This is an archive of past discussions with User:Bloom6132. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Found this while doing the Wikicup gallery thing on the contributions done by participants in the cup -(Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-07-09/Wikicup - speaking of which, if you can explain RBI simply, please edit my description) - and thought it was a potential featured picture. I'd say I'd make sure your list got linked when it was on the main page, but with the one-year delay on featured pictures, I really shouldn't promise that, however strong my intent. =)
Oh, before I forget - don't worry too much about the crop - It'll be tighter in the final version, but I wanted to get up a partial before the Signpost went live. Adam Cuerden(talk)03:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Adam Cuerden! Your description of RBI is fine; it's true – RBI is quite complex to describe, and can't be done in just a few words. As for the FP, I'm kinda of confused with the one-year delay – could you help explain that? For the record, the pic never appeared on the main page, as another one was used instead for the DYK (I, unusually, supplied two pics for the nom). —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Basically, between something being promoted to featured picture and appearing on the main page, there's generally about a one-year gap, unless there's a reason for it to jump the queue (such as a holiday related to the image). This is because FPs go up on the main page roughly in order, and we've tended to promote slightly more than one FP a day on average. Adam Cuerden(talk)13:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Wow – thanks a million Adam! This is a huge improvement over the pic that was originally included in my FL, and I'll definitely be re-using it for any future baseball lists I create. It must have been a lot of work restoring it, and this alone disproves the myth that FPs aren't as "valuable" as other featured content. Don't let the haters bring you down – you deserve to win the Cup for restorations like these! Keep up the great work, and all the best to you for the rest of the tournament. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Glad I can help! By the way, I'm pretty open to suggestions for articles needing image restorations, and I do know there are a lot of pre-1923 baseball players with images on the Library of Congress, and a few free-use ones from after that. =) I don't know the history of sports well enough to choose the most valuable images, but I'd quite happily work with a little guidance. Adam Cuerden(talk)19:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
[Unindent] Want to know a trick? Here's the Cy Young image at the LoC: [1]. On the bottom line before the picture, see where it says "TIFF (52.9mb)"? If the TIFF's above 20mb or so, but the picture we have is relatively small in size (not measured in thousands of pixels per side), then the picture is going to get an instant jump in quality the moment I download that TIFF (indeed, you'd probably see a pretty massive jump if it's over 10mb). [Also, if you ever want to get an image from the LoC, always download the TIFF, and then convert it to JPEG]
Another bit of advice is to check if the LoC has rescanned the image. Click on "About this item" from the same page. See how there's two pictures of the item, one in colour, the other in black and white with TIFF (1.6mb) next to it? That means that they've rescanned it at some point, at much higher quality. Imagine Wikipedia only had the 1.6mb TIFF!
I tend to prioritize anything where Wikipedia's copy is massively less than what we could have, so Cy Young is probably going to be my first.
As you may know, I write for the Signpost, basically Wikipedia's newsletter. I'd like to do a feature on the semifinalists, would you be willing to provide, say, 250 to 500 words saying: (1.) Why did you join the Wikicup? (2.) What you you hope to get out of it? and (3.) Which of your contributions to the Wikicup are your favourites?
Not quite sure how I'll order them - I'll probably make the ed17 decide, as, you know, Conflict of Interest: I am a semifinalist. I'd imagine point order or alphabetical or the like.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article La fille aux cheveux de lin you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Prism -- Prism (talk) 23:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Bloom, I would really appreciate you taking a look at the FLC, and hopefully the GAN soon. I know you haven't edited much in the last 10 days or so, but I really want to have some points in the bag before I go on holiday, and would really appreciate getting those out of the way. Thanks, Matty.00713:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
@Matty.007 – May I ask when do you leave? I'm guessing you'd also like to be able to complete my khanjar GAN before your holidays as well. That'll give me an incentive to speed up my research on & addressing the remaining points. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
15/16 August. I want to have everything done by then, I get back near the end, and I want everything wrapped up ASAP before I go. Thanks, Matty.00714:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
It looks to me that the prep after Prep 3 will be the one appearing on August 22 in all time zones. Let's wait until they start promoting more prep areas to see where to fit in the special occasion ones. Yoninah (talk) 20:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
The final of the 2014 WikiCup begins in a few short minutes! Our eight finalists are listed below, along with their placement in Round 4:
Godot13 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer, finished top of Pool A and was the round's highest scorer. Godot is a featured picture specialist, claiming large numbers of points due to high-quality scans of historical documents, especially banknotes.
Casliber (submissions) is a WikiCup veteran, having been a finalist every year since 2010. In the semi-final, he was Pool B's highest scorer. Cas's points primarily come from articles on the natural sciences.
Czar (submissions) was Pool A's runner-up. Czar's points come mostly from content related to independent video games, including both articles and topics.
Adam Cuerden (submissions) was Pool B's runner-up. Another featured picture specialist, many of Adam's points come from the restoration of historical media. He has been a WikiCup finalist twice before.
Cwmhiraeth (submissions) won the WikiCup in 2012 and 2013, and enters this final as the first wildcard. She focuses on biology-related articles, and has worked on several high-importance articles.
12george1 (submissions) is the second wildcard. George's points come primarily from meteorology-related articles. This year and last year, George was the first person in the competition to score.
Sturmvogel 66 (submissions), the third wildcard, was the 2010 champion and a finalist last year. His writes mostly on military history, especially naval history.
Bloom6132 (submissions), the fourth and final wildcard, has participated in previous WikiCups, but not reached any finals. Bloom's points are mostly thanks to did you knows, featured lists and good articles related to sport and national symbols.
There are two upcoming competitions unrelated to the WikiCup which may be of interest to those who receive this newsletter. The Stub Contest will run through September, and revolves around expanding stub articles, especially high-importance or old stubs. In addition, a proposal has been made for a new competition, the GA Cup, which the organisers plan to run next year. This competition is based on the WikiCup and aims to reduce the good article review backlog.
There is now a thread for brainstorming on how next year's WikiCup competition should work. Please come along and share your thoughts- What works? What doesn't work? What needs changing? Signups for next year's competition will be open soon; we will be in touch. If, at this stage of the competition, you are keen to help the with the WikiCup, please do what you can to participate in review processes. Our finalists will find things much easier if the backlogs at good article candidates, featured article candidates, featured picture candidates and the rest are kept at a minimum. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk·contribs) The ed17 (talk·contribs) and Miyagawa (talk·contribs) 22:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Vancouverite! :) I see you're primarily a content editor rather than maintenance/administrative, however that's more likely to garner you supports rather than opposes mind you! Let me know if you're interested and maybe I or someone else can write up a nom statement for you. Note we have yet to promote a single admin for the month of September! :( -- Ϫ07:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
DYK for Angola Avante
On 26 September 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Angola Avante, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that "Angola Avante", the national anthem of Angola, is used as a nickname for an inter-community football competition held in Portugal? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Angola Avante. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
If you have time, could you help with the Gothic Revival churches? I've gone through all subcategories of Category:Gothic Revival architecture by country for countries A-E, putting in Category:Gothic Revival churches (or a national category, in Canada's case) for churches in the Gothic Revival architecture category, but there's a ridiculous amount of work yet to be done. Nyttend (talk) 12:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Bloom6132. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 19:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
On 29 October 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Fan Lau Fort, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Hong Kong's Fan Lau Fort was captured by the very pirates it was built to repel? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Fan Lau Fort. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Khanjar you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Coemgenus -- Coemgenus (talk) 12:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
The 2014 WikiCup champion is Godot13 (submissions), who flew the flag of the Smithsonian Institution. This was Godot13's first WikiCup competition and, over the 10 months of the competition, he has produced (among other contributions) two featured lists and an incredible 292 featured pictures, including architectural photographs and scans of historical documents. Cwmhiraeth (submissions), 2012 and 2013 WikiCup champion, came in second, having written a large number of biology-related articles. Casliber (submissions), WikiCup finalist every year since 2010, finished in third.
A full list of our prize-winners follows:
Godot13 (submissions) wins the prize for first place and the FP prize for 181 featured pictures in the final round.
Cwmhiraeth (submissions) wins the prize for second place and the DYK prize for 65 did you knows in the final round.
Casliber (submissions) wins the prize for third place and the FA prize for four featured articles in the final round.
ThaddeusB (submissions) wins the news prize for 28 in the news articles in round 3.
Congratulations to everyone who has been successful in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and a particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have participated this year. We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, and all are welcome to participate. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2014 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk·contribs) The ed17 (talk·contribs) and Miyagawa (talk·contribs) 22:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Major League
I've never heard of Major League being a generic term before, as I've understood it to be a proper name. Do you have a guideline you can point to that says it must be lower-cased? Example articles might be sufficient but only if there was a discussion related to the article about the case that is used. Stevie is the man!Talk • Work13:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
You're right. It's about the context. So when you're talking about a Major League Baseball player, "Major League" should be capitalized, because you're not referring to a generic major league. Stevie is the man!Talk • Work22:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Compare to when talking about an American Civil War figure. In their article, "Civil War" will be capitalized, for the simple reason that we're not referring to a generic civil war. Stevie is the man!Talk • Work22:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
@Stevietheman – I never said it was about context, so stop deceptively misinterpreting my words. Your comparison to the Civil War is completely moot, because one would always specify it with the prefix "American–" or "US–". I hope you do know there was another civil war of far greater significance – just because "your" civil war took place in the US doesn't make it the be-all-and-end-all "Civil War", hence the need to specify. Likewise, if you want to capitalize "Major League", refer to it by its proper name "Major League Baseball" or abbreviation "MLB". —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
No matter what you said, it is about context. If you're talking about an American Major League Baseball player, Major League is capitalized because there are not generic major leagues in relation to the subject. Same for the American Civil War. If you're talking about an American Civil War figure, you can refer to Civil War because you're not talking about generic civil wars. Same would go for an English Civil War figure. You seem to want to make this about sensitivity to other contexts, when those contexts don't apply. I don't agree, and as of now, I am fully confident that the change was correct. Stevie is the man!Talk • Work23:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
@Stevietheman – Oh, so you're changing your argument now? "I don't agree, and as of now, I am fully confident that the change was correct." – I'm sorry, but that's not how WP works. Not to mention, the arrogance from that statement reeks. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
My argument has been the same from the start. I'm all for consensus, but you haven't presented any argument that corresponds to this issue as of yet, and thus, to this point, I am confident the changes are correct. Again, you seem to think this is about not being sensitive to other contexts that aren't there. In the article we're discussing, you have to answer this question: Are there other possible contexts for "Major League" with regards to the subject? If so, you're right on this one. If not, I'm right. As soon as you show me relevant guidelines or discussions that demonstrate consensus, I'll be happy to take a look. Stevie is the man!Talk • Work00:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
@Stevietheman – I already cited two featured articles. Are you trying to say that the entire FAC process is not "demonstrative consensus". FAs are thoroughly reviewed from top to bottom, so your excuse that they "might be sufficient but only if there was a discussion related to the article about the case that is used" simply doesn't wash. I'll cite you some more FAs if you're still in disbelief – Jim Thome (passed in 2014), Mike Capel (2013), Harmon Killebrew (2011). I could list dozens more, but it appears you like to cherry pick evidence and ignore legitimate proof when it conflicts with your unilateral proposal. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
And since you're the one proposing a new wording, the burden of proof falls on you. Why don't you show me some evidence (i.e. reliable sources, refs, etc.) of the usage of "Major Leagues"? —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
No problem, I have no deadline for the GAs although I'd like to complete my project before next April. No awards coming my way but I'd like it to be the most comprehensive catalogue of reports on the Boat Race in the world. We'll see. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Just as a general note (and, if I've said this before, maybe that says something about how you come across) Wikipedia is not a courtroom, and other editors are not your enemies. Some of the things you say come across as incredibly confrontational, and read like a failure to assume good faith. I have no doubt that your intentions are good ones, but please remember that you are talking to real people with real feelings, and these are people who volunteer to take part here. We're all working towards the same goal: while we don't all have to be friends (though many of us are), a collegiate atmosphere is appropriate. J Milburn (talk) 00:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Bloom6132. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 02:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
You've properly picked up on the fact that there is some support for your concerns but I'm concerned there's confirmation bias in your interpretation of the overall ANI thread -- it's really not going that great for you, all in all. The first thing you should do is remove the comments about Yunshui from the top of this page. That's the first thing uninvolved editors are going to see and it immediately colors their perception of you in a very detrimental way.
Secondly, ANI is about the worst possible place to discuss anything on Wikipedia, so attempting to discuss the full context of the dispute is more likely to backfire than be helpful.
Let me suggest this. It's the wikicup offseason, right? Is there anything you have to do on wiki right now? Would you be willing to just log off for a week and then we can reset and restart the conversation in some other forum? NE Ent12:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
break
"convenience break" just means a break in a long thread which shows up in the table of contents -- nothing to do with your wikibreak. NE Ent03:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I just spent a bit of time trying to get you out of the hole you're in at ANI -- I'm hopeful it's a shallow one. I'd appreciate if you'd help by not diggging it any more. ANI is a horrible, political place to be, your only goal should to have let the thread die. Arguing with volunteers there just makes you look worse. If you're finished with the DYK, just log off and go study. Because it doesn't seem like you're having fun, and you don't get paid enough to edit Wikipedia to do it if you're not having fun. NE Ent12:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello everyone, and may we wish you all a happy holiday season. As you will probably already know, the 2015 WikiCup begins in the new year; there is still time to sign up. We have a few important announcements concerning the future of the WikiCup.
We would like to announce that Josh (J Milburn) and Ed (The ed17), who have been WikiCup judges since 2009 and 2010 respectively, are stepping down. This decision has been made for a number of reasons, but the main one is time. Both Josh and Ed have found that, over the previous year, they have been unable to devote the time necessary to the WikiCup, and it is not likely that they will be able to do this in the near future. Furthermore, new people at the helm can only help to invigorate the WikiCup and keep it dynamic. Josh and Ed will still be around, and will likely be participating in the Cup this following year as competitors, which is where both started out.
In a similar vein, we hope you will all join us in welcoming Jason (Sturmvogel 66) and Christine (Figureskatingfan), who are joining Brian (Miyagawa) to form the 2015 WikiCup judging team. Jason is a WikiCup veteran, having won in 2010 and finishing in fifth this year. Christine has participated in two WikiCups, reaching the semi-finals in both, and is responsible for the GA Cup, which she now co-runs.
The discussions/polls concerning the next competition's rules will be closed soon, and rules changes will be made clear on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring and talk pages. While it may be impossible to please everyone, the judges will make every effort to ensure that the new rules are both fair and in the best interests of the competition, which is, first and foremost, about improving Wikipedia.
.JPG){kind=link}
