User talk:William Saturn/2013

Fort Hood terrorist attack listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fort Hood terrorist attack. Since you had some involvement with the Fort Hood terrorist attack redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). NW ( Talk ) 04:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Our Campaigns

 * You seem like the fellow to ask about this. I have been trying to get into contact with the head of the Our Campaigns website, so that he may help me figure out how to access data for Presidential Primaries from 1948 to their beginning. However, I cannot find any such information, even a site email, and despite having created an account to possibly bring this up on-site, I do not see any log in feature despite it being mentioned. Do you have any aids, any recommendations, on what I might do? --Ariostos (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Send me an e-mail and I'll provide contact information for someone that may be able to help.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Someone on another forum actually showed me a way to access the information I need. Still requires a bit of digging, but at least its reachable now. Currently have placed all the data they had for the 1932 and 1920 Primaries into Excel, and working my way through the others. --Ariostos (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear. Have fun.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Some of the data that I entered has been removed on account of it having come from "Our Campaigns"; it was really only limited to a single line, but I don't really feel comfortable adding data for the other primaries if there is a chance they might be stripped in their entirety. Basically, it came down to the idea that "Our Campaigns" doesn't count as a usable source, yet I see it cited everywhere. Not sure how to proceed. (Note: Added to 1976, 1980, and 1984 Dem Pres-Primaries, if you need to look at each case specifically) --Ariostos (talk) 04:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could use the Google news archive to find some of the results.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:25, 5 February 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) 00:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Aransas Bay


Hello William S. Saturn
 * Are you the one who originated this particular graphic? If so, may I make one suggestion for improvement: In the legend, have the color match the word. The word RED should be red, the word BLUE should be blue, etc. When you get into these situations with seven or eight different shades, it's an easy quick reference for color-challenged individuals (or even the occasional non-native English reader). I haven't run a test, to see how that would look (because I don't know how to do that) but I imagine that it shouldn't look too garish. For what it's worth...Gulbenk (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I made the above map in January 2010. I updated to the below map in August 2010, but for some reason I never added it to the article. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)




 * Yes, a nice update to the original graphic. Thanks for adding that to the article. Gulbenk (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Data Entry Regarding Presidential Elections

 * I've come across a series of books known as the "History of Presidential Elections, IBSN: 07-079786-2, which has proven to be quite informative, with plenty of sources within its index to back up its claims. Unfortunately, it only goes up to 1968, having been printed in 1971, but it does contain detailed information from then back. I was curious, provided I gave proper referencing, if it would be proper to take information from the book in bulk, and to fill areas which are lacking. I could paraphrase such passages to point, but I am worried I would end up leaving out information that could otherwise be gained. Thoughts? --Ariostos (talk) 01:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. I don't see anything wrong with doing that. Just be sure to cite it.--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:41, 28 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) 11:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment
Hey William S. Saturn; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding House Elections

 * I realize you might not be the proper person to ask this of, but I'm not really sure who else to ask, and figured you might be able to point me in the right direction. Now, I just worked out the totals for the 1912 House Elections, but I am not sure how best to represent the At-Large Districts, in which a single voter votes typically for as many candidates as there are seats. For example, in Pennsylvania, this would add up to 2.5 Million votes for the Republicans, out of their total 9.4 Million; it begins to really throw off the numbers. Should I simply only include the highest vote result for the Party? --Ariostos (talk) 19:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you send me a link to the page? --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This is the page I was talking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1912
 * Now, if you are talking about the source, most of them come from the "Our Campaigns" website. However, I came across the book they listed as a data-source (United States Congressional Elections, 1788-1997, by Michael J. Durbin) and it is legitimate. Data on the sight was the same as printed in the book. --Ariostos (talk) 03:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay. I think I understand the issue now. It would be ideal to remain uniform with all the states, but where multiple votes are cast perhaps you could divide the total votes for each party by the number of seats. I'd think that would be the only way to maintain the "one man, one vote" accuracy for the purposes of the overall chart. Of course, this may leave a decimal and so you must include a note explaining the existence of the At-Large Districts to help readers understand the numbers. I hope this helps and that I understood the issue correctly.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright, this is a different topic, but largely related. A lot of major politicos in the House, specifically men like Vito Marcantonio, Paul Kvale, even Speaker William Bankhead are not supplied with images, which in turn I think brings down the entire presentation of those pages given they are meant to be displayed in the infobox. I though about turning to the Congressional Portraits, but apparently those are no longer acceptable for Wikipedia or the Commons. Any ideas?
 * I see that Marcantonio has a fair use image used. If there is no free equivalent, you can upload "historic photos" for individuals no longer alive under fair use, though they may only be used on the bio page. Some older images may be public domain. See if they fall under any of the criteria listed on this chart. If a particular Congressman is still alive you can request that one of the photographers here or at Commons that lives near the Congressman try to take a picture or you may be able to contact the Congressman himself and ask if he'd agree to a Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike license for an image. Another way would be to find the photographer if they are still alive and ask if they'd agree to the Creative Commons license.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

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) 22:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Files missing description details
Dear uploader: The media files you uploaded as: are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.
 * File:Hubert Humphrey (presidential campaign logo, 1968).jpg
 * File:Humphrey Muskie.jpg
 * File:Nixon-Agnew logo.jpg

If the information is not provided, the images may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 01:02, 13 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) 16:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Green Lake (Texas), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guadalupe River (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) 00:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Duncan Hunter presidential campaign, 2008, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mesa College (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) 14:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Shading Without Party Template

 * I was wondering if you knew how to do this, given I can't find any such information in the Help or elsewhere. Basically for the '96 Reform Presidential Primary I'm creating a table for the state by state results, and since they were all at once I am doing it in the style as is present on the 2012 and 2008 Presidential election pages. However, I can't for the life of me figure out how to shade the rows without using the "Party Shading" templates. Do you know any other methods? --Ariostos (talk) 14:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. Instead of party shading, you can replace |- with |-style="background:#FFE153"
 * The formulas for different colors are located on the third column at List of colors: A-M and List of colors: N-Z.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

RSN comment
Hi. If it's not any inconvenience, could you comment at this RSN post? It seems I'm getting feedback from editors who've significantly cited the source in their edits to articles, and I'd like a less partial opinion. Dan56 (talk) 14:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=561477839 your edit] to Democratic Party presidential candidates, 2012 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) 07:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Khadajah M. Jacob-Fambro FEC filing

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) 10:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Dcheagle  &bull; talk &bull; contribs 23:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Dcheagle  &bull; talk &bull; contribs 01:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gene Amondson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Election Day (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) 12:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: Input Requested
Hi there. Re your request to comment at Featured article candidates/Thaddeus McCotter presidential campaign, 2012/archive2, I have an idiosyncratic position on this: I just don't think the topic is important enough to warrant featured article status. Article, sure, and GA article, fine, but FA no. I'm pretty sure that no one agrees with me on this; the one time I gave this view at an FAC - see Featured article candidates/Michael Tritter - it was disregarded. But it's the way I feel. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem to consider importance as a completely subjective standard. But WP uses WP:NOTABILITY to make that determination.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing that. I'm saying that FA articles are supposed to be the best that WP can offer, and to me, that means the subject has to be of some importance.  Yes, Thad McCotter's presidential campaign passes our notability screen, but it's of absolutely no importance – it had no impact on the race or anything else, and if he hadn't run, nothing in the country or world would be any different.  Too many editors (including me at times!) focus on shorter, obscure topics, because those are easier articles to write than broad, well-known topics – look at the article ratings in WP:CORE for example of how some vital articles have poor class ratings.  So anyway, that's my take on it.  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As you know, the big articles are battlefields. I wouldn't even touch Barack Obama to fix a minor grammar error. Even Rudy Giuliani presidential campaign, 2008 became too difficult to edit, two years after the campaign had already ended. That might be a reason I shifted from the mainstream. I believe I can add better value to articles on alternative candidates. They too have stories to tell. The Thaddeus McCotter presidential campaign of 2012 may not have gone anywhere, but it gave us a comical story of failure: A U.S. Congressman tries to run for president as a rock'n'roll candidate, but he can't even make it into the debates. Despite all the signs that he shouldn't run in the first place (the two votes in the New Orleans Conference Straw Poll), he runs anyway, and fails miserably at Ames. Then, when the campaign finally ends, he writes a raunchy television pilot script as an escape while his campaign staffers commit petition fraud, which eventually forces him to resign from Congress. Where else can you get such a story? I see no reason why this does not deserve to be highlighted as much as articles on mainstream politicians and campaigns. It may not be as important, but you certainly will learn something from it.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You half convinced me, which is why I started making comments at FAC, but I still hadn't decided whether to fully support it when I went away for a week and it got promoted during that time. Congrats on that.  And you are right that it is about as humorous an article as WP is allowed to get.  Wasted Time R (talk) 10:58, 30 August 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) 23:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:FOUR RFC
There are two WP:RFCs at WP:FOUR. The first is to conflate issues so as to keep people from expressing meaningful opinions. The second, by me, is claimed to be less than neutral by proponents of the first. Please look at the second one, which I think is much better.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:FOUR for Thaddeus McCotter presidential campaign, 2012

 * Thank you. I appreciate the quick recognition.<--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:45, 25 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) 05:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

re: McCotter
Congrats! Yea, I actually have an FAC up right now on Hurricane Diane. It's pretty light on the reviewers right now, so any input would be great. BTW, I see you do a lot of political articles. Are you by chance on Atlas political forum? --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at the Hurricane article this weekend. I've never heard of the Atlas political forum.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Virginia 2013 Gubernatorial

 * There is a minor dispute over whether the Libertarian candidate, Robert Sarvis, should be displayed in the Infobox even if he is polling beyond the 5% barometer. The opponents are asking whether there is something in fine print referring this as official policy, even in the case of final election results. --Ariostos (talk) 00:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 September newsletter
In 30 days, we will know the identity of our 2013 WikiCup champion. currently leads; if that lead is held, she will become the first person to have won the WikiCup twice. , —who has never participated in the competition before—and follow. The majority of points in this round have come from a mix of good articles and bonus points. This final round is seeing contributions to a number of highly important topics; recent submissions include Phoenix (constellation) (FA by Casliber), Ernest Lawrence (GA by Hawkeye7), Pinniped, and red fox (both GAs by Sasata).

The did you know (DYK) eligibility criteria have recently changed, meaning that newly passed good articles are accepted as "new" for did you know purposes. However, in the interests of not changing the WikiCup rules mid-competition, please note that only articles eligible for DYK under the old system (that is, newly created articles or 5x expansions) will be eligible for points in this year's WikiCup. We do, however, have time to discuss how this new system will work for next year's competition; a discussion will be opened in due course. On that note, thoughts are welcome on changes you'd like to see for next year. What worked? What didn't work? What would you like to see more of? What would you like to see less of? All Wikipedians, new or old, are also warmly invited to sign up for the 2014 WikiCup.

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) 23:14, 1 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 20:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)''

WikiCup 2013 October newsletter
The WikiCup is over for another year! Our champion, for the second year running, is. Our final nine were as follows:

All those who reached the final win prizes, and prizes will also be going to the following participants:


 * wins the FA prize, for four featured articles in round 4, worth 400 points.
 * wins the GA prize, for 20 good articles in round 3, worth 600 points.
 * wins the FL prize, for four featured lists in round 2, worth 180 points.
 * wins the FP prize, for 23 featured pictures in round 5, worth 805 point.
 * wins the FPo prize, for 2 featured portals in round 3, worth 70 points.
 * wins the topic prize, for a 23-article featured topic in round 5, worth 230 points.
 * wins the DYK prize, for 79 did you know articles in round 5, worth 570 points.
 * wins the ITN prize, for 23 in the news articles in round 4, worth 270 points.
 * wins the GAR prize, for 24 good article reviews in round 1, worth 96 points.
 * The judges are awarding the Oddball Barnstar to, for some curious contributions in earlier rounds.
 * Finally, the judges are awarding the Geography Barnstar for her work on sea, now a featured article. This top-importance article was the highest-scoring this year; when it was promoted to FA status, Cwmhiraeth could claim 720 points.

Prizes will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!

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 achieved this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition. While it has been an excellent year, errors have opened up the judges' eyes to the need for a third judge, and it is with pleasure that we announce that experienced WikiCup participant Miyagawa will be acting as a judge from now on. We hope you will all join us in welcoming him to the team.

Next year's competition begins on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; it is open to all Wikipedians, new and old. Brainstorming and discussion remains open for how next year's competition will work, and straw polls will be opened by the judges soon. Those interested in friendly competition may also like to keep an eye on the stub contest, being organised by Casliber. 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. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

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 14:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Amondson campaign.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Amondson campaign.jpg, which you've attributed to Prohibition Party. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)