User talk:Squeamish Ossifrage/Archive 2

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)

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

With 26 people having already scored over 100 points, it is likely that well over 100 points will be needed to secure a place in round 3. Recent years have required 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) and 100 (2010). Remember that only 64 will progress to round 3 at the end of April. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page; if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 22:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

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

192 was our lowest qualifying score, again showing that this WikiCup is the most competitive ever. In previous years, 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) or 100 (2010) secured a place in Round 3. Pool H was the strongest performer, with all but one of its members advancing, while only the two highest scorers in Pools G and F advanced. At the end of June, 16 users will advance into the semi-finals. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 17:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

FA congratulations
Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of A Cure for Pokeritis to FA status recently. If you would like to see this (or any other FA) 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 1,301 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). You (and your talk-page stalkers) may also be interested to hear that there have been some changes at the TFA requests page recently. Nominators no longer need to calculate how many "points" an article has, the instructions have been simplified, and there's a new nomination system using templates based on those used for DYK suggestions. Please consider nominating another article, or commenting on an existing nomination, and leaving some feedback on your experience. If you'd got any TFA-related questions or problems, please let me know. BencherliteTalk 09:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Morchella rufobrunnea FAC
Hi Squeamish Ossifrage, thanks for your helpful comments on my FAC for this fungus. I'm sending this note in the hope that you might have a chance to revisit that page and see if I've addressed everything to your satisfaction. Cheers, Sasata (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Constitution of May 3, 1791/archive4
Are you ready to support now? Is there something unresolved I missed? (If you reply here please echo me, thanks) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:31, 26 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)

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)

Spectator
Thank you so much for finding it! WhisperToMe (talk) 21:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Glad I could help! I actually didn't know Spectator had back issues online before today, when I had to chase down an article there for one of my own editing projects. Good luck with the rest of your sourcing. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You too! With that article I started Trail of the Octopus (book) (moved content from Lester Coleman and added a sentence from the Spectator source) WhisperToMe (talk) 22:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Self-notification
I stand behind my work at fringe theory (and any other articles I might edit on this topic in future), and am committed to contributing to this project with the highest degree of conduct and scholarship. Should there be an administrative determination that I have strayed from that commitment, now or in the future, I do not wish to hide behind the alert/notification bureaucracy. I am responsible for my edits. And so I have taken the step of alerting myself to the discretionary sanctions in this topic category, as means of acknowledgement and acceptance of the conditions those sanctions create. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

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)


 * Thank you CrazyAces489 (talk) 21:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Hear, hear! - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

My GA nomination of Ebbor Gorge
Thanks for your comments on Talk:Ebbor Gorge/GA1 - I should be able to get to these this evening or tomorrow. I did notice that it hadn't been transcluded to the talk page of the article which normally happens when someone starts a GA review but I don't know how to do this.&mdash; Rod talk 07:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Fairly certain one of the automated processes is supposed to handle the transclusion, but I did it manually. It's there now. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 12:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, Just wondered if you'd had a chance to take a look at the changes on Ebbor Gorge following your comments?&mdash; Rod talk 17:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration clarification request(Pseudoscience)
An arbitration clarification request(Pseudoscience), either involving you, or in  which you participated has been archived. The request resulted in a motion.

The original discussion can be found here For the arbitration Committee -- S Philbrick  (Talk)  14:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

GA Cup
Hi Squeamish Ossifrage,

I just wanted to notify you that if you do not complete at least one review before the start of November 1 (the start of Round 2) you will be eliminated from the competition. If you have any questions just let me know!-- Dom497 ( talk ) 23:11, 30 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)

The Fifth Element FAC
Hi Squeamish Ossifrage. I note you have not made an edit to Wikipedia since October 2, which would explain why you never reviewed my responses to you at the FAC for The Fifth Element. I understand you are probably on a wikibreak, which is fine (just got back from a short one myself a few days ago), I just thought i'd let you know that if you still haven't replied to me at the FAC in a day or so I will put a large disclaimer after your comments letting the FAC co-ordinator's know the reason you have not replied is presumably because you have not logged in. I will be doing this as nobody new has reviewed the article since you edited it, and the nomination is now more than half-way down the 'Older nominations' list and liable to be closed in the not too distant future. If you log in before the FAC is closed please feel free to remove the disclaimer. I have long responded to all your concerns so if you do log in all I need you to do is check whether my actions taken are adequate and either support the nomination or let me know what I would need to do to get your support. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 01:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

Disambiguation link notification for January 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited St. Elmo (1914 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Fox. 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) 09:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The Queen of Sheba
Hi, the film is based on a story by Virginia Tracy, who had been a Broadway actress and mostly a writer/journalist. A picture of Tracy as a young woman appears in Daniel Blum's "A Pictorial History of the American Theatre 1860-1985" on page 32. By most accounts of the film she provided the story and J. Gordon Edwards fashioned a scenario or preparation to be filmed. Aside from the famous and at the time permissible nudity, the other interesting aspect of the film is a chariot race (?all-woman) supervised by Tom Mix(*see foreign release poster in External links) and this was 4 years before the famous chariot race in Ben-Hur. TQoS was one of two big Fox pictures released that year. The other was  A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court. Good luck on the expansion of Edward's filmography.Koplimek (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

St Elmo (1914)
Hello,

I have completed the review on the above DYK nomination. It has been approved as GTG.

Georgejdorner (talk) 17:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of St. Elmo (1914 film)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article St. Elmo (1914 film) 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 Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

St. Elmo from Thanhouser
St. Elmo (1910 Thanhouser film) is now created and hopefully useful to you. I've not found even a film still upon which to add to the article, but I did rule out two books which contained images from theater productions. Vitagraph will certainly be easier to do - since it has film stills and got a lot more attention. It is good to know that there is another silent-era film editor active on Wikipedia! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of St. Elmo (1914 film)
The article St. Elmo (1914 film) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:St. Elmo (1914 film) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 15:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of St. Elmo (1914 film)
The article St. Elmo (1914 film) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:St. Elmo (1914 film) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 04:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK for J. Gordon Edwards filmography
Harrias talk 03:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Incredible research, thank you. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 09:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Murder of Kylie Maybury
Could you give Murder of Kylie Maybury a quick once-over? Paul Austin (talk) 03:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Paul Benjamin Austin, first and foremost, I'll admit that I don't usually have much to do with this category of articles, so my interpretations of things like WP:CRIME may or may not be precisely in line with consensus elsewhere. Your mileage may vary. With that out of the way...
 * I'm not at all sure that the sources presented are sufficient to make this notable. There's considerable disagreement over when crimes such as kidnappings and murders are WP:ROUTINE (even given media coverage), and when they are notable. Here, the sources are entirely local to south-east Australia, and that's one of the yardsticks I use to make the distinction. Please note that although the article currently cites a Perth paper (national coverage is more likely to indicate notability than local/regional coverage), the Keith Moor article in The Sunday Times is merely a republication of this article in the Herald Sun.
 * Notability aside, sourcing could be (and to some extent needs to be) better. I'm not wholly convinced that gmct.au is a reliable source, but in any case, the raw external link used as the source for Maybury's last name doesn't link to a page supporting that information whatsoever. Also, for BLP compliance, the claims about Robert Arthur Selby Lowe require a direct supporting citation to a reliable source (and that citation needs to immediately follow the BLP-relevant claims). Beyond that, I'm not at all familiar with the quality of reportage in Australia, but I'm inclined to be suspicious of the Herald Sun (as a tabloid-format News Corp product; I certainly wouldn't consider the British equivalent to be sufficient for carrying the sourcing of this sort of content).
 * It's fairly far down the list of concerns with the article, but the wording could be tightened up regarding tone. There's some hints of sensationalism that creep in. The cause of death is "suffocation", for example. Although the article tells us the circumstances involved, there's no real reason to infobox it as "suffocation while being raped". I'm not sure it's necessary to describe her bag as a "little girl's handbag" (emphasis mine). And so on. There's some structural issues, too, like the way information about Mark Maybury is presented, but, again, we're pretty deep into minor concerns at this point.
 * In any case, while I wouldn't likely take the initiative to take this to AFD (where it would be a messy brawl between people who read WP:GNG strictly and people who have WP:ROUTINE issues with crime articles), I'm not sure the sources here demonstrate notability. I am sure that the sourcing of the article needs to be improved, especially regarding BLP compliance concerns. And I think it could do with a rewrite after more/better sources are harnassed (assuming they exist). Sorry if this wasn't a particularly "quick" once-over, but I hope it was helpful. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Squeamish Ossifrage

Paul Austin (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's fine. The raw external link to the Fawkner Cemetery search is simply because there is no direct link to their record on Kylie's internment. The actual record gives her full name.
 * I described it as Little girl's handbag, because "handbag" by itself is usually used to indicate the type used by adult women.
 * "suffocation" vs "asphyxiation" was just "tom-ate-oh" vs. "tom-art-oh" when i wrote it.
 * As seen in the 30th anniversary article, Kylie's rape and murder made the front page when it happened, even pushing Ronald dickhead Reagan's election win off to the side. It's made news often since, particularly in the 1990s when the police were pursuing Robert Lowe.
 * It is not my fault that The Age (the former broadsheet, now "compact") did not care enough about Kylie Maybury to write a 30th anniversary article. Sometimes you have to work with what you have.

DYK for Frank Erlanger
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK for St. Elmo (1914 film)
Harrias talk 13:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/1937 Fox vault fire at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with db-g7, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 05:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK for 1937 Fox vault fire
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=645946942 your edit] to Fox Film may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"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:


 * | subsid = Fox-Case Corporation

Fox Movietone Corporation It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

A Coda for a Hoax
Euronetpol has been immortalized here. — Noah  22:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Georges Méliès
Hello! Since you're a member of the Silent Films task force, I thought you might be interested in joining a discussion about Georges Méliès and how best to cover his pioneering films on Wikipedia. I've started the discussion here: Talk:Georges Méliès filmography

I'd greatly appreciate your thoughts and advice!--Lemuellio (talk) 00:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

J. Gordon Edwards filmography
I resolved all the comments that I made and added my support. In the meantime, there is an article (Temperatures Rising) that I reworked a few months ago and am trying to bring it up to Good Article status. Care to take a look at it and over any suggestion. (Initially I tried for Featured Article but it did not pass.) Jimknut (talk) 22:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Fairbanks bio
Thanks again for the help on Temperatures Rising. FYO, there is a new biography of Douglas Fairbanks slated for publication by Chicago Press in October. I've met the author, Tracey Goessel, several times and her knowledge of Doug is quite impressive. Jimknut (talk) 02:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1937 Fox vault fire
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1937 Fox vault fire 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 Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 13:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1937 Fox vault fire
The article 1937 Fox vault fire you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:1937 Fox vault fire for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Temperatures Rising
Hi. I have read your comments regarding Temperatures Rising and I am currently reworking the article. Unfortunately there is one rather large problem that I encountered regarding this: "The TV Guide links to specific episodes don't seem to be working (at least for me). I get only a generic, mostly-uninformative page for the series in general. Perhaps the website has been restructured since last June?" From the looks of it, yes (damn them!), TV Guide did indeed restructure its webpage and now my links are worthless. My reason for putting the plot descriptions for some of the episodes is so that anyone reading the article will get a rough idea of what the series is like. I think this is needed since the series is not being shown in syndication and has never been made available on DVD. TV Guide's online listings did indeed provide me with the necessary information but now that they've been removed I will have to find alternate sources. The Library of Congress and the UCLA Film Archives have prints of all of the series' episodes but their online catalogs only list the episode titles and but not the casts and story lines. I know that using IMDb is regarded by Wikipedia as being unreliable (and likewise, IMDb regards Wikipedia as being unreliable). What about these sites: The Classic TV Archive and epguides: Temperatures Rising? I'm reluctant to use them because I have a feeling that they will be tossed off as being unreliable as well and I don't want to waste time. If I can't use them the only alternative is to find old newspaper articles with the relevant information. That might take time because doing an online newspaper search for "Temperatures Rising" will bring up hundreds of weather reports only with articles about the series. Any suggestions will be most appreciated. Jimknut (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, if that winds up being the outstanding problem at this stage, it's not a problem, because the GA criteria don't consider dead links to be an obstacle to promotion (GA criteria are weird...). Obviously, if you're aiming for FA, it's a problem. Unfortunately, RSN's determination has been that neither epguides nor ctva are reliable sources. Have you checked to see whether the Internet Archive managed to snag your original source pages? Sometimes you get lucky with these. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Complete citations are okay even for dead links - but it is a bit picky. It is an interesting case, but it has come up a couple of times. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's a strange one for you: Those TV Guide links are working again! Jimknut (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Archive them to protect them. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

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)

DYK for Life's Shop Window
&mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 00:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Tower House
Do you have any intention of retracting your oppose once all of your points have been addressed? It's rare that editors will agree on every point but a significant effort has been made here to address them. It would be good to reach a point where you are satisfied with the article, they don't have to be perfect, whether FAs should be professional or of a high standard or not.♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, absolutely. Actually, I probably need to cull resolved issues to the talk page per recommendations. Obviously, some of my concerns are more significant than others. As the big ones go away, my view with regard to promotion obviously improves. At this point, I'm most concerned about some of the reference issues (because I spend a good bit of my time being a reference-section pedant) and the furniture capitalization issue, as it's very inconsistent. At the current rate, all the copyediting-level comments should be dealt with before the weekend! Not only would I like the article to pass, I'd like it to be the best that it can be. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld  22:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)