I removed "Google" as a reference, however the fact of the claim of a number of "hits" on Google remains a truth does it not? It is being used to demonstrate numbers of people who are rebelling against the use of the term "Democrat Party by such as Limbaugh etc.
Regards
`` bob
Hello, while you are correct, the statement is perfectly accurate, it constitutes original research. Anything that is not already wrote somewhere else cannot be put in an article. For example, you could says, Limbaugh frequently uses the term and reference his transcripts for examples, but to say because google has x counts of the term brings a bit of insinuation into it that crosses the line. If there is an article somewhere that says something along that line though it could be used to source. I think your rephrase is fine now. :) —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)18:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On April 10, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Truce of Leulinghem, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Thanks for your excellent recent FAC review of Paramount Television Network. Based on your observations, I have made these changes to the article. However, I left some requests for clarification on the review page concerning a few other improvements you mentioned. Could you drop by the article's review page when you have a free moment? Again, thank you for your thorough review. Firsfron of Ronchester05:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Lieutenant Governor of Indiana 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. –Grondemar05:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm a bot and this is an automated message. Talk:All Frames of the Game is blank and you are its sole author. FrescoBot interpreted it as a deletion request and asked administrators to satisfy it per G7 criteria. Next time you can explicitly request the deletion by inserting the tag {{db-author}}. If you didn't want to remove the page, please consider a different way to store informations or put some content in it. Admins are able to recover deleted pages. Please do not contact the bot operator for issues not related with bot's behaviour. To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=FrescoBot}} somewhere on your talk page. -- FrescoBot (talk) 11:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Talkback
Hello, Charles Edward. You have new messages at Talk:Maria Branwell. Message added 03:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thanks for your note here. I greatly appreciated your thorough review and your valuable feedback at the article's FAC. Yours was the only serious review, and the article improved through your efforts. I'm not sure I'll resubmit the article to FAC, because it's a lot of effort to nominate an article for FAC for that level of community participation. However, I want to thank you for your feedback and work to make the article better. It is deeply appreciated. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester15:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was really pleased to see that your Wabash article has been promoted; is there an appropriate date when it could be proposed for TFA? I remember th article from its first FA nomination when it needed quite a bit of work, and I'm glad you persevered. Well done indeed. Brianboulton (talk) 22:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Round two is over, and we are down to our final 32. For anyone interested in the final standings (though not arranged by group) this page has been compiled. Congratulations to Hunter Kahn (submissions), our clear overall round winner, and to ThinkBlue (submissions) and Arsenikk (submissions), who were solidly second and third respectively. There were a good number of high scorers this round- competition was certainly tough! Round three begins tomorrow, but anything promoted after the end of round two is eligible for points. 16 contestants (eight pool leaders and eight wildcards) will progress to round four in two months- things are really starting to get competitive. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.
Judge iMatthew has retired from Wikipedia, and we wish him the best. The competition has been ticking over well with minimal need for judge intervention, so thank you to everyone making that possible. A special thank you goes to participants Stone (submissions) and White Shadows (submissions) for their help in preparing for round three. Good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed1717:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Parthian Empire
Hi Charles! Thanks for your review of Parthian Empire. As you requested, I added a bit more information on China, mostly in regards to the Han diplomat Gan Ying, his attempt to reach Rome, and Parthia's rather deliberate thwarting of his mission. Cheers!--Pericles of AthensTalk19:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Charles, I finally got around to addressing the comments you made at FAC before it closed. [1] Would you mind taking a look at them, and let me know what you think? I had some questions and requests for clarification for you. I also wanted to know if you thought the article was ready to be resubmitted. Personally, I think it is, and since we came so close before, it's probably an easy pass after all your great feedback. Thanks again. --Christine (talk) 04:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A quick thank you for your review of Ernest Hemingway. When one spends too much time on a single article of such large scope, it's easy to lose perspective, particularly of the prose. "Tighten" and "redundant" (though perhaps obvious to you) were helpful remarks. Thanks. The article is better because of your review. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for James Whitcomb Riley
On May 10, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article James Whitcomb Riley, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Thanks you for reviewing the featured article candidate. Following your suggestion I have made some changes. I would be please if you could give an indication of much copy editing still remains to be done to get the prose right. If you think a considerable amount still need still be done, I will happily leave it and request some help and resubmit later. If you think, it just needs it just needs some little more tweaking, I would be equally happy do it now. Mootros (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously though, I think the article is generally excellent, but it's let down by the weaker opening few sections, until Minton's political career really gets underway. I'd guess that you inherited much of that, and I know from experience how difficult it can be to properly integrate the stuff you find in place when you decide to start work on an article to get it to FAC. Let me know when you're happy with the prose in the first half of the article and I'll take a look at it again, and hopefully be able to support. MalleusFatuorum21:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Haha! Well I certainly appreciate your review. :) I love nit picky comments, to be honest. I perform poorest at copyedittign and best at researching.. I am going over the article now. I will message you when I'm done. I might be able pare back the first section a bit too. You are right, I did "inherit" a bit of that. Thanks —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)22:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You seemed to me to be right on the button with the FAC immediately above this section; that's where I remembered your name from. MalleusFatuorum22:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's a shame. Presuming to read Karanacs' mind for a moment, I don't think she archived the article because there were too many unresolved issues, but simply because even with all/most of them dealt with, it hadn't attracted enough reviewers/support and would be unlikely to do so in the usual time frame of these things. Still, if you renominate in a couple of weeks I think it should sail through. I'll keep an eye out for its reappearance. (I've got another question too, which I'll dump on the article's talk page later.) All the best, SteveT • C07:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are right, it didn't get a thorough review until the last week. Same problem I had with it last time! It's not the most interesting of topics I think is the problem. Thanks for your efforts! —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)12:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Indianapolis Journal
On May 22, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Indianapolis Journal, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On May 26, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bowen site, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
We are half way through round 3, with a little under a month to go. The current overall leader is Sasata (submissions), who has 570 points. He leads pool C. Pools A, B and D are led by Hunter Kahn (submissions), Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) and White Shadows (submissions) respectively. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.
Two of last year's final 8, Theleftorium (submissions) and Scorpion0422 (submissions), have dropped out of the competition, saying they would rather their place went to someone who will have more time on their hands than them next round. On a related note, a special thank you goes to White Shadows (submissions) for his help behind the scenes once again. There is currently a problem with the poster, perhaps caused by the new skin- take a look at this discussion and see if you can help. The competition has continued to tick over well with minimal need for judge intervention, so thank you to everyone making that possible. Good luck to all! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed1720:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ganoga Lake review
I got Tomasak's fairly new Biography of Colonel R. Bruce Ricketts and as a result have added about 5 kB to the Ganoga Lake article - diff. I am asking the FAC and PR reviewers to please take a second look at the Ganoga Lake article and make sure it still reads smoothly and clearly. If you find problems, please raise them on the article's talk page. Thanks in advance, Ruhrfisch><>°°17:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
Hello, I translated Eli Lilly's article to Spanish and I want to ask you a doubt. What do you mean when you say his family was prohibitionist? Do you mean they supported the prohibition? or maybe belonged to the temperance movement? Can you help me? Eli Lilly in spanish version currently is a candidate for featured article. If you can answer here I would appreciate. Thanks in advance. Regards.--Rosymonterrey (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Lilly's family were in the Temperance Movement and supported prohibition. Prohibition of course was not implemented nationally during his lifetime, although many communities in the region did ban liqour. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)20:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We're half way through 2010, and the end of the WikiCup is in sight! Round 3 is over, and we're down to our final 16. Our pool winners were Ian Rose (submissions) (A), Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) (B, and the round's overall leader), ThinkBlue (submissions) (C) Casliber (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions) (D, joint), but, with the scores reset, everything is to play for in our last pooled round. The pools will be up before midnight tonight, and have been selected randomly by J Milburn. This will be the toughest round yet, and so, as ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.
Though unaffiliated with the WikiCup, July sees the third Great Wikipedia Dramaout- a project with not dissimilar goals to the WikiCup. Everyone is welcome to take part and do their bit to contribute to the encyclopedia itself.
If you're interested in the scores for the last round of the Cup, please take a look at Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Round 3 and Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Full/Round 3. Our thanks go to Stone (submissions) for compiling these. As was predicted, Group C ended up the "Group of Death", with 670 points required for second place, and, therefore, automatic promotion. This round will probably be even tougher- again, the top two from each of the two groups will make it through, while the twelve remaining participants will compete for four wildcard places- good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17
We are half-way through our penultimate round, and nothing is yet certain. Pool A, currently led by Sasata (submissions) has ended up the more competitive, with three contestants (Sasata (submissions), Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions)) scoring over 500 points already. Pool B is led by Casliber (submissions), who has also scored well over 500. The top two from each pool, as well as the next four highest scorers regardless of pool, will make it through to our final eight. As ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.
Planning has begun for the 2011 WikiCup, with open discussions concerning scoring and flags for next year's competition. Contributions to those discussions would be appreciated, especially concerning the flags, as next year's signups cannot begin until the flag issue has been resolved. Signups will hopefully open at some point in this round, with discussion about possible changing in the scoring/process opening some time afterwards.
Earlier this round, we said goodbye to Hunter Kahn (submissions), who has bowed out to spend more time on the book he is authoring with his wife. We wish him all the best. In other news, the start of this round also saw some WikiCup awards sent out by Suomi Finland 2009 (submissions). We appreciate his enthusiasm, and contestants are of course welcome to award each other prizes as they see fit, but rest assured that we will be sending out "official" awards at the end of the competition. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed1722:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The History of Slavery in Indiana
Charles Edward, I hope it isn't too forward of me to open a New Section regarding Jacob Hawkins & Amory Kinney, a subject to which you responded in the History of Slavery in Indiana discussion section. I appreciate your suggestion to put Jake Hawkins in the Polly Vs Lasselle article, but would rather see an article devoted to Hawkins himself rather than subordinate his story to Polly, who after all suffers from an unknown history both before and after her famed Supreme Court case. Hawkins' history is well-documented from the time he arrived in Indiana as a teenager through his death in 1864. His tomb still stands atop the hill in the Hawkins Cemetery he founded for black folks.
My hunch re Hawkins is that he's been forgotten partly because Northern Hoosiers tend to downplay the fact that small-town Southern Indiana has historically been a more progressive zone race-history-wise than Indianapolis or Northern Indiana. According to this thought-line, Polly is important because the benevolent Indiana Supreme Court made her so. The southern scene that Kinney, Osborn, & Hawkins succeeded in (at the same time Abe Lincoln was approaching adulthood) thus has gotten short shrift.
So what I'd like to see us Hoosiers do is add Amory Kinney as a section to the History of Slavery in Indiana. His section would rightly encompass the Polly case as well that of Jake Hawkins, plus address the milieu Kinney and his brother-in-law Osborn found themselves in when they arrived in Vincennes (& eventually scrambled about for a safe county in which to remain).
Pool B's winner was Casliber (submissions). Awarded the top score for featured articles this round, Casliber writes primarily on natural sciences, especially botany and ornithology.
Pool A's close second was Sasata (submissions). Awarded the top score for featured pictures this round, Sasata writes primarily on natural sciences, favouring mycology.
Pool B's close second was ThinkBlue (submissions). Awarded the top score for good articles and topics this round, ThinkBlue primarily writes content related to television and film, including 30 Rock.
The second wildcard was White Shadows (submissions). Someone who has helped the Cup behind the scenes all year, White Shadows said "I'm still in shock that I made it this far" and writes primarily on Naval warfare, especially U-boats.
The third wildcard was Staxringold (submissions). Awarded the top score for featured lists and topics this round, Staxringold primarily writes on sport and television, including baseball and 30 Rock.
The fourth wildcard was William S. Saturn (submissions). Entering the final eight only on the final day of the round, William S. Saturn writes on a number of topics, mostly related to Texas.
We say goodbye to the six who fell at the final hurdle. Geschichte (submissions) only just missed out on a place in the final eight. Resolute (submissions) was not far behind. Candlewicke (submissions) was awarded top points for in the news this round. Gary King (submissions) contributed a variety of did you know articles. Suomi Finland 2009 (submissions) said "I'm surprised to have survived so far into the competition", but was extactic to see Finland in the semi-finals. Arsenikk (submissions) did not score this round, but has scored highly in previous rounds. We also say goodbye to Ian Rose (submissions), who withdrew earlier this month after spending six weeks overseas. Anyone interested in this round's results can see them here and here. Thank you to Stone (submissions) for these.
Our final eight will play it out for two months, after which we will know 2010's WikiCup winner, and a variety of prizes will be awarded. As ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed1723:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I sent the Lieutenant Governor's office a message asking why Becky Skillman's state biography listed her as the 50th Lt. Gov. while this page (and our article) called her the 47th, they researched and responded that she is actually the 49th, which is what her IN.gov bio now says, which reflects this list. It seems that our article has two discrepancies from that. First, Ratliff Boon is actually both the second and third Lt. Gov., being Lt, then Gov, and then Lt again. Second, Robert S. Robertson is listed in the latter link but not the former; according to thesesources, he was rightfully elected but never accepted by the Senate. Therefore, I think that the Wikipedia articles should reflect that latter list, which also has the dates. I am happy to make all the necessary edits, but because this affects the numbering of every Lt. Gov, I wanted to check with you first. Thanks, Reywas92Talk23:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think thats fair. In regards to Ratliff Boon, that is definitely true. I guess is just depends on how we count, so we could just duplicate him, and add him in there twice. Robertson would be my point of contention. Check out Black Day of the Indiana General Assembly, and article I wrote concerning that incident. From what I gather, he was legally elected, the Supreme Court confirmed he was legally Lt. Gov, but the Senate refused to seat him so he never took the oath of office or performed any duties. Maybe we should mention him in the list, but just without a number, but put a dash like we did on the acting Lt. Governors. What do you think? —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)12:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But then we're inconsistent with the state list. He was technically and legally Lt Gov, despite not being allowed to do anything. I think this is on the same line as becoming president at noon on January 20, even if he hasn't said the oath yet. Reywas92Talk23:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a footnote about Robertson where his term should have been. So that would probably be enough. The event and him definitly deserve inclusion in the article in some way- the footnote does the job. Thanks for researching this out! Btw, I recently emailed the Indiana Historical Society to see if they would be interested in providing us with access to their online database, making a donation of images to the commons, or having subject experts review some of our articles. I think any of those would be great. I got a response a couple days ago that their Executive Vice President was actually considering the proposal! Thats pretty exiting. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)12:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WikiCup 2010 September newsletter
We are half-way through our final round, entering the home straight. TonyTheTiger (submissions) leads at the time of writing with 1180 points, immediately followed by Sasata (submissions) with 1175 points. Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) closely follows in third place with 1100 points. For those who are interested, data about the finalists has been compiled at Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/finalists, while a list of content submitted by all WikiCup contestants prior to this round has been compiled at Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Submissions. As ever, anything contestants worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.
Your welcome, I had actually edited the article before.. but never extensively. There is a couple book sources at my library, I hope to get copies and add more if I can. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)17:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The 2010 WikiCup is over! It has been a long journey, but what has been achieved is impressive: combined, participants have produced over seventy featured articles, over five hundred good articles, over fifty featured lists, over one thousand one hundred "did you know" entries, in addition to various other pieces of recognised content. A full list (which has yet to be updated to reflect the scores in the final round) can be found here. Perhaps more importantly, we have our winner! The 2010 WikiCup champion is Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), with an unbelievable 4220 points in the final round. Second place goes to TonyTheTiger (submissions), with 2260, and third to Casliber (submissions), with 560. Congratulations to our other four finalists – White Shadows (submissions), William S. Saturn (submissions), Staxringold (submissions) and ThinkBlue (submissions). Also, congratulations to Sasata (submissions), who withdrew from the competition with an impressive 2685 points earlier in this round.
Prizes will also be going to those who claimed the most points for different types of content in a single round. It was decided that the prizes would be awarded for those with the highest in a round, rather than overall, so that the finalists did not have an unfair advantage. Winning the featured article prize is Casliber (submissions), for five featured articles in round 4. Winning the good article prize is Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), for eighty-one good articles in round 5. Winning the featured list prize is Staxringold (submissions), for six featured lists in round 1. Winning the picture and sound award is Jujutacular (submissions), for four featured pictures in round 3. Winning the topic award is Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), for forty-seven articles in various good topics in round 5. Winning the "did you know" award is TonyTheTiger (submissions), for over one hundred did you knows is round 5. Finally, winning the in the news award is Candlewicke (submissions), for nineteen articles in the news in round three.
The WikiCup has faced criticism in the last month – hopefully, we will take something positive from it and create a better contest for next year. Like Wikipedia itself, the Cup is a work in progress, and ideas for how it should work are more than welcome on the WikiCup talk page and on the scoring talk page. Also, people are more than welcome to sign up for next year's competition on the signup page. Well done and thank you to everyone involved – the Cup has been a pleasure to run, and we, as judges, have been proud to be a part of it. We hope that next year, however the Cup is working, and whoever is running it, it will be back, stronger and more popular than ever. Until then, goodbye and happy editing! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed1703:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Charles Edward! In the article Tecumseh you have posted a note referring to “Ehle, p. 102-104”, but no Ehle’s book appears in bibliography. I wonder if you could be so kind as to complete the reference. Thank you very much. Jeanambr (talk) 13:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I looked and I am not 100% sure which book I pulled that from? Sorry its been awhile. I found a different source and reworded it to better summarize what that source says. You can get it online here: [2]. You are welcome to rewrite in whatever way you feel is best. :) My summary could be alot better, I just don't have enough time to fix it up in the best way right now. But I feel it is accurate. Thanks! —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)15:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello!
While I know that you weren't able to attend the Backstage Pass, I wanted to pass along some resources and links from the day. You can see that images from the day are being added to the Children's Museum of Indianapolis category in Commons. Note that there is a separate category of images of us from the day (rather than objects). We also received a little press on both the Children's Museum blog: The Wikipedians are Coming! and the Wikipedia Signpost had the event as their lead story last week. I will be continuing to work on organizing TCMI research content and moving forward with the content donation in the coming months. I will probably have an announcement about the content donation sometime around February, and I could certainly use your help in spreading the word at that point. In the meantime, do let me know on the project requests page if you are interested in working on a TCMI-related article and would like to be connected with a curator. (I do know that you're very busy at the moment; but extend the invitation nonetheless). In fact, during the Backstage Pass day the curators were asking about you specifically. When they found out you weren't able to make the Backstage pass, they wanted to make sure you knew that you are always welcome as their guest and they would be happy to give you a personal tour at your convenience, however they're typically there on week days. I'll be in touch. Thanks! HstryQT (talk) 20:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Thanks for the note. I am indeed very busy. My job is tax related, and its been a very turbulent year, so I am running all over. I very much regret not being able to attend, and hopefully I will be able to do so in the future. Unfortunately, my job will keep be very busy until mid February. I am definitely keeping this on the back burner and if its still an option after that, I would still be very interested in participating. So if that's about when the content donation becomes available, I'd be glad to help however I can. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)18:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you tagged the article I created on Marion County, Indiana Frank J. Anderson as needing an update back in July, 2009, and I was wondering if you could check the article again to see if the update you are requesting has since been made. --TommyBoy (talk) 05:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File permission problem with File:Governor of Indiana Edgar Doud Whitcomb.gif
Thanks for uploading File:Governor of Indiana Edgar Doud Whitcomb.gif. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created 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-enwikimedia.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-enwikimedia.org.
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. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kellyhi!09:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. You are being contacted because you have previously shown interest in the WikiCup but have not yet signed up for the 2011 WikiCup, which starts at midnight. It is not too late to sign up! The competition will remain open until at least January 31, and so it is not too late to enter. If you are interested, simply follow the instructions to add your username to the signup page, and a judge will contact you as soon as possible with an explanation of how to participate. The WikiCup is a friendly competition open to all Wikipedians, old and new, experienced and inexperienced, providing a fun and rewarding way to contribute quality content to Wikipedia. If you do not want to receive any further messages about the WikiCup, or you want to start receiving messages about the WikiCup, you may add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the WikiCup talk page or contact the judges directly. J Milburn and The ed1706:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Invitation to join WikiProject United States
Hello, Charles Edward/archive4! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!
We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. Signups are now closed, and we have 129 listed competitors, 64 of whom will make it to round two. Congratulations to The Bushranger (submissions), who, at the time of writing, has a comfortable lead with 228 points, followed by Hurricanehink (submissions), with 144 points. Four others have over 100 points. Congratulations also go to Yellow Evan (submissions), who scored the first points in the competition, claiming for Talk:Hurricane King/GA1, Miyagawa (submissions), who scored the first non-review points in the competition, claiming for Dognapping, and Jarry1250 (submissions) who was the first in the competition to use our new "multiplier" mechanic (explanation), claiming for Grigory Potemkin, a subject covered on numerous Wikipedias. Thanks must also go to Jarry1250 for dealing with all bot work- without you, the competition wouldn't be happening!
A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round two is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed1722:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Spring Children's Museum backstage pass?
Hello!
I wanted to touch base and let you know that, as part of the ongoing project with Wikipedia, The Children's Museum of Indianapolis is considering a second Backstage Pass Event this spring, likely to be held in April. Since you were interested previously but were unable to attend, I wanted to feel out if a Saturday event would work for you this coming April? Thanks for helping us gauge interest! Things are moving along with the image donation and there should be more press soon to share as things move forward. Thanks again for your interest! HstryQT (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Rufus Wainwright
You are invited to join WikiProject Rufus Wainwright, a WikiProject dedicated to improving articles related to Rufus Wainwright. You received this invitation because of your history editing articles related to Wainwright. The Rufus Wainwright WikiProject group discussion is here. If you are interested in joining, please visit the project page, and add your name to the list of participants.
I saw "Rufus!" on your profile page and that you uploaded a sample recording of "On the Banks of the Wabash", so I thought I'd invite you to WikiProject Rufus Wainwright. While the project is not very active, as there are not many participants, it makes a nice space to organize and discuss articles relating to Mr. Wainwright. If interested, sign up! --Another Believer(Talk)07:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the "Course" section of the Wabash River entry of Wikipedia, it says "The river remains shallow and somewhat rocky with minor rapids until mile seventy-one near the town of Murray.[10] There the river becomes calm and deeper until mile eighty-one due to the dam and levy at the town of Markle. The lock that was formerly at the site is abandoned and a narrow washout is the over means to bypass the dam. In the rocky washout the river level drops four feet, making it one of the most dangerous points on the river. Boaters are advised exit the river and reembark on the other side of the dam rather than traverse the washout."
Aerial photos show the levy, but no lock. This is the first I have seen on a lock at this location. There was one at Grand Rapids (that still exists) and one at Pittsburg (near Delphi). I'm not trying to criticize, but can you provide a reference for this statement?
When I wrote that portion of the article I was using this book "Hay, Jerry M, "Wabash River Guidebook" 2010, ISBN978-1-60585-215-7" as my reference. Its more or less a boating quide to the river. I don't know personally whether its rocky or not, I really only know the lower part of the river myself. Feel free to rewrite it however you think best. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)14:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply as above. I received a copy of Jerry Hay's book in the mail on Thursday. Refering to Section 6, which is the section of the river at Markle, I see no mention of a lock or an "abandoned" lock. My purpose here is to learn more about the locks that were along the Wabash. They were very few.
Oh the locks is what you interested in. Oh no, there were very many locks, probably at least 35, mostly all abandoned since at least the 1870s, part of the Wabash and Erie Canal system. Most were on the upper stretch of the river, between Terre Haute and Fort Wayne. The reference at the end of the paragraph is the one used for the info. If you are able to find better data though, by all means include it. :) —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)02:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now I see what is going on. There is the Wabash River and then there is the Wabash and Erie Canal which parallels the river between Huntington and Terre Haute. The only place that the canal used the river as part of its route is upstream of Delphi where it used the pool behind the Pittsburg Dam to cross from the right bank to the left bank going south. The canal entered the river on the right bank just downstream on the Carrolton Bridge, then followed the river to just upstream of the outskirts of Delphi where it exited in the left bank. There were also a couple of places that dams in the river supplied water to the canal and those feeders had guard locks to allow traffic between the canal and the pool behind the dam. In my opinion, an article on the River should discuss steamboat locks on the river such as those just upstream of the mouth of the White River (abandoned but intact on the left bank) and the one at Pittsburg (of which nothing appears to remain). To my knowledge, there were no other river navigation locks on the Wabash, but I look forward to being corrected. On the West Branch of the White River, there was a steamboat lock in the dam at Newberry. That dam was also a part of the Wabash & Erie Canal and created a slackwater of several miles to allow the canal to cross the West Branch. Here, the canal south of Newberry also received water from the White River. Since the W & E Canal separates from the Wabash just west of Huntington (going east) and proceeds to Fort Wayne roughly along US 24, I do not think that there were any W & E Locks in Markle. I also don't think that there were any steamboat locks there as it appears to be too far upriver.
Canalsusa (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WikiCup 2011 February newsletter
So begins round two of the WikiCup! We now have eight pools, each with eight random contestants. This round will continue until the end of April, when the top two of each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers of those remaining, will make it to round three. Congratulations to The Bushranger (submissions) (first, with 487 points) and Hurricanehink (submissions) (second, with 459), who stormed the first round. Casliber (submissions) finished third with 223. Twelve others finished with over 100 points- well done to all of you! The final standings in round one can be seen here. A mere 8 points were required to reach round two; competition will no doubt be much more fierce this round, so be ready for a challenge! A special thanks goes, again, to Jarry1250 (submissions) for dealing with all bot work. This year's bot, as well as running smoothly, is doing some very helpful things that last year's did not. Also, thanks to Stone (submissions) for some helpful behind-the-scenes updating and number crunching.
Some news for those who are interested- March will see a GAN backlog elimination drive, which you are still free to join. Organised by WikiProject Good articles, the drive aims to minimise the GAN backlog and offers prizes to those who help out. Of course, you may well be able to claim WikiCup points for the articles you review as part of the drive. Also ongoing is the Great Backlog Drive, looking to work on clearing all of the backlogs on Wikipedia; again, incentives are offered, and the spirit of friendly competition is alive, while helping the encyclopedia is the ultimate aim. Though unrelated to the WikiCup, these may well be of interest to some of you.
Just a reminder of the rules; if you have done significant work on content this year and it is promoted in this round, you may claim for it. Also, anything that was promoted after the end of round one but before the beginning of round two may be claimed for in round two. Details of the rules can be found on this page. For those interested in statistics, a running total of claims can be seen here, and a very interesting table of that information (along with the highest scorers in each category) can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed1723:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not surprised you're involved with this one. If he does run for President, I'd be glad to help you improve it to GA or FA (not to mention fighting off the vandals and POV-pushers). --Coemgenus14:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that would be fun! I've actually been on a GA course for a couple months with that article, there are just not a lot of high quality sources out there for him. A book by Gugin is the best I ever found. I have authored almost all of the Indiana Governor articles. If you should notice a pattern, :) I tend to work primarily on Indiana related articles. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)14:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Wisconsis"
Not to be too much a stickler, Charles, but I noticed your paragraph on the talk page of the Mitch Daniels article in which you repeatedly spell Wisconsin as Wisconsis (to the point where I don't think it was an unintentional mistake). Given your interest in Daniels, and the commonality between the situations in Indiana and Wisconsin, I wanted to give you a heads-up in case you find yourself mentioning the state in the future. Cheers. 64.19.224.6 (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I just wanted to thank you for participating in my MfD — although we disagree, I appreciate your giving the appropriate context to the phrase in question — actually, I'm surprised no one mentioned it sooner, since it seems by far the strongest argument for keeping the template. Cheers, Feezo(Talk)00:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I looked into it just a bit deeper, and apparently, it goes back even farther than I thought. It dates to the 1970s with the Iran Hostage Crisis. The original use of the term was a parody of the Jimmy Carter Administration suggesting he was holding the entire nation hostage, and the 1990s use was itself a recycle of the pun. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)02:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
James Whticomb Riley
Congratulations on all the admirable work you've done on the James Whitcomb Riley article. It is a commendable effort on a topic which is certainly due for attention. If you don't mind, I'd like to make a couple observations. First, the lede seems a bit long (this might be a personal preference for brevity sneaking in) and, ultimately, seems to be a little pushy in trying to convince the reader Riley is important. Maybe I'm wrong, but go back and read it yourself and see if you catch what I mean. Further, I'm sure reviewers in a potential featured article review will note that the article heavily relies on only one major sources. It's also very heavily biographical and, though treatment of his writing pops in throughout the article, there is no major section devoting specifically to his writing style and critical responses. That kind of section seems vital for an article on a writer. See, for example, Mary Shelley, which dedicates about half of the prose to those concerns. Other examples are William Butler Yeats, Stephen Crane, and Emily Dickinson. --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your helpful comments, that is just the critique I was looking for. I agree the missing section focusing on his works is important, but I haven't found a good critical source yet. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)12:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Credo eligibility
Hey. I'm User:Ling.Nut2, but I'm also User:Ling.Nut. I scrambled my password but am having trouble recovering it. Did you see my recent posts at the talk of the Credo page? Please email me from User:Ling.Nut to verify my eligibility for a Credo acct. By the way, why are you in WP Indy and WP Luhhvull at the same time? Aren't you afraid being ding dong ditched? Holy crap, the NBA took the Pacers and dumped the Colonels, for crying out loud! – Ling.Nut00:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Haha! Well as a Hoosier, I look at my participation in WPLouisville as a big brother mentorship (jsut kidding). I live near Louisville, and alot of the topics I edit are in that project too, so I cross borders. : ) —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)12:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a major revision of the the Service Awards: the edit requirements for the higher levels have been greatly reduced, to make them reasonably attainable.
Because of this, your Service Award level has been changed, and you are now eligible for a higher level. I have taken the liberty of updating your award on your user page.
Might be of some use. Ran across this at google:
Off the record: the private papers of Harry S. Truman - Google Books Result
Harry S. Truman, Robert H. Ferrell - 1997 - Biography & Autobiography - 448 pages
Wish Minton were physically fit, I'd have him in the "family" ... Sherman Minton, former senator from Indiana, later associate justice of the Supreme Court.
Thanks. I am going to swing by his house this afternoon and snap a couple pictures. Going to try to photo his grave too, depends how big the cemetery is, might be hard to find his spot! Don't think its too big though. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)19:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I like the way that this article has shaped up. We've got a lot more than we had before. BTW, Minton Jr. published several books, which are considered classics in the field. You can find it all on google, "Sherman Minton herpatologist". The Jstor article on Jr. has some interesting stuff -- says that Sherman Sr. was "an advisor to Roosevelt." If true, this could make Minton eligible for the 'triple crown' (judiciary, executive and legislative) article.
I'm going to be gone for 10 days so you are on your own. Now that we have the pictures, I can give up on the find a grave controversy. I had put several comments on Conti's page. I still believe that it was and is a fine link, but you've resolved the issue. Happy hunting and editing. 7&6=thirteen (☎)13:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Yes I noticed several books by him, which is why I started his article, its just a stub. A good project for another day. :) Thanks for help, hopefully the FAC review will pass soon. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)18:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SoS
This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.
We are half way through round two of the WikiCup, which will end on 28 April. Of the 64 current contestants, 32 will make it through to the next round; the two highest in each pool, and the 16 next highest scorers. At the time of writing, our current overall leader is Hurricanehink (submissions) with 231 points, who leads Pool H. Piotrus (submissions) (Pool G) also has over 200 points, while 9 others (three of whom are in Pool D) have over 100 points. Remember that certain content (specifically, articles/portals included in at least 20 Wikipedias as of 31 December 2010 or articles which are considered "vital") is worth double points if promoted to good or featured status, or if it appears on the main page in the Did You Know column. There were some articles last round which were eligible for double points, but which were not claimed for. For more details, see Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring.
A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round three is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed1700:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Charles_Edward -- congrats on the Harrison County article. I plan to upgrade Blackford County, Indiana (hopefully to GA or FA) using Harrison and Warren Counties (plus some ideas of my own) somewhat as templates for what needs to be included. I figure this will take all year to finalize. I have discovered four or five different start-up dates for Blackford County — even different years. Created by legislature in 1837, Wikipedia uses 1838, organized in 1839, etc.... I checked with an association of counties — and they were unable to help. You have a "founded" date for Harrision county. Did you have any problems with conflicting sources for a founded/creation/organized date? How did you decide to use Funk as your source? TwoScars (talk) 17:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Harrison's date is pretty easy to determine, it was the first county created by the legislature, and just about the oldest one. The Governor (Harrison) created four prior, I think. I used Funk because that is what was for sale at the county gift shop, haha. But seriously about half of the county's historical works are authored by him, he was a fairly preeminent Indiana historian in his day. He might have a table in one book outlining the founding date of all counties.. I will have to look. I know he did a small sketch in one book about Isaac Blackford, the county's names. I wrote his biography some time ago, the source I used for that gave 1838 as the year of the county's founding. Alot of the counties back then only existed on the books at first. I am not 100% positive, but I think the land of Blackford County might not have been fully purchased and vacated by the tribal inhabitants until just a year or so before that - that might be a good place to start digging. But how it worked was, after they bought the land from the tribes, the legislature divided it up into counties, pending people actually moving there. So it was common for some counties to be created by law, but not actually organized until a year or two or more later. Some counties never worked out at all and were canceled and merged with other counties. So that is probably the discrepancy in your dates. You may have to read into them little between the lines, there is probably a date where its creation was authorized by the legislature, another date where the government of the country was formed, and a third when it was finally recognized by the legislature and permitted to send delegate to the general assembly. There could also be intervening dates where it was dissolved and restarted, or merged and unmerged, but I am only aware of a couple instances of that happening, and not to Blackford County. I hope that helps. I will try to check a few of my own books tonight to find out somethign about the dates. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)17:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That does help. Blackford County appears to have been authorized by the legislature in 1837, but did not form its government until 1839. I guess I will make a list of all of the dates, I believe there are five. Perhaps the 1838 dates (I think there are two of them.) are when the territory was split off from Jay County (and possibly a small amount from Delaware) -- I'm checking out two "Histories of Jay County". The question then would be what date is most appropriate for "Founded" in the InfoBox.
Hello!
I wanted to give you an update on the Children's Museum Wikipedia collaboration. You can check out my brief overview in the [Children's Museum blog], which includes details on the [Apprentice Program] project to create five new Wikipedia articles as well as the image donation and use of the new Wikipedia Widget to link the museum's website to Wikipedia.
Last month we completed our first museum image content donation of 30 images. While this seems to be a low number, what makes the donation unique is the curatorial involvement in choosing and vetting the images for their appropriateness and usefulness within Wikimedia (many of the objects are copyrighted toys and other works that have copyright restrictions.) The curators in the collections department were very hands-on in their involvement, and we'll be outlining this process in an upcoming case study. If you would like to help further this process, I'd be happy for you to help disperse the images into useful Wikipedia articles, or let the appropriate WikiProjects know of the new images. Another 30 will be uploaded in the coming month.
In addition to the collaboration with the Museum Apprentice Program students and the curatorial department, another important collaboration was between User:Ealdgyth and the American Collections curators to significantly update the Broad Ripple Park Carousel article. After an impressive amount of time and work, the article has now received Featured Article status. The museum is absolutely thrilled and will now be adding a QR code to the carousel exhibit Carousel: Wishes and Dreams. In the future, more QR codes will be added to the objects that have had articles written by the MAP students. We're excited by the success of this collaboration & will also be writing a case study on the process.
Round 2 of the 2011 WikiCup is over, and the new round will begin on 1 May. Note that any points scored in the interim (that is, for content promoted or reviews completed on 29-30 April) can be claimed in the next round, but please do not start updating your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. Fewer than a quarter of our original contestants remain; 32 enter round 3, and, in two months' time, only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. Casliber (submissions), who led Pool F, was our round champion, with 411 points, while 7 contestants scored between 200 and 300 points. At the other end of the scale, a score of 41 was high enough to reach round 3; more than five times the score required to reach round 2, and competition will no doubt become tighter now we're approaching the later rounds. Those progressing to round 3 were spread fairly evenly across the pools; 4 progressed from each of pools A, B, E and H, while 3 progressed from both pools C and F. Pools D and G were the most successful; each had 5 contestants advancing.
This round saw our first good topic points this year; congratulations to Hurricanehink (submissions) and Nergaal (submissions) who also led pool H and pool B respectively. However, there remain content types for which no points have yet been scored; featured sounds, featured portals and featured topics. In addition to prizes for leaderboard positions, the WikiCup awards other prizes; for instance, last year, a prize was awarded to Candlewicke (submissions) (who has been eliminated) for his work on In The News. For this reason, working on more unusual content could be even more rewarding than usual!
Sorry this newsletter is going out a little earlier than expected- there is a busy weekend coming up! A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed1719:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
St. Clair's Defeat
We keep talking in circles on St. Clair's Defeat, but there are really only three of us talking, and only one that disagrees, so I'm going to go ahead and revert his edits. Can I simply revert a name change, or will that screw everything up? In the meantime, this has brought to my attention how woefully poor some of the Northwest Indian War articles are, and I'm going to devote some time to them soon. Canute (talk) 01:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can't really revert a move... At least it used to not be possible. You can try to move it back to the old name using the move option, if that don't work, ask and admin to do it. They can merge the edit histories in a way we can't. You are right, those article are lacking. I've worked on a few in the past, I did a fair amount of the work on the [{Tecumseh's War]] related articles. Seems to me I might have did a bit on the Battle of Fallen Timbers too.. I am fairly knowledgeable on the subject though and have lots of source materials. I will try to help out some as I have time. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)02:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GA review of Indianapolis Street Car Strike of 1913
The article is definitely looking good. I don't have a ton of time to edit these days, but I'll be glad to jump in during the GA process and help where I can. --Coemgenus16:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As you should know, we don't accept recent press release-style images unless they're under free licenses; this is a replaceable image, so it's unacceptable. Confused why you thank me for giving you a deletion notice, since I've not edited your talk page in ages if ever; it was whoever tagged the image for deletion. Nyttend (talk) 12:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why bother claiming fair use if you have a PD release? Just tag it with PD-author and OTRS-pending and forward the email to OTRS. If you'd like, I'll happily restore the image so that you can upload it to Commons: anything released into the public domain by copyright holders, including press-release images, is welcome there. A significant difference between the Obama image and this one is that two people in the Obama image are dead, while Daniels and Lugar are both quite alive: it's impossible for anyone to take a new picture of all the people in the Obama image, but it's quite possible for someone to take a picture of Daniels and Lugar together. Nyttend (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Major Moves
But in this case, the Hank Williams, Jr. album will now be the only thing with the exact title Major Moves, so it'll have to be moved there. How can we preserve the edit history but also move the album? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention)18:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Major Moves
But in this case, the Hank Williams, Jr. album will now be the only thing with the exact title Major Moves, so it'll have to be moved there. How can we preserve the edit history but also move the album? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention)18:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Charles Edward. Thanks for your review on the James A. Garfield article. The issues that were concerned in your review have been fixed. The article is ready for further review. The article could have branch articles due to length, however, that would take some time to develope and create. However, I believe the article meets the GA standards as currently written. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Edwards - In your graphic of Morgan's Raid on the "Indiana in the American Civil War" page, Cincinnati is spelled incorrectly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.253.186.63 (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WikiCup 2011 May newsletter
We're half way through round 3 of the 2011 WikiCup. There are currently 32 remaining in the competition, but only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. Casliber (submissions), of pool D, is our overall leader with nearly 200 points, while pools A, B and C are led by Racepacket (submissions), Hurricanehink (submissions) and Canada Hky (submissions) respectively. The score required to reach the next round is 35, though this will no doubt go up significantly as the round progresses. We have a good number of high scorers, but also a considerable number who are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. Also, an important note concerning nominations at featured article candidates: if you are nominating content for which you intend to claim WikiCup points, please make this clear in the nomination statement so that the FAC director and his delegates are aware of the fact.
A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed1723:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The June 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Would you like to help improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to the National Archives and its incredible collection? This summer, the National Archives—which houses some of America's most important historical documents—is hosting me as its Wikipedian in Residence, and I have created WP:NARA to launch these efforts.
There are all sorts of tasks available for any type of editor, whether you're a writer, organizer, gnome, coder, or image guru. The National Archives is making its resources available to Wikipedia, so help us forge this important relationship! Please sign up and introduce yourself. Dominic·t15:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Inre your santorum edit
Charles, I fully concur with the rationale that inspired your recent edit to santorum. I, too, have misgivings as to "widely regarded". In fact, I will advocate for source citations for ALL lead content (unless there is overwhelming and obvious consensus) that manages to survive this threshing process. However, until that time, I believe there are more pressing issues related to first paragraph lead content and structure..."vulgar" in particular right now. Once the structure and content inclusion can be generally agreed upon (using SV's re-write as a starting point), we can get down to the business of sourcing.
Just my .02 which I thought would be more appropriate for your talk page. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just read your archive edit summary. I hope it wasn't my rv that inspired it...but you gotta do what you gotta do I guess. Sorry you're bailing but a wikibreak can sometimes work wonders. At least stay tuned. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Charles, as you had earlier raised this issue and with the discussion of "vulgar" having somewhat abated, the subject of your earler rv is now on the floor at talk:santorum . Not canvassing for your input (though it would certainly be welcomed) but alerting you as a courtesy as I'm probably responsible for its discussion being delayed. Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retirement? I hope not
You and I may not be sympatico on a lot of issues, but this project would be clearly the worse for your departure. Please reconsider. --Orange Mike | Talk19:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't go for long. Your presence makes the place more civilized, accurate and better
Charles, There are many frustration and irritations. I understand your position, and sympathize with many of your concerns. I have had some of my own issues, although not necessarily as heartfelt as this. However, your presence is a positive force, and we (and the encyclopedia) are better for it. If you are gone, we (and it) will be diminished. I wish you the best in whatever you decide and do. For evil (or misguided editing) to triumph, all that needs be done is for those who oppose to do nothing. Bad result. Godspeed. 7&6=thirteen (☎)04:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can't blame you
You know how I can feel your pain, as you have seen the crap I have been put thru and how I got raped out of my adminship when we see such egregious behavior allowed elsewhere. Like you now I pretty much just go on Wikipedia to keep my previous work from getting pissed on as well as I can. I have enjoyed collaborating with you in the past and regret we have never met in real life despite the fact we live at most 40 miles away from each other. Take care dude.--King Bedford ISeek his grace07:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WikiCup 2011 June newsletter
We are half way through 2011, and entering the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; the semi-finals are upon us! Points scored in the interim (29/30 June) may be counted towards next round, but please do not update your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. 16 contestants remain, and all have shown dedication to the project to reach this far. Our round leader was Casliber (submissions) who, among other things, successfully passed three articles through featured article candidates and claimed an impressive 29 articles at Did You Know, scoring 555 points. Casliber led pool D. Pool A was led by Wizardman (submissions), claiming points for a featured article, a featured list and seven good article reviews, while pool C was led by Eisfbnore (submissions), who claimed for two good articles, ten articles at Did You Know and four good article reviews. They scored 154 and 118 respectively. Pool B was by far our most competitive pool; six of the eight competitors made it through to round 4, with all of them scoring over 100 points. The pool was led by Hurricanehink (submissions), who claimed for, among other things, three featured articles and five good articles. In addition to the four pool leaders, 12 others (the four second places, and the 8 next highest overall) make up our final 16. The lowest scorer who reached round 4 scored 76 points; a significant increase on the 41 needed to reach round 3. Eight of our semi-finalists scored at least twice as much as this.
No points were awarded this round for featured pictures, good topics or In the News, and no points have been awarded in the whole competition for featured topics, featured portals or featured sounds. Instead, the highest percentage of points has come from good articles. Featured articles, despite their high point cost, are low in number, and so, overall, share a comparable number of points with Did You Know, which are high in number but low in cost. A comparatively small but still considerable number of points come from featured lists and good article reviews, rounding out this round's overall scores.
We would again like to thank Jarry1250 (submissions) and Stone (submissions) for invaluable background work, as well as all of those helping to provide reviews for the articles listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Please do keep using it, and please do help by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup.
Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here, for those interested, though it appears that neither are completely accurate at this time. 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 receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed1723:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The July 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Charles, I've instituted a process to, hopefully and credibly, NPOV resolve remnant hotbutton issues. While I'm mindful of your recent comments, as a prior participant in that discussion I would appreciate any consideration you might care to offer. Any credible resolution will require significant editor input and your observations would be appreciated. Thanks for your consideration. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WikiCup 2011 July newsletter
We are half way through the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; there is less than a month to go before we have our final 8. Our pool leaders are Adabow (submissions) (Pool A, 189 points) and PresN (submissions) (Pool B, 165 points). The number of points required to reach the next round is not clear at this time; there are some users who still do not have any recorded points. Please remember to update your submissions' pages promptly. In addition, congratulations to PresN, who scored the first featured topic points in the competition for his work on Thatgamecompany related articles. Most points this round generally have, so far, come from good articles, with only one featured article (White-bellied Sea Eagle, from Casliber (submissions)) and two featured lists (Hugo Award for Best Graphic Story, from PresN and Grammy Award for Best Native American Music Album, from Another Believer (submissions)). Points for Did You Know and good article reviews round out the scoring. No points have been awarded for In the News, good topics or featured pictures this round, and no points for featured sounds or portals have been awarded in the entire competition. On an unrelated note, preparation will be beginning soon for next year's WikiCup- watch this space!
There is little else to be said beyond the usual. Please list anything you need reviewing on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, so others following the WikiCup can help, and please do help if you can by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup- points are, of course, offered for reviews at GAC. Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here. 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 receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed1711:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WikiCup 2011 July newsletter
The finals are upon us; we're down to the last few. One of the eight remaining contestants will be this year's WikiCup champion! 150 was the score needed to progress to the final; just under double the 76 required to reach round 4, and more than triple the 41 required to reach round 3. Our eight finalists are:
Casliber (submissions), Pool A's winner. Casliber has the highest total score in the competition, with 1528, the bulk of which is made up of 8 featured articles. He has the highest number of total featured articles (8, 1 of which was eligible for double points) and total did you knows (72) of any finalist. Casliber writes mostly on biology, including ornithology, botany and mycology.
PresN (submissions), Pool B's winner and the highest scorer this round. PresN is the only finalist who has scored featured topic points, and he has gathered an impressive 330, but most of his points come from his 4 featured articles, one of which scored double. PresN writes mostly on video games and the Hugo Awards.
Hurricanehink (submissions), Pool A's runner-up. Hurricanehink's points are mostly from his 30 good articles, more than any other finalist, and he is also the only finalist to score good topic points. Hurricanehink, as his name suggests, writes mostly on meteorology.
Wizardman (submissions), Pool B's runner-up. Wizardman has completed 86 good article reviews, more than any other finalist, but most of his points come from his 2 featured articles. Wizardman writes mostly on American sport, especially baseball.
Miyagawa (submissions), the "fastest loser" (Pool A). Miyagawa has written 3 featured lists, one of which was awarded double points, more than any other finalist, but he was awarded points mostly for his 68 did you knows. Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, including dogs, military history and sport.
Resolute (submissions), the second "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Resolute's points come from his 9 good articles. He writes mostly on Canadian topics, including ice hockey.
Yellow Evan (submissions), who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool A). Most of Evan's points come from his 10 good articles, and he writes mostly on meteorology.
Sp33dyphil (submissions), who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Phil's points come from his 9 good articles, 4 of which (more than any other finalist) were eligible for double points. He writes mostly on aeronautics.
In other news, preparations for next year's competition have begun with a brainstorming thread. Please, feel free to drop by and share any thoughts you have about how the competition should work next year. Sign ups are not yet open, but will be opened in due course. Watch this space. Further, there has been a discussion about the rule whereby those in the WikiCup must delcare their participation when nominating articles at featured article candidates. This has resulted in a bot being created by new featured article delegate Ucucha (talk·contribs). The bot will leave a message on FAC pages if the nominator is a participant in the WikiCup.
A reminder of the rules: any points scored after August 29 may be claimed for the final round, and please remember to update submission pages promptly. If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed1723:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I know Vayle is mentioned at points in this book: [3], which is a somewhat critical look at branahmism. There is also reference to him in this book [Twentieth-century shapers of American popular religion]. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)15:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
I don't have time to fix it up. I think he is borderline notable, there are sources if you do some Google searching, and I noted a couple in the section before this, which you could use if you are interested in retaining the article. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)12:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The September 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Thank you for your help updating The Children's Museum of Indianapolis article. It's great to see you come back! You were missed at our second Backstage Pass & Edit-a-Thon. I hope you might come by soon. We appreciate your help making the Children's Museum page live up to our promise of being "extraordinary, always" :). Thanks again! LoriLee (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on File:Wyandotte cave8.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still have the problem with the one edit. If you could help (this is today's FA), I would appreciate it. Can't get it to link to the religion subsection. Sorry, but it's annoying. OCD. Hope the other tweaks were OK. Thanks.
Ok, I will take alook. I expanded the note just a bit. He did not become catholic until after he retired, so he was only kind of a Catholic justice. From his own writings, he was generally an agnostic most of his life. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)14:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha. I think you are probably right. In his late years, I suspect he regretted alot of his religious inactivity in earlier life. My main point was to be clear that he was not a practicing member of the Catholic Church during his time on the bench, unlike the others he is grouped with, who are practicing. As far as I have read, there is no evidence he ever attended church from death of his mother until his retirement (and his family was not Catholic). He definitely converted to Catholicism after his retirement. He was still technically a Justice until his death, because he retired rather than resigned. So he was technically a Catholic Justice in that sense only. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)14:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also think (given Minton's character and his wife's presumed character) that being buried on "hallowed ground" with her -- they wouldn't let him in if he didn't convert -- would have been a factor. Of course, this is all rank speculation without any evidence, but it would be consistent with Catholic practice. Cemeteries are segregated places, by and large. 7&6=thirteen (☎)15:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Writer's Barnstar
Congratuations on having Sherman Minton on the main page! I hope that you will again be active in writing great articles on Indiana history. Reywas92Talk02:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since you may have the references more conveniently to hand than I do, could you kindly check my comment at User talk:7&6=thirteen and my response on my talkpage? Your input would be much appreciated.
I'll get to the sources as soon as I can, hopefully this weekend. In the meantime, I will do some interim rewriting to eliminate the demonstrably false aspect of the current wording. Thanks very much to both of you. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Charles Edward—You appear to be the expert on Judge Blackford. (I am trying to upgrade the Blackford County, Indiana wiki page and "bullet-proof" references.) Was he chief justice for his entire time in the Indiana Supreme court? I have had trouble finding information that confirms he was always chief justice. TwoScars (talk) 17:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes he was chief justice his entire time. The previous chief justice died shortly after being given the position. Blackford was nominated to replace him. Blackford was chief justice when the court took it first case, and remained in that position the entire time, until the constitution was amended and his position was no longer one he was appointed to, but had to be elected to. He failed in his election attempt, and I think he even failed to get elected to be the clerk and reporter for the court, after being chief justice for something like 40 years!! There is a good book on Blackford I used to make his article called "The Indiana Blackstone", you could probably find anything you needed in there. Its the most comprehensive source I am aware of on Blackford. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)12:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion is needed
Hello Charles! The Children's Museum of Indianapolis is considering adapting a formal E-Volunteer program and they welcome your opinion as a Wikipedian. Your responses to this E-Volunteer survey will be extremely valuable. The survey will come to a close on October 1st. If you're interested, here are other ways you can help the Children's Museum's Wikipedia project. Thanks so much, again, for all of your help in the past, especially updating the museum's article! LoriLee (talk) 19:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WikiCup 2011 September newsletter
We are on this year's home straight, with less than a month to go until the winner of the 2011 WikiCup will be decided. The fight for first place is currently being contested by Miyagawa (submissions), Hurricanehink (submissions) and Sp33dyphil (submissions), all of whom have over 200 points. This round has already seen multiple featured articles (1991 Atlantic hurricane season from Hurricanehink and Northrop YF-23 from Sp33dyphil) and a double-scoring featured list (Miyagawa's 1948 Summer Olympics medal table). The scores will likely increase far further before the end of the round on October 31 as everyone ups their pace. There is not much more to say- thoughts about next year's competition are welcome on the WikiCup talk page or the scoring talk page, and signups will open once a few things have been sorted out.
If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed1712:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Created an article, nominated it for a DYK, and this is what I got
Hello Charles Edward/archive4! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.
Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.
You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey
WikiCup 2011 October newsletter
The 2011 WikiCup is now over, and our new champion is Hurricanehink (submissions), who joins the exclusive club of the previous winners: Dreamafter (2007), jj137 (2008), Durova (2009) and Sturmvogel_66 (2010). The final standings were as follows:
Prizes for first, second, third and fourth will be awarded, as will prizes for all those who reached the final eight. Every participant who scored in the competition will receive a ribbon of participation. In addition to the prizes based on placement, the following special prizes will be awarded based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, the prize is awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round.
The Featured List Award: Miyagawa (submissions), for his performance in round 4. PresN (submissions) matched the score, but Miyagawa won the tiebreaker.
The Recognised Topic Award (for good and featured topics): PresN (submissions), for his performance in round 3.
The Reviewer Award (for good article reviews): Wizardman (submissions), for his performance in round 3.
No prize was awarded for featured pictures, sounds or portals, as none were claimed throughout the competition. The awards will be handed out over the next few days. Congratulations to all our participants, and especially our winners; we've all had fun, and Wikipedia has benefitted massively from our content work.
Preparation for next year's WikiCup is ongoing. Interested parties are invited to sign up and participate in our straw polls. It's been a pleasure to work with you all this year, and, whoever's taking part in and running the competition in 2012, we hope to see you all in January! J Milburn and The ed1700:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Battle of Tippecanoe was fought on November 7, 1811, between United States forces led by GovernorWilliam Henry Harrison and forces of Tecumseh's growing American Indianconfederation led by Tenskwatawa(pictured). In response to rising tensions and threats of war, a United States force of militia and regulars set out to launch a preemptive strike on the headquarters of the confederacy. While camping at the confluence of the Tippecanoe and Wabash Rivers, outside Prophetstown, awaiting a meeting with tribal leaders, Harrison's army was attacked in the early morning hours. Public opinion in the United States blamed the Native American uprising on British interference; it was later revealed that the British leaders in Canada had supplied Tecumseh's force with firearms and munitions. This led to further deterioration of American relations with Great Britain and served as a catalyst to the War of 1812, which began six months later. (more...)
Hello, Charles Edward, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia!
I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you worked on, Raymond M. Jackson, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:
Hello, I don't have time to work on the article at the moment. If you check the history you will see it was once far more extensive in coverage. I would prefer you take the AfD route so perhaps someone else could offer an opinion. I wrote the article many years ago. The subject's notability per WP:Notability is borderline. Thanks for the notice. :) —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs)04:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond M. Jackson until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Hi! As you've previously expressed interest in the competition, I'm just letting you know that the 2012 WikiCup is due to start in less than 24 hours. Signups are open, and will remain so for a few weeks after the beginning of the competition. The competition itself will follow basically the same format as last year, with a few small tweaks to point costs to reflect the opinions of the community. If you're interested in taking part, you're more than welcome, and if you know anyone who might be, please let them know too- the more the merrier! To join, simply add your name to Wikipedia:WikiCup/2012 signups, and we will be in touch. Please feel free to direct any questions to me, or leave a note on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! You are receiving this note as you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Please feel free to add or remove yourself. J Milburn (talk) 01:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Main page appearance: On the Banks of the Wabash, Far Away
"On the Banks of the Wabash, Far Away" was among the best-selling songs of the 19th century in terms of sheet music sold. Written and composed by American songwriter Paul Dresser, it was published by the Tin Pan Alley firm of Howley, Haviland & Co. in October 1897. The lyrics of the ballad reminisce about life near Dresser's childhood home by the Wabash River in Indiana. It remained popular for decades and the Indiana General Assembly adopted it as the official state song on March 14, 1913. The song was the basis for a 1923 film by the same title. Its longtime popularity led to the emergence of several different lyrical versions, including an 1898 anti-war song and a Swedish version that was a number one hit. The song was composed during a transitory time in musical history when songs first began to be recorded for the phonograph. It was among the earliest pieces of popular music to be recorded. Dresser's inability to control the distribution of phonograph cylinders led him and his company to join other composers to petition the United States Congress to expand federal copyright protections over the new technology. (more...)
The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
WikiCup 2012 is off to a flying start. At the time of writing, we have 112 contestants; comparable to last year, but slightly fewer than 2010. Signups will remain open for another week, after which time they will be closed for this year. Our currrent far-away leader is Grapple X (submissions), due mostly to his work on a slew of good articles about The X-Files; there remain many such articles waiting to be reviewed at good article candidates. Second place is currently held by Ruby2010 (submissions), whose points come mostly from good articles about television episodes, although good article reviews, did you knows and an article about a baroness round out the score. In third place is Jivesh boodhun (submissions), who has scored 200 points for his work on a single featured article, as well as points for work on others, mostly in the area of pop music. In all, nine users have 100 or more points. However, at the other end of the scale, there are still dozens of participants who are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly!
The 64 highest scoring participants will advance to round 2 in a month's time. There, they will be split into eight random groups of eight. The score needed to reach the next round is not at all clear; last year, 8 points guaranteed a place. The year before, 20.
A few participants and their work warrant a mention for achieving "firsts" in this competition.
12george1 (submissions) was also the first to score points for an article, thanks to his work on Hurricane Debby (1982)- now a good article. Tropical storms have featured heavily in the Cup, and good articles currently have a relatively fast turnaround time for reviews.
Sp33dyphil (submissions) is also the first person to successfully claim bonus points. Terminator 2: Judgment Day is now a good article, and was eligible for bonus points because the subject was covered on more than 20 other Wikipedias at the start of the competition. It is fantastic to see bonus points being claimed so early!
Speciate (submissions) was the first to score points for an In the News entry, with Paedophryne amauensis. The lead image from the article was also used on the main page for a time, and it's certainly eye-catching!
Jivesh boodhun (submissions) was the first to score points for a featured article, and is, at the moment, the only competitor to claim for one. The article, "Halo" (Beyoncé Knowles song), was also worth double points because of its wide coverage. While this is an article that Jivesh and others have worked on for some time, it is undeniable that he has put considerable work into it this year, pushing it over the edge.
We are yet to see any featured lists, featured topics or good topics, but this is unsurprising; firstly, the nomination processes with each of these can take some time, and, secondly, it can take a considerable amount of time to work content to this level. In a similar vein, we have seen only one featured article. The requirement that content must have been worked on this year to be eligible means that we did not expect to see these at the start of the competition. No points have been claimed for featured portals or pictures, but these are not content types which are often claimed; the former has never made a big impact on the WikiCup, while the latter has not done so since 2009's competition.
A quick rules clarification before the regular notices: If you are concerned that another user is claiming points inappropriately, please contact a judge to take a look at the article. Competitors policing one another can create a bad atmosphere, and may lead to inconsistencies and mistakes. Rest assured that we, the judges, are making an effort to check submissions, but it is possible that we will miss something. On a loosely related note: If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed1700:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AfD and PROD notifications
Hi Charles Edward,
Back in November, you got either an AfD or PROD notification, which was part of the template testing project's experiments. If you could go here and leave us some feedback about what you think about the new versions of the templates we tested (there are links to the templates), that would be very useful. (You can also email me at mpinchukwikimedia.org if you want.) Thanks! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiCup 2012 February newsletter
Round 1 is already over! The 64 highest scorers have progressed to round 2. Our highest scorer was Grapple X (submissions), again thanks mostly to a swathe of good articles on The X-Files. In second place was Tigerboy1966 (submissions), thanks an impressive list of did you knows about racehorses. Both scored over 400 points. Following behind with over 300 points were Ruby2010 (submissions), Cwmhiraeth (submissions), Miyagawa (submissions) and Casliber (submissions). February also saw the competition's first featured list: List of colleges and universities in North Dakota, from Ruby2010 (submissions). At the other end of the scale, 11 points was enough to secure a place in this round, and some contestants with 10 points made it into the round on a tiebreaker. This is higher than the 8 points that were needed last year, but lower than the 20 points required the year before. The number of points required to progress to round 3 will be significantly higher.
The remaining contestants have been split into 8 pools of 8, named A through H. Round two will finish in two months time on 28 April, when the two highest scorers in each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers, will progress to round 3. The pools were entirely random, so while some pools may end up being more competitive than others, this is by chance rather than design.
The judges would like to point out two quick rules reminders. First, any content promoted during the interim period (that is, on or after 27 February) is eligible for points in round 2. Second, any content worked on significantly this year is eligible for points if promoted in this round. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which would otherwise be caused by the Cup. 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 receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments are encouraged
I've mentioned you by name at Talk:Battle of Tippecanoe#Accuracy and research issues and encourage you to reply if you are so inclined. I hope you will regard my comments as an effort to promote quality research for the encyclopedia, and not as personal criticism. It's rarely enjoyable to have one's mistakes pointed out, but that's part of what we do here. Best wishes. —KevinMyers20:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
HighBeam Research collaboration (similar to WP:CREDO)
Hi! I've recently started a discussion with HighBeam Research, who is interested in donating some accounts for Wikipedia editors to use. I see you were involved with the Credo project and wanted to get your feedback on a few issues:
What did the Credo project do right? Wrong?
Were you too lenient in giving out accounts?
Could you have limited account usage duration?
Could you have centrally managed passwords?
Should you have assigned accounts randomly not on a first-come basis?
Who decided which editors got accounts?
How was the project promoted?
What rules did editors follow for using and referencing non-free sources in articles?
I have read over the talk page discussions and archives for the Credo project and am formulating a loose idea of what might work better. Right now it would include:
minimum of 1 year, 1000 edits
demonstration of experience doing research and intent to use the service
announced ahead of time
randomly selected after a week
maximum duration of 1 year, after which people can reapply
I think overall CREDO went well. One problem is there was no ability to reassign accounts once an editor became inactive. The most important thing is to advertise it in all the rigt places, village pump, to the projects, at FAC and DYK, etc. And give a fair amount of time for people to sign up, like one week.
I don't think so, our criteria was pretty fair.
If a limited account duration could be tied with reassigned accounts from inactive editors, that would be good
Could you have centrally managed passwords? - I don't think so
Should you have assigned accounts randomly not on a first-come basis? - With the amount of account Credo donated, we actually had more accounts than people who signed up. So this was not a problem.
Who decided which editors got accounts? - I did actually. After everyone signed up, I went through each applicant and made sure they met the criteria.
How was the project promoted? - In the village pump, notices sent out to the major projects talk pages, at DYK, FAC, etc etc. Everywhere content building editors were known to frequent.
What rules did editors follow for using and referencing non-free sources in articles? - No sure exactly what you mean by this. We just use the references as normally required by policy.
I have read over the talk page discussions and archives for the Credo project and am formulating a loose idea of what might work better. Right now it would include:
minimum of 1 year, 1000 edits
demonstration of experience doing research and intent to use the service
announced ahead of time
randomly selected after a week
maximum duration of 1 year, after which people can reapply
I think this criteria sounds good. The need to randomize really depends on how many accounts you have to give out. I doubt there are more than 400 significant content contributors that are active anymore. I would also suggest further narrowing who qualifies to someone who is involved in regular content generation. And I would suggest giving preference to content generating editors or content reviewing editors over the others.
Thanks for your thoughtful feedback. I'm taking it into consideration and incorporating it into the design of the HighBeam project. Cheers! Ocaasit | c12:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Historical markers
I understand that you're not very active anymore, but I'd still like to invite you to participate in illustrating a new set of lists: List of Indiana state historical markers and its county sublists. Eighty-nine counties have individual lists (the only exceptions are Clinton, Dubois, and Jay, which have no state markers at all), and most of them still need images. Please note that these lists are modelled after a parallel system in Pennsylvania, and like the Pennsylvania lists, the illustration column is not meant to concentrate on the markers themselves: images of the subjects of the markers are generally better than the markers themselves. Accordingly, I've only included images of markers if (1) there's no image of the subject of the marker, and (2) the marker itself is eligible for {{PD-US-no notice}}, since of course marker texts published since 1977 are still under all-rights-reserved copyright. Nyttend (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiCup 2012 March newsletter
We are over half way through the second round of this year's WikiCup and things are going well! Grapple X (submissions), of Pool B, is our highest overall scorer thanks to his prolific writings on television and film. In second place is Pool H's Cwmhiraeth (submissions), thanks primarily to work on biological articles, especially in marine biology and herpetology. Third place goes to Pool E's Casliber (submissions), who also writes primarily on biology (including ornithology and botany) and has already submitted two featured articles this round. Of the 63 contestants remaining, 15 (just under a quarter) have over 100 points this round. However, 25 are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly. 32 contestants, the top two from each pool and the 16 next-highest scorers, will advance to round 3.
It has been observed that the backlogs at good article candidates are building up again. While the points for good article reviews will be remaining constant, any help that can be offered keeping the backlog down would be appreciated. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiCup 2012 April newsletter
Round 2 of this year's WikiCup is over, and so we are down to our final 32, in what could be called our quarter-finals. The two highest scorers from each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers overall, have entered round 3, while 30 participants have been eliminated. Pool B's Grapple X (submissions) remains our top scorer with over 700 points; he continues to gain high numbers of points for his good articles on The X-Files, but also Millennium and other subjects. He has also gained points for a good topic, a featured list, multiple good article reviews and several did you knows. Pool E's Casliber (submissions) was second, thanks primarily to his biology articles, with Pool H's Muboshgu (submissions) coming in third, with an impressive 46 did you knows, mostly on the subject of baseball. Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both scored over 600 points. Pools E and H proved our most successful, with each seeing 5 members qualify for round 3, while Pools C and D were the least, with each seeing only 3 reach round 3. However, it was Pool G which saw the lowest scoring, with a little under 400 points combined; Pool H, the highest scoring group, saw over triple that score.
65 points was the lowest qualifying score for round 3; significantly higher than the 11 required to enter round 2, and also higher than the 41 required to reach round 3 last year. However, in 2010, 100 points were needed to secure a place in round 3. 16 will progress to round 4. In round 3, 150 points was the 16th highest score, though, statistically, people tend to up their game a little in later rounds. Last year, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 points were needed. Guessing how many points will be required is not easy. We still have not seen any featured portals or topics this year, but, on the subject of less common content types, a small correction needs to be made to the previous newsletter: File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg, our first featured picture, was the work of bothMatthewedwards (submissions) andGrandiose (submissions), the latter of whom has also gone on to score with File:Map of the Battle of Guam, 1944.svg. Bonus points also continue to roll in; this round, Ealdgyth (submissions) earned triple points for her good articles on William the Conqueror and the Middle Ages, Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both earned triple points for their work on Western Jackdaw, now a good article, Dana Boomer (submissions) earned triple points for her work on lettuce and work by Stone (submissions) to ready antimony for good article status earned him triple points. Jarry1250 (submissions) managed to expand Vitus Bering far enough for a did you know, which was also worth triple points. All of these highly important topics featured on 50 or more Wikipedias at the start of the year.
An article on the WikiCup in the Wikimedia Blog, "Improving Wikipedia with friendly competition", was posted at the end of April. This may be of interest to those who are signed up to this newsletter, as well as serving as another way to draw attention to our project. Also, we would again like to thank Jarry1250 (submissions) and Stone (submissions), for continued help behind the scenes. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia: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 receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiCup 2012 May newsletter
We're halfway through round 3 (or the quarter finals, if you prefer) and things are running smoothly. We're seeing very high scoring; as of the time of writing, the top 16 all have over 90 points. This has already proved to be more competative than this time last year- in 2011, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 was the lowest qualifying score. People have also upped their game slightly from last round, which is to be expected as we approach the end of the competition. Leading Pool A is Cwmhiraeth (submissions), whose points have mostly come from a large number of did you knows on marine biology. Pool B's leader, Grapple X (submissions), is for the first time not our highest scorer at the time of newsletter publication, but his good articles on The X-Files and Millenium keep him in second place overall. Miyagawa (submissions) leads Pool C, our quietest pool, with content in a variety of areas on a variety of topics. Pool D is led by Casliber (submissions), our current overall leader. Nearly half of Casliber's points come from his triple-scored Western Jackdaw, which is now a featured article.
This round has seen an unusually high number of featured lists, with nearly one in five remaining participants claiming one, and one user, Muboshgu (submissions), claiming two. Miyagawa's featured list, 1936 Summer Olympics medal table, was even awarded double points. By comparison, good article reviews seem to be playing a smaller part, and featured topics portals remain two content-types still unutilised in this competition. Other than that, there isn't much to say! Things are coming along smoothly. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. 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 • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Campaign for "santorum" neologism
I read your user page, and I must agree that campaign for "santorum" neologism is the worst article in all of Wikipedia. Besides being an attack ad, it is a purely web-based concept with minimal discussion in magazines, newspapers, radio, or TV. I consider it a horrible example of "article capture" when few editors take over an article, and prevent any modification to it. NJ Wine (talk) 21:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiCup 2012 June newsletter
Apologies for the lateness of this letter; our usual bot wasn't working. We are now entering round 4, our semi-finals, and have our final 16. A score of 243 was required to reach this round; significantly more than 2011's 76 points, and only a little behind 2010's 250 points. By comparison, last year, 150 points in round 4 secured a place in the final; in 2010, 430 were needed. Commiserations to Pool A's igordebraga (submissions), who scored 242 points, missing out on a place in the round by a whisker. However, congratulations to Pool B's Grapple X (submissions), whose television articles have brought him another round victory. Pool A's Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came second overall, with an impressive list of biological did you knows, good articles and featured articles. Third overall was Pool D's Muboshgu (submissions), with a long list of contibutions, mostly relating to baseball. Of course, with the points resetting every round, the playing field has been levelled. The most successful Pool was Pool D, which saw seven into the final round. Pool B saw four, C saw three and Pool A saw only the two round leaders.
A quick note about other competitions taking place on Wikipedia which may be of interest. There are 13 days remaining in the June-July GAN backlog elimination drive, but it is not too late to take part. August will also see the return of The Core Contest- a one month long competition first run in 2007. While the WikiCup awards points for audited content on any subject, The Core Contest about is raw article improvement, focussing heavily on the most important articles on Wikipedia. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. 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 • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 10:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:
It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.
At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).
Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.
We're approaching the beginning of 2012's final round. Pool A sees Cwmhiraeth (submissions) as the leader, with 300 points being awarded for the featured article Bivalvia, and Pool B sees Grapple X (submissions) in the lead, with 10 good articles, and over 35 articles eligible for good topic points. Pool A sees Muboshgu (submissions) in second place with a number of articles relating to baseball, while Pool B's Ruby2010 (submissions) follows Grapple X, with a variety of contributions including the high-scoring, high-importance featured article on the 2010 film Pride & Prejudice. Ruby2010, like Grapple X, also claimed a number of good topic points; despite this, not a single point has been claimed for featured topics in the contest so far. The same is true for featured portals.
Currently, the eighth-place competitor (and so the lowest scorer who would reach the final round right now) has scored 332, more than double the 150 needed to reach the final round last year. In 2010, however, 430 was the lowest qualifying score. In this competition, we have generally seen scores closer to those in 2010 than those in 2011. Let's see what kind of benchmark we can set for future competitions! As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. 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 • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 22:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiCup 2012 August newsletter
The final is upon us! We are down to our final 8. A massive 573 was our lowest qualifying score; this is higher than the 150 points needed last year and the 430 needed in 2010. Even in 2009, when points were acquired for mainspace edit count in addition to audited content, 417 points secured a place. That leaves this year's WikiCup, by one measure at least, our most competitive ever. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:
Grapple X (submissions) once again finishes the round in first place, leading Pool B. Grapple X writes articles about television, and especially The X-Files and Millenium, with good articles making up the bulk of the score.
Miyagawa (submissions) led Pool A this round. Fourth-place finalist last year, Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, and has reached the final primarily off the back of his massive number of did you knows.
Ruby2010 (submissions) was second in Pool B. Ruby2010 writes primarily on television and film, and scores primarily from good articles.
Casliber (submissions) finished third in Pool B. Casliber is something of a WikiCup veteran, having finished sixth in 2011 and fourth in 2010. Casliber writes on the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. Over half of Casliber's points this round were bonus points from the high-importance articles he has worked on.
Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came second in Pool A. Also writing on biology, especially marine biology, Cwmhiraeth received 390 points for one featured article (Bivalvia) and one good article (pelican), topping up with a large number of did you knows.
Muboshgu (submissions) was third in Pool A. Muboshgu writes primarily on baseball, and this round saw Muboshgu's first featured article, Derek Jeter, promoted on its fourth attempt at FAC.
Dana Boomer (submissions) was fourth in Pool A. She writes on a variety of topics, including horses, but this round also saw the high-importance lettuce reach featured article status.
Sasata (submissions) is another WikiCup veteran, having been a finalist in 2009 and 2010. He writes mostly on mycology.
On the subject of next year, a discussion has been opened here. Come and have your say about the competition, and how you'd like it to run in the future. This brainstorming will go on for some time before more focused discussions/polls are opened. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. 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 • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiCup 2012 September newsletter
We're over half way through the final, and so it is less than a month until we know for certain our 2012 WikiCup champion. Grapple X (submissions) currently leads, followed by Sasata (submissions), Cwmhiraeth (submissions) and Casliber (submissions). However, we have no one resembling a breakaway leader, and so the competition is a long way from over. Next month's newsletter will feature a list of our winners (who are not necessarily only the finalists) and keep your eyes open for an article on the WikiCup in a future edition of The Signpost. The leaders are already on a par with last year's winners, but a long way from the huge scores seen in 2010. That said, a repeat of the competition from 2010 seems unlikely.
It is good to see that three-quarters of our finalists have already scored bonus points this round. This shows that, contrary to criticism that the WikiCup has received in the past, the competition does not merely incentivise the writing of trivial articles; instead, our top competitors are still spending their time contributing to high-importance articles, and bringing them to a high standard. This does a great service to the encyclopedia and its readers. Thank you, and good work!
The 2012 WikiCup has come to a close; congratulations to Cwmhiraeth (submissions), our 2012 champion! Cwmhiraeth joins our exclusive club of previous winners: Dreamafter (2007), jj137 (2008), Durova (2009), Sturmvogel 66 (2010) and Hurricanehink (2011). Our final standings were as follows:
Prizes for first, second, third and fourth will be awarded, as will prizes for all those who reached the final eight. Every participant who scored in the competition will receive a ribbon of participation. In addition to the prizes based on placement, the following special prizes will be awarded based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, the prize is awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round.
The featured article award goes to Grapple X (submissions), for four featured articles in the final round.
The good article award also goes to Grapple X (submissions), for 19 good articles in the second round.
The list award goes to Muboshgu (submissions), for three featured lists in the final round.
The topic award goes to Grapple X (submissions), for three good topics (with around 40 articles) in round 4.
The did you know award goes to Cwmhiraeth (submissions), for well over 100 DYKs in the final round.
The news award goes to ThaddeusB (submissions), for 10 in the news items in round 3.
The picture award goes to Grandiose (submissions), for two featured pictures in round 2.
Finally, for achieving an incredible bonus point total in the final round, and for bringing the top-importance article frog to featured status, a biostar has been awarded to Cwmhiraeth (submissions).
Awards will be handed out in the coming days; please bear with us! This year's competition also saw fantastic contributions in all rounds, from newer Wikipedians contributing their first good or featured articles, right up to highly experienced Wikipedians chasing high scores and contributing to topics outside of their usual comfort zones. It would be impossible to name all of the participants who have achieved things to be proud of, but well done to all of you, and thanks! Wikipedia has certainly benefited from the work of this year's WikiCup participants.
Hi there; you're receiving this message because you have previously shown interest in the WikiCup. This is just to remind you that the 2013 WikiCup will be starting on 1 January, and that signups will remain open throughout January. Old and new Wikipedians and WikiCup participants are warmly invited to take part in this year's competition. (Though, as a note to the more experienced participants, there have been a few small rules changes in the last few months.) If you have already signed up, let this be a reminder; you will receive a message with your submissions' page soon. Please direct any questions to the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! J Milburn19:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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. Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) currently leads, with 358 points. At this stage in 2012, the leader (Grapple X (submissions)) 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. 12george1 (submissions) was the first competitor to score this year, as he was last year, with a detailed good article review. Some other firsts:
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 Wikipedia: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:
Hawkeye7 (submissions) 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.
HueSatLum (submissions) 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 The C of E (submissions), 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?
I noticed that you tagged the article I created on now-former Marion County, Indiana Sheriff Frank J. Anderson as needing to be updated back in July, 2009, and I wanted to let you know that I have edited the article to reflect more recent events in Anderson's career. As a result of my recent edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to check the article again to determine the feasibility of removing the "Update Needed" tag. --TommyBoy (talk) 08:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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:
Miyagawa (submissions), primarily for an array of did you knows and good articles, some of which were awarded bonus points.
Casliber (submissions), due in no small part to Canis Minor, a featured article awarded a total of 340 points. A joint submission with Keilana (submissions), this is the highest scoring single article yet submitted in this year's competition.
Other contributors of note include:
Sven Manguard (submissions), 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.
Featured topics have still played no part in this year's competition, but once again, a curious contribution has been offered by The C of E (submissions): 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 11:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=link}
