpage of a new editor whom I greatly respect (and whose appearance greatly encouraged me) to award them exactly that award. Since then, my appreciation for that scheme has grown, and I think everyone should support it.


 * Phil had a thing, a while back, of awarding barnstars to people who help get an article to GA status. Again, this is largely organic (it starts with you deciding to do it, not part of a project or a templatespam), and it can have good effects.


 * The million award is a great and important thing, although much less aimed at newer editors.


 * I couldn't find any text referring to pig-men in the thread you linked. I'd sniper them like an entire mechanised infantry regiment if I did. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Demiurge, nobody called me a chauvinist pig, but I accidentally made Anne Delong worry that either I was one, or more crucially, that a fun-pairing-project would be inherently male-does-the-content-creation, followed by female-maid-slash-cog-slash-servant. Not the intent.  But people are *very* sensitive about this pairing-thing, either just from Real World Cultural Issues, or from previous interactions on wikipedia, or whatever.  (Which is odd to me -- everybody seems fine with adultFosterParent who adopts helplessWeakFoolish n00bs, after all!)  Anyways, I'm working out an offline draft for a space-shuttle-slash-platoon-squad rewrite of the concept, which is nominally five people teaming up... but the software-app also supports two... or even "solo teams".  Anyways, appreciate your concern, but the was not referring to hurt feelings on my part, it was crying that I'm such a moron I didn't immediately grok what Anne was objecting to.  Anyways, I think it's all straightened out between her and moi, but she *is* going to have to get used to being called by the ChevySweatSocks nickname she rhetorically self-assigned.      ;-)        74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've never thought that establishing a wikiproject to manage the recognition of editors for their work so as to retain them would ever work. Giving out barnstars and showing appreciation for people's work are mostly spontaneous and sincere acts (or "organic", if you will). An organized wikiproject such as WP:RETENTION would likely fail. Unless I have missed something, the WikiProject is also missing concrete objectives (eg x editors should be retained after y time) and so, I feel, there is a lack of purpose on the WP's talk page.
 * IMHO, in order to retain an editor, he or she needs to be engaged, meaning that somebody else must devote a significant amount of time communicating and working with that particular editor. This is why I suggested what user 74.192.84.101 has labelled a "pairing up" concept.
 * I have often contemplated leaving Wikipedia due to my lack of activity and engagement with other editors. Ultimately, I enjoy writing articles about aviation and therefore have decided to stay (for now though). Most new editors won't have much of a connection with what they are doing -- the decision to retire can be quite easy for them.
 * It'll be better, I think, to operate such a WikiProject on its leader's talk page to give it a sense of purpose, direction and sincerity.
 * @74.192.84.101: I think any such collaboration should take place over an extended period of time, perhaps for two to three weeks, involving two to three editors who would pick a topic or article to improve. I'm reading your comment over at WT:RETENTION and I think "fun-wiki-pairing for 30-minute-adventures" is way too short considering that we are trying to retain editors. On a different note, your assessment of me that reads, "Sp33dyphil is obviously not all that concerned with capitalization, spelling...", is slightly off. I am concerned with those aspects above -- just not my username ("Sp33dyphil" looks better and more unique than just "SpeedyPhil", haha). --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 11:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Just another note, with over 1200 members over at MILHIST, it is embarrassing that we cannot do more. Let's say that 33% is inactive, that leaves us with 800 left, a huge number. Yet the WikiProject only churns out, what 20 to 30 GAs per month, and a lot of them are from the same editors, way below the potential of the project (I'm part of the problem too). Now it is unfair to only focus on GA output and not recognize the effort that on behind the scenes with cleaning up and classing articles. I only used an arbitrary yardstick, and could have used some other standard and yet my point would still stands -- the potential of the WikiProject is not exploited.
 * I've tried engaging some of member back in 2011 by inviting those from the Military Aviation task force to engage in a questionnaire of mine to increase productivity and collaboration. The questionnaire went nowhere because I did not follow up with those who responded. Nevertheless, I've tried to do something.
 * Armed forces rely on intelligence to plan their next action -- I think MILHIST, or even better, Wikipedia, should engage in more intelligence gathering to better understand the trends of the site and to get the most out of editors and their spare time.
 * OK, time to sign off. --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 11:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the solid thinking folks. We mostly agree here, methinks.  But let me put the disagreement into stark terms:
 * Example#1_A. Hey there, Phil, how are you, listen, I'm planning on doing some work on Talk:Liénard–Chipart_criterion which is a stub.  It's aviation-related, the equations are used by the mathematicians that build electronic fire-control systems, which are in turn installed in aircraft, and then used by pilots.  You need to drop everything you are working on, and devote the next two or three weeks to helping me get this mathematical stub up to GA status.  There's six books of 800 pages of equations each, posted over on the talkpage... if we each take three, we'll be finished reading them by Friday!  Phil?  Where are you going!  Come back Phil, don't leave me!!!
 * Example#1_B. Hey, are you free for 15 minutes?  We can pair up, I'll be the joystick-pilot first, there's this math-stub I wanna expand, then you be the joystick-pilot, and we can work 15 minutes on the Harrier jump-jet article, or whatever you pick.  Sound fun?  (You can play the 'official' random-partner style of fun-fast-pairing-game ten times in a month, using the software-app, and then just 'unofficially' hang out in 30-minute chunks with folks you liked most.  Best of both worlds.)
 * Nothing says folks cannot *replay* the same mission-scenario, for another 15-or-30-minute-chunk... and another, and another. If I get tired and go to bed, or bored of aviation and go off to do something else, some other person might pair up with you, or you might continue alone.  You and I might pick up the pair-game the next night, or even every night for three weeks.  Or not; the players choose the total duration, by choosing how many times they play on that team.
 * But methinks it is crucially important to make the chunksize small, on the order of minutes: small enough that a beginning editor, who does not know if they'll even *like* hanging out with some stranger and doing something nerdy like improving an encyclopedia fercrapsakes... those people might be willing to devote 15 mins, even 30 mins, but two weeks?  No way.  There's nothing that says you cannot make it a *season* full of team-gaming the fun-wiki-hero-way, with times scheduled in advance and points-awarded (and organic barnstars and pair-master-of-the-week and so on as Demiurge mentions) all around at the end of the 'season' or the 'league' or whatever.  But at first, to make it accessible to beginners, and not time-prohibitive for experts, I think fun quick teaming is valuable.  There are pro basketball games, Olympic basketball, college basketball, high school basketball, organized community league basketball, and so on... but pick-up games amongst friends are the *best* kind of basketball.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Fun-quick-teaming, prototype number one, beta phase.... mission assignment: improve jump jet articles

 * Hey 74... I'm the guy checking for things that need fixing in the AV-8B article. Want to fix those things? Go ahead, and please let Phil know when you have done so. I'm also checking for prose problems in that article (there are a few I can see easily, and some more that I can't)... again, if you know anyone that can see such things easily then you should ask them to help? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Session#1. Okay, I made some changes.  See if you like this attempt, then ping my talkpage.  Just messed w/ first 3 paragraphs.  p.s. There was somebody I noticed who was just getting started, doing some language-fixing-work on missiles.  They aren't addicted yet, but maybe a few short sessions with the three of us, will get them that far.  :-)     74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I never ended up having time to deal with this. My initial idea was to put a copy of the article in my userspace so that you/we could mess around with it there. However, Phil has now nominated it at Featured article candidates/McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II/archive2 so that's the best place to discuss improvements for the time being. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Funny, same thing happened to me. :-)    I meant to come back and mess with adding the political angle, and finding the horsepower figures, and some other tweaks, then got sucked into a vortex... one after the other.  I'm still working on my five-person-nominally-but-as-few-as-one-can-play scheme for fun-quick-wiki-teaming.  At least SpeedyPhil hasn't scooped me on that yet.   But congratulations on getting to FA status, that is awesome-possum, as the kids are saying nowadays.  Wait.  They don't say that anymore?  Oh.  Um... do they still say gee whillikkers?   Ah, I see.  I'll just be moving along now.  ;-)    &mdash; 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Careful, your identity is showing through a little there ;)


 * So, will you and Phil be starting on the other jump-jet articles next? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Nokia Lumia 2520
Gatoclass (talk) 10:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, pleaseconsult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Whisperback
15:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

When nominating an article at FAC
Some people think it is wise to include in the nomination a brief summary of why the topic is important or interesting. Take a look at other current nominations to see if this is the case. What do you think? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Please insert your co-nomination statement over at Featured article candidates/McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II/archive2. --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 02:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, not really sure what's needed in a co-nomination statement - never done that before. I think your nomination covers things well enough, and things seem to be progressing OK. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

GAN December 2013 Backlog Drive
{| |}

The Wikipedia Library Survey
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 15:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Good Tidings and all that ...
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

re: Hey
Hey there! It's been going well. I've been busy with music projects (which could be my downfall in 2014 with the Wikicup), but all in all can't complain. I'd love to check out your article! I actually have an FAC up right now, as it is - Typhoon Maemi. Any time you need a reviewer, lemme know :) --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 05:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2014 WikiCup!
Hello Sp33dyphil, and welcome to the 2014 WikiCup! Your submission page can be found here. The competition will begin at midnight tonight (UTC). There have been a few small changes from last year; the rules can be read in full at WikiCup/Scoring, and the page also includes a summary of changes. One important rule to remember is that only content on which you have completed significant work, and nominated, in 2014 is eligible for points in the competition- the judges will be checking! As ever, this year's competition includes some younger editors. If you are a younger editor, you are certainly welcome, but we have written an advice page at WikiCup/Advice for younger editors for you. Please do take a look. Any questions should be directed to one of the judges, or left on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will make it to round 2. Good luck! , and  17:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

FA congratulations
Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II to FA status recently. If you would like to see this (or any other FA you may have helped to write) appear as "Today's featured article" soon, please nominate it at the requests page; if you'd like to see an FA on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to the "pending" list. In the absence of a request, the article may end up being picked at any time (although with 1,329 articles in Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page at present, there's no telling how long – or short! – the wait might be). If you'd got any TFA-related questions or problems, please let me know. BencherliteTalk 17:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I don't intend to nominate the article for a TFA appearance for now. Maybe in two to six months. Regards, --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 05:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Anonymous contributor
Hi, I just realized that you suggested to welcome this user: user talk:200.219.132.103 but have you checked his previous account at user talk:200.219.132.104?--Mishae (talk) 00:47, 29 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)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 03:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

March 2014 GAN Backlog Drive
It's that time again! Starting on March 1, there will be another GAN Backlog Drive! There will be several changes compared to previous drives:


 * This drive will introduce a new component to it; a point system. In a nutshell, older nominations are worth more points than newer nominations. The top 3 participants who have the points will be awarded the Golden, Silver, or Bronze Wikipedia Puzzle Piece Trophy, respectively.
 * Unlike the December 2013 Backlog Drive, earning an additional barnstar if you reached your goal has been removed.
 * The allowance to have insufficient reviews has been lowered to 2 before being disqualified.
 * An exception to the rule that all reviews must be completed before the deadline has been created.

Also, something that I thought I would share with all of you is that we raised $20.88 (USD) for the WMF in the December 2013 drive. It may not sound like a lot but considering that that was raised just because we reviewed articles, I would say that's pretty good! With that success, pledges can be made for the upcoming drive if you wish.

More info regarding the drive and full descriptions regarding the changes to this drive can be found on the the drive page. If you have any questions, feel free to leave a message on the drive talk page.

I look forward to your participation and hope that because of it, some day the backlog will be gone!

--Dom497

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 22 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)

GAN March 2014 Backlog Drive
The March 2014 GAN Backlog Drive has begun and will end on April 1, 2014! Sent by Dom497 on behalf of MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Dassault Rafale
Hi Phil, you haven't edited this since the end of January and your userpage says you've retired so I'm going to archive this. I hope you'll come back refreshed after a break and pick the article up again. Until then, I wish you all the best in your off-wiki endeavours and I hope we'll see you around soon. Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  17:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:48, 21 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)

Consider a new adpotee?
I looked thought the list of adopters, and your interest (aviation, military history, politics, technology, religion, and sociology) all match mine well. I'm already experienced in Wikimedia and looking for help with good editing policies and obtaining admin privileges. - Technophant (talk) 23:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:28, 18 April 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)

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)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Good articles Future GAN Backlog Drive
Hello everyone! Hope you've all been having a great summer!

TheQ Editor recently proposed the idea of having another Backlog Drive in either September/October or November/December of this year. For those of you who have participated in the past two drives you know I was the one who organized them, however, come September, this will be my most important year in school so I will not be able to coordinate this drive (if it happens). TheQ Editor has volunteered to be a coordinator for the drive. If any of you would like to co-coordinator, please notify TheQ Editor on his talk page.

If you would be interested in participating in a Backlog Drive sometime before the end of this year, please notify TheQ Editor. Also, make sure to specify what month(s) work best for you.

At the time this message was sent out, the backlog was at 520 nominations. Since May, the backlog has been steadily increasing and we are currently near an all time high. Even though the backlog will not disappear over one drive, this drive can lead to several others which will (hopefully) lead to the day where there is no longer a backlog.

As always, the more participants, the better, and everyone is encouraged to participate!

Sent by Dom497 --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

GA Cup
Hello everyone! We hope you have all been having a great summer!

As we all know, the recent GAN Backlog Drives have not had any big impact on the backlog. Because of that, me (Dom497), Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor have worked on an idea that could possibly finally put a dent into the massive backlog. Now, I will admit, the idea isn't entirely ours as we have took the general idea of the WikiCup and brought it over to WikiProject Good Articles. But anyways, here's what we have in mind:

For all of you that do not know what the WikiCup is, it is an annual competition between several editors to see who can get the most Good Articles, Featured Article's, Did You Know's, etc. Based of this, we propose to you the GA Cup. This competition will only focus on reviewing Good articles.

For more info on the proposal, click here. As a FYI, the proposal page is not what the final product will look like (if you do go ahead with this idea). It will look very similar to WikiCup's page(s).

The discussion for the proposal will take place here. Please let us know if you are interested, have any concerns, things to consider, etc.

--Dom497, Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 August newsletter
The final of the 2014 WikiCup begins in a few short minutes! Our eight finalists are listed below, along with their placement in Round 4:


 * , a WikiCup newcomer, finished top of Pool A and was the round's highest scorer. Godot is a featured picture specialist, claiming large numbers of points due to high-quality scans of historical documents, especially banknotes.
 * 1) is a WikiCup veteran, having been a finalist every year since 2010. In the semi-final, he was Pool B's highest scorer. Cas's points primarily come from articles on the natural sciences.
 * 2) was Pool A's runner-up. Czar's points come mostly from content related to independent video games, including both articles and topics.
 * 3) was Pool B's runner-up. Another featured picture specialist, many of Adam's points come from the restoration of historical media. He has been a WikiCup finalist twice before.
 * 4) won the WikiCup in 2012 and 2013, and enters this final as the first wildcard. She focuses on biology-related articles, and has worked on several high-importance articles.
 * 5) is the second wildcard. George's points come primarily from meteorology-related articles. This year and last year, George was the first person in the competition to score.
 * , the third wildcard, was the 2010 champion and a finalist last year. His writes mostly on military history, especially naval history.
 * , the fourth and final wildcard, has participated in previous WikiCups, but not reached any finals. Bloom's points are mostly thanks to did you knows, featured lists and good articles related to sport and national symbols.

We say goodbye to this year's semi-finalists. ,, , , , and  have all performed well to reach this stage of the competition, and we hope they will all be joining us again next year.

There are two upcoming competitions unrelated to the WikiCup which may be of interest to those who receive this newsletter. The Stub Contest will run through September, and revolves around expanding stub articles, especially high-importance or old stubs. In addition, a proposal has been made for a new competition, the GA Cup, which the organisers plan to run next year. This competition is based on the WikiCup and aims to reduce the good article review backlog.

There is now a thread for brainstorming on how next year's WikiCup competition should work. Please come along and share your thoughts- What works? What doesn't work? What needs changing? Signups for next year's competition will be open soon; we will be in touch. If, at this stage of the competition, you are keen to help the with the WikiCup, please do what you can to participate in review processes. Our finalists will find things much easier if the backlogs at good article candidates, featured article candidates, featured picture candidates and the rest are kept at a minimum. 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 or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. and 22:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

AV-8B TFA
Hi Phil, I wondered if you had any thoughts on Talk:McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II ? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 25 September
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * On the Sukhoi PAK FA page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=626965687 your edit] caused an unnamed parameter error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F626965687%7CSukhoi PAK FA%5D%5D Ask for help])

WikiCup 2014 September newsletter
In one month's time, we will know our WikiCup 2014 champion. Newcomer has taken a strong lead with a featured list (historical coats of arms of the U.S. states from 1876) and a raft of featured pictures. Reigning champion is in second place with a number of high-importance biology articles, including new FA Isopoda and new GA least weasel. , who is in his fifth WikiCup final, is in third, with featured articles Pictor and Epacris impressa.

Signups for the 2015 WikiCup are open. All Wikipedians, new and experienced, are warmly invited to sign up for the competition. Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may also like to sign up for the GA Cup, a new WikiCup-inspired competition which revolves around completing good article 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 or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. and 22:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Nikkimaria (talk) 02:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014: The results
The 2014 WikiCup champion is, who flew the flag of the Smithsonian Institution. This was Godot13's first WikiCup competition and, over the 10 months of the competition, he has produced (among other contributions) two featured lists and an incredible 292 featured pictures, including architectural photographs and scans of historical documents. , 2012 and 2013 WikiCup champion, came in second, having written a large number of biology-related articles. , WikiCup finalist every year since 2010, finished in third.

A full list of our prize-winners follows:


 * wins the prize for first place and the FP prize for 181 featured pictures in the final round.
 * wins the prize for second place and the DYK prize for 65 did you knows in the final round.
 * wins the prize for third place and the FA prize for four featured articles in the final round.
 * wins the prize for fourth place
 * wins a final 8 prize.
 * wins a final 8 prize.
 * wins a final 8 prize.
 * wins the GA prize for 27 good articles in round 2 and the review prize for 28 good article reviews in round 1.
 * wins the FL prize for three featured lists in round 2.
 * wins the FPo prize his work on featured portals.
 * wins the topic prize for a nine-article featured topic in round 3.
 * wins the news prize for 28 in the news articles in round 3.

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 participated this year. We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, and all are welcome to participate. 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. and 22:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open!
The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.

WikiCup 2015 is just around the corner...
Hello everyone, and may we wish you all a happy holiday season. As you will probably already know, the 2015 WikiCup begins in the new year; there is still time to sign up. We have a few important announcements concerning the future of the WikiCup.


 * We would like to announce that Josh (J Milburn) and Ed (The ed17), who have been WikiCup judges since 2009 and 2010 respectively, are stepping down. This decision has been made for a number of reasons, but the main one is time. Both Josh and Ed have found that, over the previous year, they have been unable to devote the time necessary to the WikiCup, and it is not likely that they will be able to do this in the near future. Furthermore, new people at the helm can only help to invigorate the WikiCup and keep it dynamic. Josh and Ed will still be around, and will likely be participating in the Cup this following year as competitors, which is where both started out.
 * In a similar vein, we hope you will all join us in welcoming Jason (Sturmvogel 66) and Christine (Figureskatingfan), who are joining Brian (Miyagawa) to form the 2015 WikiCup judging team. Jason is a WikiCup veteran, having won in 2010 and finishing in fifth this year. Christine has participated in two WikiCups, reaching the semi-finals in both, and is responsible for the GA Cup, which she now co-runs.
 * The discussions/polls concerning the next competition's rules will be closed soon, and rules changes will be made clear on WikiCup/Scoring and talk pages. While it may be impossible to please everyone, the judges will make every effort to ensure that the new rules are both fair and in the best interests of the competition, which is, first and foremost, about improving Wikipedia.

If you have any questions or concerns, the judges can be reached on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, on their talk pages, or by email. We hope you will all join us in trying to make the 2015 WikiCup the most productive and enjoyable yet. You are receiving this message because you are listed on WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk), The ed17 (talk), Miyagawa (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Figureskatingfan (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open!
Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators,

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Merry
To you and yours FWiW  Bzuk (talk) 22:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
<div style="background:orange; padding: 10px; border-top: 3px solid yellow; border-left: 3px solid yellow; border-right: 3px solid yellow; border-bottom: 3px solid yellow 8px; font-size: 110%; font-family:Tahoma; text-align: center;"> Dear, HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions! From a fellow editor, --FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

WikiCup 2015 launch newsletter
Round one of the 2015 WikiCup has begun! So far we've had around 80 signups, which close on February 5. If you have not already signed up and want to do so, then you can add your name here. There have been changes to to several of the points scores for various categories, and the addition of Peer Reviews for the first time. These will work in the same manner as Good Article Reviews, and all of the changes are summarised here.

Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round, and one of the new changes this year is that all scores must be claimed within two weeks of an article's promotion or appearance, so don't forget to add them to your submissions pages! 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 GAN, 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. Good luck! , and

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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

There is a new WikiProject you may be interested in
This is a form letter sent out to members of WikiProject Lead section cleanup.

I am contacting you because you are listed as a participant of the now defunct WikiProject Lead section cleanup. I have created a new WikiProject, WikiProject Lede Improvement Team (name subject to change), that likely has the same goals as the project that you signed up for was supposed to have. If improving the lede sections of articles is something you are still interested in, please stop by and add yourself as a participant. As well, if you have any thoughts regarding your previous experience with lede section cleanup, please stop by and share them. Thank you, &#160;<span style="background:#fff;padding:0px 6px;font-family:Garamond;font-weight:bold;letter-spacing:5px;border:1px dotted black"> Discant X  08:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

2014 Year In Review Awards
"The Epic Barnstar" from TomStar81

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter
That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. 64 competitors made it into this round, and are now broken into eight groups of eight. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups. Round 1 saw some interesting work on some very important articles, with the round leader owing most of his 622 points scored to a Featured Article on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, as had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge,  led round 1 with 601 points in 2013.

In addition to Freikorp's work, some other important articles and pictures were improved during round one, here's a snapshot of a few of them:
 * took Bumblebee, a level-4 vital article, to Good Article;
 * worked-up the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 article, also to Good Article status;
 * developed an extremely timely article to Good Article, taking Magna Carta there some 800 years after it was first sealed;
 * And last but not least, worked up a number of Featured Pictures during round 1, including the 1948 one Deutsche Mark (pictured right), receiving the maximum bonus due to the number of Wikis that the related article appears in.

You may also wish to know that The Core Contest is running through the month of March. Head there for further details - they even have actual prizes!

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. , and

Thanks for your assistance! Miyagawa (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiCup.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

TWL HighBeam check-in
Hello Wikipedia Library Users,

You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:


 * Make sure that you can still log in to your HighBeam account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information. When your access expires you can reapply at WP:HighBeam.
 * Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. For more information about citing this source, see HighBeam/Citations
 * Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let us know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you. Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lockheed Martin FB-22, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Roche. 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) 09:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)