Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2009/5

Jumps
User:Garden/WikiCup/Jumps Something's goofy about the numbers this week. Durova Charge! 22:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I am not a participant in the WikiCup, but I did notice some errors. In the 'Biggest Jumps' section in the newsletter, 3 out of 10 are wrong. It says Climie.ca jumped 503 points, when it was only a jump of 100. It also says Durova jumped 462 points, but it was only 212 (ha, only :) ). The last one is Spencer, who it says jumped 188 points, when it was only 88. Just a head's up. Thanks,  Little  Mountain  5   22:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoops, it looks like I got beat :P  Little  Mountain  5   22:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup, we've all been discussing the issue on the IRC channel. At first, it was suggested that it was because it wasn't updated last week, but even that doesn't account for it. J Milburn (talk) 22:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Four - mine are wrong, too. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Safe to say we've screwed up pretty bad. You could probably safely ignore the newsletter this week - unless you guys want another issuing? I reckon it's to do with the fact that the Jumps page - which I don't use - was used by THO, meaning the numbers are almost a month out. GARDEN 22:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The scores should probably be updated (it hasn't been updated in about 30 hours) before we jump to any conclusions. Gary King  ( talk ) 22:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Latest newsletter
Am I mistaken or is Paxse, from Pool J, left out of this issue? Useight (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait, how is Catalan in the top 2 of pool A and the wildcards?  Spencer T♦C 02:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Fail (a rather epic one)
I'm sure most of you know, but this newsletter has a lot of mistakes. If you'd like the newsletter to be re-sent to you, feel free to sign here and let us know, and we can send you a new one that is all fixed up.  iMatthew //  talk  // 02:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Useight (talk) 02:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Sure :) — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  02:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) It's okay, but I would still like a corrected one.  Spencer T♦C 03:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) What Spencer said.-- King Bedford I Seek his grace  03:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Epic fail indeed. –Juliancolton Tropical  Cyclone  05:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Thank you for your careful attention.  Nobody bats 1.000.  Durova Charge! 09:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Yes, please - I need to know I exist! Paxse (talk) 13:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Yes please - I like to know I can trust what I read (that's why an encyclopedia anyone can edit is my primary reference point) Den dodge  Talk Contribs 22:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Yes please, the fixed newsletter reads better from my POV. Rambo's Revenge  (talk)  22:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Meeee. (I'm assuming you're gonna keep this list for any potential future cockups? ;) J Milburn (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Trout
trout for bad grammar: "...not far off from 100 GA's..." –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  22:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ... GARDEN  22:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Was THO. XD  iMatthew //  talk  // 22:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Even though the judges don't always get it perfect (who does?), the WikiCup is a lot of fun and good for the site and most of the time it runs quite well. Thank you very much for your hard work.
 * 1)  Durova Charge! 16:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Endorsed - can't believe I'm still in the top thirty though!  Were  Spiel  Chequers  16:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Definitely.  Spencer T♦C 21:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Yay. Thankyou for the motivation to do something a little more constructive on here. J Milburn (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Agreed. Useight (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Totally agreed with Durova. Thanks, guys - you are appreciated. — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  02:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) The Cup is an absolutely wonderful idea - thanks Garden, iMatthew, THO Paxse (talk) 15:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank everyone, and while you're thanking us, don't you dare forget ST47, without whom you'd see updates once a week, or even less frequently. XD  iMatthew //  talk  // 22:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Shit, I did forget, thanks ST47, amazing job on the bot works like a charm - though all the news from the updates is bad for me lately! Paxse (talk) 09:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry about that. Almost. But I've almost caught up to Matthewedwards. Useight (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but from my perspective you five are in a dustcloud so far in the distance its hard to tell you apart. But I'm back from holiday and to my amazement I'm still in the top thirty, so all six of us in group J could still get through!  Were Spiel  Chequers  17:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Woah, I just realized that the top three wildcards all come from Pool J. But, as long as you don't let two people slip past you, you'll be fine. The most likely candidates would probably be Wrestlinglover (82 points), Howard the Duck (82 points), and Dendodge (78 points). Which gives me an idea for the newsletter. As per March Madness style, perhaps the newsletter could include a few individuals who are "on the bubble", people who haven't quite cracked into the top 10 Wildcards, but are close. This, in theory, would provide them with some extra motivation to create content, knowing they are right on the cusp, rather than not seeing their name and thinking they're out of it. Useight (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Durova's handicap
Is this not being applied? Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 23:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed it is not. Useight (talk) 23:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Fwiw, with handicap I have 726 points and am in fourth place. It doesn't seem likely to affect any of the wild cards, but haven't followed all the details of the judges' changes to the scoring/advancement.  Durova Charge! 05:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I figure that by June, every image and sound in the world will already be at featured status, so Durova will have nothing left to promote. ;/ Ottava Rima (talk) 05:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually there's a growing backlog. If you'd like to learn restoration, Ottava, I'd be glad to get you going and hand you a good starter project.  (Rushing back to the image processing software to touch up John Paul Jones before the other FPC regulars slaughter me).  Best,  Durova Charge! 05:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I try to avoid computers as much as possible. I tend to also use paper to put together what I will write and do a lot off Wiki. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * JPJ, lol ;P.  Spencer T♦C 21:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The revolutionary hero (or pirate, depending on your POV), dangit, not the bass player. ;) Durova Charge! 01:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, the reason I ask was simply that I thought the bot had been reprogrammed to deal with it already. *shrug* If it's easier to apply it at the end of the round, that's good too. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 06:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Question
Right now, the bot's not running. I don't know why, but I'm trying to catch ST47 on IRC. Anyway - I don't know if you guys know, but the bot also updates User:Garden/WikiCup/2009/Full <-- a full list of the contestants and their scores. I think this could be included in the newsletter, but I was just wondering, which would you like in the newsletter more...The Jumps? or the Top 10 Contestants?

I'd personally prefer the top 10's, but lets see what you guys think.  iMatthew //  talk  // 13:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The Jumps makes it more interesting ;) - Mitch 32 ( Go Syracuse ) 15:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The Jumps make it more interesting - but the top 10 would probably be more useful so you know who is going through to the next round? The  Helpful  One  15:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

If by "top ten", you mean wildcards, then wildcards. If by top ten, you mean "overall top ten", I have no opinion either way. J Milburn (talk) 17:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Move to Wikipedia space?
I'd like to see this all move to Wikipedia space. I'm sure Garden wouldn't mind having more than half of his userspace cleaned out. This content-drive (in a competition form) has proven to be very successful, seeing the amount of content formed from our contestants. It may be challenged, but I believe it's worth a shot, because it's no longer become a quiet userspace "contest" (thanks to all of you).

What do you guys think about moving it?  iMatthew //  talk  // 14:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree :) - It has become such a strong project. Mitch 32 ( Go Syracuse ) 15:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with this also, so many people working hard to win the Cup! :) The  Helpful  One  15:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * IAR FTW! — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  15:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It beats most of the essays out there. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, move it. Fine by me. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 16:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure.  Spencer T♦C 17:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

OMFGWTFYOUDOING... but no, I don't mind. :)  GARDEN  22:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Logo question
For the WC logo with the flags and trophy, wasn't it supposed to make the flags of nations that withdrew/were eliminated lighter?  Spencer T♦ Nominate! 19:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It already has- fourth from the left top row, fourth from the left bottom row and third from the bottom on the far right have all been made lighter. I've only just noticed that- that's some clever coding... J Milburn (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh I think I see know...I guess I was expecting something a little more drastic, like almost transparent or something.  Spencer T♦ Nominate! 20:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Would it be possible to superimpose a big red cross? Den dodge  Talk Contribs 22:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, because your flag is a big red cross... Spencer T♦ Nominate! 20:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the fading out is good enough. It will probably look better when more people are out of the competition, making the remaining flags stand out even more. J Milburn (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll happily make the difference more noticeable... GARDEN  20:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawal
I'm calling it quits. I pretty much have no chance of moving on IMO in my pool. It was fun, I'll give you that. :-) Sam  Blab 20:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Aww. Well thanks for playing. It is fun, huh? :D Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Newsletter delay
Hey everyone, the newsletter is going to be a little late this week. I started working on it this morning, but got a call to go to today's New York Islanders game (which they won 3-2, good game!) Anyway, Garden and THO didn't seem to be around to finish it today, so I'll have to pick it up again and hopefully have it delivered tomorrow. Sorry for any inconvenience. ;)  iMatthew //  talk  // 23:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I've got very little time this week, so unless one of the other judges pick it up, there won't be one until next week. Sorry everyone,  iMatthew //  talk  // 18:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Calm down, iMatthew. We are not going to break out the pitchforks and march on your home with the intent to lynch you. :) I'm sure that we will all live without a newsletter for one week! — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  19:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, Ed. Matthew accepted a bribe from me under the table.  Three more of my featured picture candidates got promoted overnight, so the newsletter is delayed just long enough for the next bot update. ;)  Durova Charge! 19:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * On second thought: who wants to get the pitchforks and march on Durova's house? All in favor, say "aye". :P — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  19:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * /me runs and hides... ;) Durova Charge! 19:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ironically, I think I may still have a bigger jump than Durova in the end. =) I had a lot of sounds finally pass this week. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry I'm not around to help you, Matt - I'll get it next week, kay? :) GARDEN  21:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Tweak to submission criteria
Currently the submission criteria says "media raised to any other status (featured or good) must have also been nominated and passed/promoted during the individual round." For future rounds, I don't think a requirement of having to be nominated within that round is a good idea. This would effectively mean anything nominated for featured status within the last week of March would be ineligible for both rounds, as it would be nominated in one and passed in the other. If the criteria are kept like this it could cause a dip (late March) and then a spike (early April) in featured content nominations which would not be good for reviewers (of FLC and FAC especially). I suggest that content just has to be promoted within the round to be eligible. Rambo's Revenge</b> <b style="color:#FFA500;">(talk)</b>  10:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ...that's already the case. If you nominated something after January 1st 2009, it counts for any (not all, just the round it is passed in) round in the rest of this competition. ;)  iMatthew //  talk  // 10:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You might want to tweak the wording at WikiCup/Submissions which currently says nominated & promoted "during the individual round". <b style="color:#E32636;">Rambo's Revenge</b> <b style="color:#FFA500;">(talk)</b>  10:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Done, a little.  GARDEN  21:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup/2009/Full link
On the score page, there is already a link to the full list of contestants, but a link to WikiCup/2009/Full would also be nice. I'd add it myself, but I'd be scared of screwing up the bot. J Milburn (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No updates since 3 days
ST47 hasn't updated the score since 3 days ? -- <em style="font-family:Kristen ITC;color:#ff0000"> Tinu  <em style="font-family:Kristen ITC;color:#ff0000">Cherian  - 07:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Finally :) ! -- <em style="font-family:Kristen ITC;color:#ff0000"> Tinu  <em style="font-family:Kristen ITC;color:#ff0000">Cherian  - 10:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Note to judges
I'm doing the newsletter this week. Ping me on Sunday night (preferably after 5 and before 10 UTC) and I'll get to't. Ta. GARDEN 23:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

End date of Round One
Will be March 27th, 2009. We need time to put everything together and make sure all is ready for round two, which will begin on April 1st (and that wouldn't be a joke :D). Thanks,  iMatthew //  talk  // 20:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Do we know the setup of Round 2? Will it be like User_talk:Garden/WikiCup/Archive/2009/4 as proposed?  Spencer T♦ Nominate! 02:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, What time on the 27th will this round end?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  00:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 23:59 (UTC)  iMatthew //  talk  // 00:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, might still pull off 31st yet!  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  00:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

DYKs
must be written and nominated during the individual round. It's the 23rd of March now (or 24th depending on where you are) it takes a good five to eight days for DYKs to make their way from the top of the nominations page to the main page. I've been off wiki for a bit and now want to get back to DYK writing. Do I need to wait until after the 27th to start writing and nominating? Or can I claim credit for stuff that I write and nom now that appears on the main page after the 27th? Cheers, Paxse (talk) 16:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strike that, I've already worked it out by reading the last newsletter - the text on the submissions page does kinda say the opposite though. Paxse (talk) 17:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion
I'd like to suggest (for future WikiCups) that reviewing Good Articles nominations be considered for WikiCup points. There's always a backlog at GAC, and although the process doesn't directly generate new content, it helps existing content be improved, and improves Wikipedia. Personally, I find the reviews enjoyable to do, but they take 1–2 hours to do properly (well, for me at least), so I'll have to curtail this activity to be competitive in future rounds. If they were awarded even a nominal amount of points (5 or 10?) I would (and others, I imagine) be more inclined to contribute in this fashion. Enjoying the Cup so far! Cheers, Sasata (talk) 18:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, this could be done for the next round - not sure. Next time I catch Garden and THO on IRC, I'll ask them about it. I personally think that's a good idea. Glad to hear you're enjoying the Cup! :D  iMatthew //  talk  // 18:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm prone to think that that would invite sloppy GA reviews. Just my an' ma' pessimism but all the same...  GARDEN  22:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well Garden, it is our job to make sure the reviews are handled correctly if we take this on.  iMatthew //  talk  // 22:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I have to disagree. This is a content competition, and though GAC is important for content, it isn't direct, which is what we assign points for. In addition, some GA reviews are much easier than others...I've observed some nominations that have done extensive work, while others have just checked everything off because the article was so good. Also, I can't say I'd be thrilled with adding new things between rounds either.  Spencer T♦ Nominate! 00:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I had considered raising this issue before. However, it's a matter of where to draw the line- theoretically, everything we do here should be improving the encyclopedia in some way. Though I think more reviews are needed (also, at peer review, and, to a lesser extent, FAC/FAR) I don't think offering points here is the way to do it. J Milburn (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, essentially. Reluctantly I don't think this will work.   GARDEN  22:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, just thought I'd throw the idea out there. I can understand your POVs. Sasata (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm all for adding this in. Points for reviews would be great, and I don't even review GA nominations. This would also encourage people to review, and the backlog would be decreased at GAN. I think it should be more than 5 to 10 points though. Around 20 for the work you have to put in.-- Will C ---  Joe's gonna kill you!!! ) 22:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say that was far too many. I don't think it falls into the realms of this competition, which is about directly improving/creating content. Perhaps if this format works (which it seems to be) someone could knock up a similar competition to encourage reviews? J Milburn (talk) 22:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawal (2)
I would like to withdraw, please. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to talk to you first.  iMatthew //  talk  // 20:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No no, no talking! Shoe, take Durova, Gary, and Julian with you, please! Then I might have a chance!!! : D Ottava Rima (talk) 21:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've talked with iMatthew, and I'm willing to reenter, though I may end up dropping out later (for one thing, I'm busy for a big chunk of June). Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright. On a side, even if you do become inactive, there's not really much point in withdrawing.  If you do well enough to go through in that round you might be a little annoyed you're not in it any more.  GARDEN  20:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Confirming we've talked privately, and Shoemaker's Holiday - welcome back into the competition. :D  iMatthew //  talk  // 20:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll second that welcome back Shoe. We need you around, you really make all cup participants look better with all the featured content you've created in this round - 20 FP and 7 FS, great work. Paxse (talk) 00:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The tight races with two full days left
We currently have some tight spots, two days left. The only way I see pulling ahead at this point would be editing in the mainspace often over the next 48 hours (of course remembering to mark your minor edits appropriately). So those of you fighting for the final wildcard spot, keep working hard!

It's almost done everyone :D  iMatthew //  talk  // 00:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What does the wildcard look like right now? — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  18:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll try to write it down here, bear with me...


 * 1) Useight (658)
 * 2) Paxse (507)
 * 3) Rambo's Revenge (330)
 * 4) the_ed17 (329)
 * 5) J Milburn (300)
 * 6) Climie.ca (265)
 * 7) Catalan (256)
 * 8) Tinucherian (162)
 * 9) Wrestlinglover (161)
 * 10) Ottava Rima (160)
 * I've highlighted the pool leaders on WikiCup/2009/Full to make it easier to find the wildcards (first ten green ones). There are a few humorous statistics there.   GARDEN  19:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * However - the bot may or may not kill the highlights. Sorry :)  GARDEN  19:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Garden, that's fantastic- it would be great if the bot could be reprogrammed not to kill them, if it does. Something like that from the start of the wildcarding would have been good! J Milburn (talk) 20:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Haha, no worries. I agree that it perhaps should have been done a while ago, but you know.  If it does kill them I'll shove them back in again.  I think it updates it pretty shortly.   GARDEN  20:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

A question
(And it could be a stupid one.) Are points cumulative through the entire contest? That is, if I had 150 points at the end of Round 1 and I got through to Round 2, would my score return to 0 at the beginning of Round 2 or would I accumulate more points on top of my 150? Sorry if it's been answered somewhere else or if I'm just missing something! — 97198 (talk) 07:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

An answer
Nope, it goes back to 0 ever round. :)  iMatthew //  talk  // 10:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :) — 97198 (talk) 12:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and by the way, it wasn't a stupid question - I didn't know the answer to that :P GARDEN  18:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

PLEASE READ!
I'm extending the round to end tomorrow at 23:59 (UTC). Sorry for the inconvenience, but I will not be home for the next 18 hours or so, so I need some more time. Sorry again!  iMatthew //  talk  // 20:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * But, Thehelpfulone and I are at home? Meh, whatever.   GARDEN  21:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry Garden - I was just hoping we could all be around when the round closes?  iMatthew //  talk  // 12:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Another question
Will the bot be counting edits points in the "in-between" zone between the end of this round and the "official" start of the next one? Thanks Sasata (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't have thought so, since the round has ended, and the next one hasn't started. &mdash; neuro  (talk) (review) 16:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Shameless plug
There's a new page to assist editors get started with image restorations: Commons:Potential restorations. No guarantees regarding FPC reviewer tastes, of course, but it's likely quite a few featured pictures await there. All the best, Durova Charge! 18:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Final scores
It looks like a lot of the final scores for Round 1 have been messed up. Apparently I have 1180 points, mostly from a bunch of GAs, but I should have 700-800 points from a variety of featured content. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed.  iMatthew //  talk  // 19:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Submissions template
...is a bunch of double redirects. PXK   T  /C  20:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Substitution
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As one of WPs most prolific editors (see my user page header), I am surprised I was not invited to participate. Is it is because no one wanted to compete with the best? I contacted all three judges prior to the end of the first round to see if I could substitute for any of the withdrawn candidates. No ruling yet.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I doubt it's anything personal. – Juliancolton  | Talk 05:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah um. Wow. No offense, but you sound like an arrogant jerk here...
 * Second: no one replaces withdrawn candidates; this was decided very early on. Someone go search the archives please. :) Or is it in the FAQ? — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  05:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is in the FAQ, you may not replace a withdrawn competitor.  iMatthew //  talk  // 12:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This does indeed sound incredibly arrogant. If you wanted to join, you should have done it at the right time. This is not our fault. &mdash; neuro  (talk) (review) 16:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've already said no on his talk, for the record.  GARDEN  17:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

←Arrogant or not, I am by your scoring system one of the most prolific editors in the history of wikipedia. How does one get invited to this event. Look out for me in 2010. I have some suggestions to the 2010 scoring system. 1.)There should be points for WP:VPICS, and WP:TFAs. Also, your scoring system is a bit flawed, IMO.  By the current system  is likely one of the favorites.  He nominates a lot of other people's editorial work as well as his own for GAC.  He has probably produced the most successful GAs (even more than me) counting nomination of the work of others.  I would not enjoy competing in a competition where you could win by nominating other peoples' work.  The rules should do things like say an FP is 35 points (10 points for taking the picture, 15 for editing it, and 10 points for nominating it).  Similarly, if a GA is 30 points it should be (5 points for creating the page, 5 points for getting it past stub as acknowledged by a DYK, 10 points for being the leading editor (5 for second leading), and 10 points for nominating it at GAC successfully).  Getting full editorial credit for nominating someone else's work seems silly since this is an editorial contest. I will be involved in it in 2010 and hopefully convince you to change the rules. If not, I have several dozen Michigan athletics articles I would not mind investing time in to take to GA that have been produced by other editors. It just seems pointless, however.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I "USED" to nominate other people's work. If you check all 34 articles i submitted, all were me my work. And I haven't pulled that stunt in months. Mitch 32 ( Go Syracuse ) 01:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I would not classify nominating other people's work as a stunt. It is just less useful when the work is already pretty good.  I use to work a lot with  because we both liked University of Michigan athletics and his work was not up to snuff, IMO, at first.  Now, he produces a ton of great stuff, but does not nominate it for some reason.  Actually, he could win the tournament if he could convince himself to nominate his own work.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought you said they were all your own. The first one I checked was  which shows you have done 7 of the 57 edits.  I am not even going to continue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 09:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you look at those 7 edits, its because I rewrote the entire article in those 7 edits and got it to Good Article. Now stop bull****** me around. Mitch 32 ( Go Syracuse ) 13:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes you did. I apologize.  I remain bitterly jealous (almost to the point of insanity) that I can not compete however. I think I could take you this year, but next year I may be past my prime.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't recall this event being billed "invitation only" or "special invitations for a select few who rank above everybody else". I am fairly heavily involved in creating/updating/maintaining content and I did not receive an invitation to participate. This did not offend me. I simply applied at the appropriate time like I presume everybody else did. There is more than a hint of arrogance in suggesting that you will be involved in 2010 and will be attempting to overhaul the entire event. -- can  dle &bull; wicke  02:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow - Candlewicke said all of what I was thinking of saying. — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  03:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You would have had to find your way the page and add your name to the list of contestants many months ago, just like the rest of us. As for your splitting points for different parts of the GA work, I don't know if the bot could handle that. Also, if you think the purpose of the WikiCup is to find the "most prolific editors in the history of Wikipedia", you are sorely mistaken. We're trying to provide an extra motivation for people to create featured content. If you put off creating a GA until next year solely to save the points for the next competition, that is the complete opposite of the spirit of the WikiCup. And trying to overhaul the scoring system to match your editing style, trying to ensure that you are one of the "favorites", is not going to be a good idea, either. Useight (talk) 03:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger, get over yourself. Wikipedia is about improving content, not ego inflation. -- Scorpion <sup style="color:black;">0422  03:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How can I get over myself when I am this sexy. Look at me.  How long could you resist my animal magnetism (question only for the ladies)?  This is one sexy tiger, especially considering his age.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I found a better picture of me by google image searching myself. Look at my huge chest.  Ladies, doesn't it make you hungry for a big bowl of whatever I tell you to eat. Maybe it makes you fantasize about me screaming about my own wikipages and why "They're GGGGRRRREEEAAAATT!!!--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:OWN. The articles you've written may or may not be great, but they're not yours. Useight (talk) 15:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not arrogant to say I look forward to competing next year. Please learn the meaning of the word before using the same words everyone else is probably misusing. Most of you probably look forward to competing next year.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Since when on WP has it been considered arrogant to see problems with a system and mention that you may have a solution for it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am glad to see Mitch is really producing good stuff. I hope everyone is.  I apologize for filing a 2008 complaint in 2009.  As far as the fact that I have suggestions for improving the tournament, I was not aware that scoring was by bot.  That limits some precision.  Maybe the bot could check the edit count lists and see if someone was in the top 5 editors.  Who knows what bots will be able to do 10 months from now.  I know my only FP would not be one were it not for editorial assistance.  That is why I suggested a tripartite point system for FPs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This thing is going to grow like the world series of poker. Next year put an announcement in Signpost or something so that you don't have to be in a secret society to find out about it. It was not advertised on any of the shows I was watching:-!--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No one said anything about storing up points for next year. My Michigan strategy was just because Mitch and I have a little rivalry thing.  I was sending a message that I know where a hoard of acorns are for a forest of beautiful GA trees.  I claim to have produced the most GA on English WP.  He was about to overtake my total, when I noticed he was counting a whole bunch of stuff I don't count.  I am sure he will catch me some day because he seems to still be cranking out volumes of GAs.  However, I have started creating stubs more than I use to.  This started before I knew anything about the Cup.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, now we're getting somewhere. The top five editors idea might be feasible, and a message in the SignPost is not a bad idea, either. But saying "Is it is because no one wanted to compete with the best?" is arrogant; please don't patronize us by asking us to learn the meaning of words that all native English speakers know. Useight (talk) 15:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I will assume you understand the meaning of the word best. As the single most productive GA contributor on english WP, when it comes to editing I would assume you would agree I am probably one of the 60 best contributors on WP.  In fact, based on your scoring system, I am probably far higher than 60th on WP.  I would think invites should have gone out to me, WP:WBFAN/2008, WBFAN/2007, and WBFLN leaders, to name a few.  As far as top five editors, that is a rough thing of course.  I am a choppy editor.  I make lots of small changes and am too lazy to use the minor edit button.  My edit count would be higher than others who may contribute more substantially to some articles.  However, it is a better rough pass than just giving equal credit to all.  A bot could pretty easily identify the first editor, the leading editors in terms of edit count and maybe the promotion nominator.  There should also be a reviewer cup that runs like the editor cup that counts FAC, FLC, FPC, discussion page edit counts.  In fact, there is probably enough time to set up a 2009 reviewer cup starting May 1 or June 1.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * IMatthew sent over 50 messages to the top FA and FL contributors on December 23 informing them about the WikiCup. Next time, aim for the higher fruit, then you will get one. (And do you ever manage to say anything without referring to yourself as "one of the most prolific" or "the single most productive"? It's annoying as hell.) -- Scorpion <sup style="color:black;">0422  23:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes in addition to "one of the most prolific" and "the single most productive" I also refer to myself as "one of the sexiest" and "one of the smartest".--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as the higher fruit goes, I am one of the sexiest (you told me to use one of my alternate self-references and you have seen the pictures) researchers, I am merely an above average writer. I can take stuff to GA by myself.  My recent FA successes have all involved getting others interested in my work and helping me clean it up (see Saxbe fix and Richard Cordray).  It seems that invites should have also gone to WP:DYKLIST where my name is fairly prominent.  GA does not have a list system yet, so I am absent from such a list, since it does not exist.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright TTT, enough is enough. I'll have to insist you leave this talk page now. You are causing a normally calm and fun talk page to become full of drama and angry editors. I have doubts to whether we will even let you compete next year, due to your rude/obnoxious/unfriendly comments. Your ego is clearly huge, and that's just not welcome around editors that are trying to have a good time - there is no need whatsoever to make other editors feel unimportant. I send out messages to many people, and not sending you one was nothing personal, and if you were on the list, I have no idea as to why I didn't ask you to join in the first place. But enough is enough.  iMatthew //  talk  // 23:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I am the recipient of more of the rude comments than the sender. As far as the 2010 contest goes, it should be open to all, even those who might beat you.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Jesus christ, there is no conspiracy to keep you out of the competition (a lot of users weren't informed about the 2008 edition, but 99% of them didn't bitch and complain about it)! iMatthew was so desperate for possible entries that he messaged people he dislikes (ie. me). He probably just assumed that he asked most of the very active users and didn't think twice. -- Scorpion <sup style="color:black;">0422  00:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ...I love you Scorpion0422!  iMatthew //  talk  // 00:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

For the next round
I've gotten countless complaints of others not marking edits as minor appropriately. I simply can't come up with a good solution to fix this, other than moving the decimal back again to 0.01 for regular edits, and 0.001 for minor edits. Or just remove mainspace points all the time. Many people are also getting by on mainly editing mainspace while others are working hard on getting content featured. I've run out of ideas. What are your opinions?  iMatthew //  talk  // 14:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No edits should count. Its getting out of hand, see the Cup points - many have built up on edits rather than content. I believe content should be all that counts. Mainspace edits are NOT important to me, especially that when I write articles, I try my best to consolidate edits. Also the reason I have only 24,400 edits is because of that. Mitch 32 ( Go Syracuse ) 15:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You bring up a good point, being that most content editors normally try to consolidate their edits to articles they work on. I don't see that the content editors would be as mad about removing them as others would. Like I've said in every other thread about this, I'd like to see them removed - but many are opposed to it.  iMatthew //  talk  // 15:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not just make all edits worth 0.1 points? All mainspace contributions are beneficial, be it fixing a minor typo or rewriting an entire page. – Juliancolton  | Talk 15:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It still has the chance that people will abuse them, no matter their worth. That's been the major problem. Mitch 32 ( Go Syracuse ) 15:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * But if they're all worth X points, we eliminate the risk of people marking minor edits as major, so the potential for abuse goes down. – Juliancolton  | Talk 15:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand where I am coming from. No matter the type or its worth, there's still the chance people will abuse them by racking up points like nuts. Content building =/= to the edits it makes. Content is content. Edits are edits. We should limit points to the content contributions (Featured, Good, DYK, and ITN). Mitch 32 ( Go Syracuse ) 15:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Copyediting an article is just as important as uploading an FP or writing a DYK in my opinion. The path to FA/GA necessitates a complex network of contributions, from adding content to fixing cosmetic issues such as MoS breaches. If we were to exclude recognition of the aforementioned contributions, we would be left with what is essentially a race to gather as many and  as possible, which undermines the whole purpose of a content-building competition. –  Juliancolton  | Talk 15:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Copyediting is the benefit of proofreading an article in the path to make an article to the content contributions we mention. I am sorry but we have to look into what's more important. People just editing like normal or People showing what Wikipedia is REALLY about. We have to think what is best for the competition, not for ourselves. Mitch 32 ( Go Syracuse ) 15:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Precisely; Wikipedia isn't about working towards getting an FA star or a GA button. It's about collaborating on a page until it hits FA or GA, and—as I said—by removing mainspace points, we encourage the exact opposite of what we should be encouraging. – Juliancolton  | Talk 15:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We're encouraging better content. We are not encouraging edits en masse. Think about how much smoother and more dead heat Round 2 would be without MNSP edits. Mitch 32 ( Go Syracuse ) 15:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, we're not encouraging better content, we're encouraging unacceptable behavior at places like FAC and GAN. The Award Center was deleted for these reasons. – Juliancolton  | Talk 15:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, if you move back the points to 0.01 and 0.001, it will make no difference in terms of people marking their edits minor...  jj137 (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no automatic minor bot - things would be much better if it existed. However, it doesn't, and JJ is right, its not going to change personal decisions. Mitch 32 ( Go Syracuse ) 15:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, which is why I'd like the removed completely. Julian - it's not fair for someone to get points for fixing the spelling error of "Presedint" on 100 pages while somebody else gets the same amount of points for copyediting 100 pages top to bottom.  iMatthew //  talk  // 15:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. A widely-misspelled word gives Wikipedia an unprofessional reputation. – Juliancolton  | Talk 15:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I second that. Precisely correct. Also, there are no precise guidelines for minor edits, as that would be pretty hard to do. But yes, I do see your point Matthew.  jj137 (talk) 19:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I see the points by all editors, but my two cents is sometimes mainspace edits help ones who don't work on Good/Featured content. Either they've never worked to get one to GA, FA, etc. Mainspace edits also help editors who don't have alot of time to get an article to GA or FA. Like me, I'll be inactive once again come this next week unless things change like they keep doing. Plus, the backlog for articles is really long these days on FLC, FAC, GAN, etc. I've had an article on GAN for over a month. Making where you only get points for articles will be harder for others and cause the backlog for both pages to increase. I'm for decreasing the point value for mainspace edits, just not removing them. I try to remember to mark my edits minor as much as I can. Even though I hardly ever did before the cup began.-- Will C ---  Joe's gonna kill you!!! ) 15:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * After looking through my contributions, I realise that there are a good few edits I probably should have marked as minor where I haven't. I guess the point is the effort I put into those edits as opposed to the actual end result -- that's not an excuse, but there's not much of a way to get people like me to tick that box when they don't remember it in daily editing regardless of the existence of the cup. The issue here is with the process itself as opposed to the people which are using the process. I agree it is easy to abuse the process, but lowering the value of all edits will merely have the effect of saying that mainspace edits are not much cop, and removing them altogether will alienate groups of editors whose main contribution is not towards working on featured or good content, but rather to marginally increasing the quality of each page they visit. &mdash; neuro  (talk) (review) 16:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a number of articles that I've written and are on "standby", waiting here on my computer to be uploaded. I would much prefer that I be able to dump the article on WP and be done with it, but the awarding of points for mainspace edits will encourage me to go through the ridiculous process of adding one or two sentences at a time, saving after each addition, in order to be competitive with others who do the same. Is this good for Wikipedia? Sasata (talk) 16:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, that doesn't mean the issue is with the process. If you want to do that, it is your choice. &mdash; neuro  (talk) (review) 16:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I've currently got the highest score of any pure gnome candidate relying on mainspace edits only, and I'm fighting for 32nd place in this round; so I dispute that the system is over generous to those doing a little content improvement to a lot of articles. If there are editors doing lots of minor edits that they should have flagged as minor why not give them an appropriate penalty deduction - if you put it on the score page you could even operate it on the honesty system. I'm sure I've made a few minor edits where I've forgotten to hit the flag, but I've also done many hundreds where I have flagged them as minor. I agree that removing a typo from 100 articles, or fixing 100 redlinks is not the equivalent of 100 copy edits; but on this scoring system its the equivalent of 10 which I think is fair. 500 manual gnomish edits flagged as minor gets the same score as one DYK, but I can assure you takes thought and effort.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  16:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) A few observations: copyediting is something I've long described as a waste of time, except for two purposes: (1) to correct really horrible writing and bring it up to mediocre, or (2) to pass FAC. Why not do brilliant copyediting elsewhere? Because copyediting is the thing that anons and new users are most likely to do, and they usually do a mediocre job of it.  Better to get citations on the page or fill in a redlink--factual improvements are more useful and durable. Regarding whether mainspace edits themselves should count, it would help me recover from the handicap if they didn't. ;)  Durova Charge! 16:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at WikiCup/2009/Full/Round 1, I'm far and away the mainspace points leader. I'd like to think that I did at least a mediocre job of marking minor edits. During the course of the first round I did make 13,000+ manual edits creating hundreds of articles. I left most of my article-creation edits as major, while leaving minor edits for bolding text, fixing punctuation, etc. If everyone thinks that I'm the reason behind the major/minor editing problem described above, I can drop out of the cup to let another wildcard move on to the second round. I wasn't trying to rack up my WikiCup score, but trying to finish User:Useight/NFL Project, so if it is requested that I withdraw as per "incorrect minor edits marking", it's not a big deal to me. And on the other hand, if mainspace points are going to be removed for the second round, I might as well drop out now to allow someone through to the second round who will actually be creating GA/FA because I have an insanely full schedule until the end of April and if mainspace is worth zero, then I will have zero points through April. Useight (talk) 17:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You've done brilliant work and I do hope you remain. Although if it's possible to tempt you into featured pictures we have a new page to assist at Commons:Potential restorations. ;)  Durova Charge! 18:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Useight, on my calculations if you made 13,000 mainspace edits then over 99% would have had to be minor for you to drop into 31st place. So I reckon you've earned your top 30 place.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  01:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, man, nice to hear. But, for the record, that was 13,000 total edits (only ~10,400 to the mainspace since January 1st). P.S. - Sorry to see that you came up just short of making the wildcards. Useight (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * After Useight, I was probably number two in the last round with mainspace edits. I didn't realise that this was a bad thing. In between sourcing and expanding Cambodian articles, I like to 'veg out' by doing some grunt work on various backlogs. I don't mark many of these edits as minor - because people have complained in the past. Even adding a template to an article can be controversial to someone and not appropriate to be screened out of recent changes. Like Useight, I'm a bit surprised and disturbed to find that I am pissing people off by having masses of mainspace points. I've never had a GA or any featured content, though I'm hoping to change that in this round. But I'd also like to continue to wikignome and reduce backlogs when I don't feel like hunting down and reading dozens of source documents to expand articles. I'm also happy to give up my spot if masses of mainspace edits are going to cause wikidrama. Fuck it, this is supposed to be for fun! Paxse (talk) 06:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to comment on the main issue (which seems silly, frankly: Barring the user being blocked for editwarring or something, we can presume all their edits to be constructive and worth points) But one thing that must be said: if mainspace edit points are reduced, FA and GA points should increase accordingly. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 13:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As well as DYK points. J Milburn (talk) 13:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)