User talk:Grondemar/Archives/2011


Welcome to the 2011 WikiCup!

Hello, happy new year and welcome to the 2011 WikiCup! Your submissions' page can be found here and instructions of how to update the page can be found here and on the submissions' page itself. From the submissions' page, a bot will update the main scoresheet. Our rules have been very slightly updated from last year; the full rules can be found here. Please remember that you can only receive points for content on which you have done significant work in 2011; nominations of work from last year and "drive-by" nominations will not be awarded points. Signups are going to remain open through January, so if you know of anyone who would like to take part, please direct them to Wikipedia:WikiCup/2011 signups. The judges can be contacted on the WikiCup talk page, on their respective talk pages, or by email. Other than that, we will be in contact at the end of every month with the newsletter. If you want to stop or start receiving newsletters, please remove your name from or add your name to this list. Good luck! J Milburn and The ed17 12:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 January 2011

belated congratulations

Congratulations upon your successful RfA! Here are some words of wisdom I received from the puppy when my crimson-and-cream mop was brand new:
  1. Remember you will always protect the wrong version.
  2. Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5)
  3. Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll.
  4. Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block.
  5. Remember when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology.
  6. and finally, remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able.
DISCLAIMER: Boomer Sooner! This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, Jimbo Wales, or the Oklahoma Sooners who, in case you hadn't heard, beat the Connecticut Huskies 48-20 in the Fiesta Bowl. All rights released under GFDL. Boomer Sooner!

Seriously, welcome to the janitor's closet, and if I can help, don't hesitate to ask. :-) KrakatoaKatie 08:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Optics and Photonics Letters

Please restore the page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optics_and_Photonics_Letters

created on 8 January.

Thank you for your attention.

Regards, OPL Desk Editor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckwongb (talk • contribs) 16:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Optics and Photonics Letters

    • If it is restored, I or Crusio shall take it to WP:AFD, because the previous deletion reason Crusio gave still holds: publishes only a few articles yearly since 2008, not listed in any selective database, etc, therefore non-notable). So if you do decide to restore it, please notify Crusio and myself (I have advised Ckwongb accordingly. DGG ( talk ) 16:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Grondemar. You have new messages at Wuhwuzdat's talk page.
Message added 18:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dear Grondemar

Thank you for your reply. I understand your points, and would like to build on the current content offered at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Scientific

As you can see, the article is definitely not comprehensive enough, and benefit readers if more information was provided.

Thanks again for your attention, and please contact us at <opl@wspc.com> should further clarification be required.

Regards, OPL Desk Editor World Scientific Publishing Company — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckwongb (talk • contribs) 00:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Hurricane Shary (2010) Good Article Review

Hi Grondemar,

It has been a couple of days since you have touched the Hurricane Shary (2010) GA Review page, and I was wondering if you could let me finish the review if you're busy. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I got caught up with a couple of other things I was doing. I will revisit by the end of the weekend. –Grondemar 01:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

African American category

As a reg at WP:WPCBB, I was hoping you might wish to comment on the issue that I raised here and here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I commented at the article talk page. –Grondemar 19:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:Skumars123

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on User talk:Skumars123, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Manway (talk) 06:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Skumars123

Sorry about that - we must have crossed paths or something - I didn't see a block on him when I CSD'd him. Apologies. --Manway (talk) 06:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem; he decided to re-post spam to his user talk page after being blocked, so I removed his ability to edit his own user talk page. –Grondemar 06:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 January 2011

Rebecca Soni review

Thanks man! Appreciate it! Philipmj24 (talk) 14:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2011

Imperial triple crown

Your majesty, it gives me great pleasure to bestow these Imperial triple crown jewels upon Grondemar for your contributions in the areas of WP:DYK, WP:GA, and WP:FC, for articles related to American football. Thank you for your majestic contributions to the project! – SMasters (talk) 06:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations and may you wear these imperial triple crowns well. Keep up the good work! – SMasters (talk) 06:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! –Grondemar 12:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Jordan Kovacs/GA1

Please review Talk:Jordan Kovacs/GA1.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 January 2011

Administrator

I ask you this question simply because you are an administrator and are presumed to know some of the rules.

William Daniel (MP)

Should this be an article? How does notability and quality of article writing play into the decision. Please educate me. I am not trying to argue one way or another. Nesteoil (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any immediate problem with it. It meets our minimum criteria for existence since it makes a credible claim of notability (was a MP) and is sourced. Ideally we would want to expand it and move it up the quality ladder, but for now it is fine. WP:There is no deadline. Hope this helps. –Grondemar 18:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

PR 10 GA

Were you planning on completing this review? --Admrboltz (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, real life intrudes yet again. I'll get to it before the end of the weekend. –Grondemar 23:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 January newsletter

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 Zanzibar Hurricanehink (submissions), with 144 points. Four others have over 100 points. Congratulations also go to Greece Yellow Evan (submissions), who scored the first points in the competition, claiming for Talk:Hurricane King/GA1, Principality of Sealand Miyagawa (submissions), who scored the first non-review points in the competition, claiming for Dognapping, and United Kingdom 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 ed17 22:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


The Signpost: 31 January 2011

Wikipedia:WikiProject University of Connecticut taggin

Hey. Just wondering when you will proceed with the automated tagging of articles in WP:UCONN which would make it a lot easier to get started. Thanks. Smartyllama (talk) 19:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I just added the request at User talk:Xenobot Mk V/requests. Thanks for the reminder. –Grondemar 23:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 February 2011

UConn WikiProject

Hey. Thanks for letting me know about the proposed UConn WikiProject. I would be interested in it if it ever gets started up. Just let me know. Smartyllama (talk) 02:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Grondemar, Not sure if I signed up correctly for the UConn WikiProject, so I thought I'd stop by here and let you know I am supportive of your efforts! Hope I can help. Joshfinnie (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for signing up; I moved your signup to the new page and fixed the link from the proposals page to point to the new location. Sorry for any confusion. –Grondemar 04:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Legends of the Hidden Temple/GA2

Hi. You planning to review this soon? Wizardman Operation Big Bear 00:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to get to this by the end of the weekend. Thanks for the reminder. –Grondemar 00:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and deleted the GA review subpage to allow someone else to complete the review. My time on Wikipedia is going to be limited the next few weeks due to real-life time commitments; it was doubtful I was going to be able to get to this review anytime soon. I will still try to finished the PR-10 review however. –Grondemar 04:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

CfR discussion

Could you weigh in here so that the process can move along more quickly? It can take a couple weeks if nobody chimes in. Thanks! Jrcla2 (talk) 04:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 February 2011

PR-10

Hi. Was wandering how your review of PR-10 was progressing as I noticed it has been some 10 days since you made any edits to its review page. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 04:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay—I replied at the GA review page. –Grondemar 03:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Grondemar. You have new messages at Jrcla2's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

19:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 February 2011

Edit summary

I was recently blocked for giving a misleading edit summary. Is that a sufficient reason to block someone? 84.13.50.235 (talk) 10:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I see no blocks in your block log. What account was blocked? –Grondemar 12:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
It was a confirmed account [1] 84.13.50.235 (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
You should not be using an IP account to evade your block. I probably would have been more sympathetic had you not been editing other pages on Wikipedia using the IP, rather than just contacting me. I have blocked the IP account tentatively for a week, and will post a thread at WP:ANI to determine what should be done about your block. –Grondemar 01:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Looks like everything's handled, but next time, please tag me in as well, so I can keep track. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Willdo in the future, sorry about that. :-) –Grondemar 12:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
In the past 2 weeks, SarekofVulcan has violated WP:INVOLVED policy twice with established editors. First with me. Then with User:WikiManOne. Thats without even checking SoV's contributions. You seem to be ignoring this. Or are administrators above the rules or something? 78.144.246.194 (talk) 09:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Administators are not above the rules, but neither are you. For repeated socking as an IP after being specifically warned to stop, I have extended your block to indefinite. –Grondemar 12:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I definitely haven't violated INVOLVED with Someone65 -- those were 90% admin-only interactions. WM1 is a harder call, since I have strong feelings in the content area. The funny thing is, I agree with WM1's position, but his actual edits have struck me as being more disruptive than his opponents'. (Thanks for the notice about this.) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

See here. The last 2 IP edits of a few hours ago are also him. He's quickly becoming an unrepentant block evader who can change IP's very quickly. We should now consider how large the range is he is editing from.--Atlan (talk) 23:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

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 Zanzibar Hurricanehink (submissions) (second, with 459), who stormed the first round. Scotland 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 United Kingdom 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 Bavaria 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 ed17 23:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

2009 World Series

Added that stuff, thanks! Staxringold talkcontribs 20:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I replied at the FAC. –Grondemar 02:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry to poke/harass you like this (I know you're busy with the PapaJohns Bowl article, a subject near to my heart as a UConn student), but I was wondering if you had the chance to take the fuller reading you alluded to at the FAC. Thanks! Staxringold talkcontribs 22:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I left some additional comments at the FAC. If you have time, would you consider taking a look at the PapaJohns.com Bowl FAC and leaving your feedback? Thanks. –Grondemar 04:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2011

The Signpost: 7 March 2011

The Signpost: 14 March 2011

Nikephoros Melissenos GAN

Hello! I hope you don't mind me asking, but a few days ago you initiated a GA review on Nikephoros Melissenos. Do you intend to carry it through? If not, please state this so that another user can undertake it. Best regards, Constantine ✍ 13:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, I became busy in real life with other things and haven't had a chance to complete the review. I'll come back to it by the end of the week. –Grondemar 03:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
You also got Ryan Lochte to wrap up and the ACC one to start. I can take the latter if you want, since it looks like the bit of time you do have is going towards your FAC. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually, scratch the above. I went ahead and took over Nikephoros and 2010 ACC for you, I hope that's not a problem. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
No problem, I understand. I need to take care of GANs I tag in a much more timely fashion; I've been really bad about that lately. Too much to do in too little time. Sorry. –Grondemar 03:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Don't worry, real life always takes precedence. Best of luck with your FAC! Cheers, Constantine ✍ 10:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 March 2011

Advice needed

I need help at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_Basketball#Chris_Hill_.28basketball.29.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Ryan Lochte review

Did you forget? Philipmj24 (talk) 03:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I did, sorry about that. I passed the article as a good article. –Grondemar 05:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
No worries. Thanks man! Philipmj24 (talk) 05:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Ryan Lochte succession boxes

(Moving conversation to Talk:Ryan Lochte) I think the succession boxes are less helpful to the reader in chronological order than grouped by event (and merged like say Barry Bonds). Imagine if Bond's succession boxes were chronological order.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Respond at Talk:Ryan Lochte.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know Tony; I replied at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Swimming#Succession_boxes. –Grondemar 13:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 March 2011

WikiCup 2011 March newsletter

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 Zanzibar Hurricanehink (submissions) with 231 points, who leads Pool H. Poland 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 ed17 00:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 April 2011

2010 PapaJohns.com Bowl

Congrats! Staxringold talkcontribs 00:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and congratulations to you as well on the promotion of 2009 World Series! –Grondemar 10:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations on the FA and the national championship! JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your participation in the March 2011 GAN backlog elimination drive

On behalf of User:Wizardman and myself, we would like to take the time and thank you for your contributions made as part of the March 2011 Good articles backlog elimination drive. Awards and barnstars will go out shortly for those who have reviewed a certain number of articles.

During the backlog drive, in the month of March 2011,

  • 522 GA nominations were undertaken.
  • 423 GA nominations passed.
  • 72 GA nominations failed.
  • 27 GA nominations were on hold.

We started the GA backlog elimination drive with 378 GA nominations remaining, with 291 that were not reviewed at all. By 2:00, April 1, 2011, the backlog was at 171 GA nominations, with 100 that were left unreviewed.

At the start of the drive, the oldest unreviewed GA nomination was 101 days (Andrei Kirilenko (politician), at 20 November 2010, reviewed and passed 1 March 2011); at the end of the drive the oldest unreviewed GA nomination was 39 days (Gery Chico, at 24 February 2011, still yet to be reviewed as of this posting).

While we did not achieve the objective of getting the backlog of outstanding GA nominations down to below 50, we reduced the GA backlog by over half. The GA reviews also seemed to be of a higher quality and have consistently led, to say the least, to marginal improvements to those articles (although there were significant improvements to many, even on the some of the nominations that were failed).

If you would like to comment on the drive itself and maybe even make suggestions on how to improve the next one, please make a comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/March 2011#Feedback. Another GA backlog elimination drive is being planned for later this year, tentatively for September or October 2011. Also, if you have any comments or remarks on how to improve the Good article process in general, Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles can always use some feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles.

Again, on behalf of User:Wizardman and myself, thank you for making the March 2011 GA backlog elimination drive a success.

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 21:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

American football scoring summary

Quick question because it's not listed in the documentation: How do I list drive length by number of plays? --JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

"DrivePlays=X" for the number of plays, "DriveLength=X" for the number of yards gained on the drive, "DriveTime=X" for the time elasped during the drive. When I have extra time I should update and clarify the documentation. –Grondemar 23:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Ngagement photo

i believe this to be a perfectly valid fair use claim, as explained in the upload. Unfortunately I have only iPod access for the next week so I'm unable to respond at length. But I think the explanation in my upload civers it. I am very careful and sparing with Fair use claims. Happy to fedend this in the appropriate forum if you disagree , but can't even use templates fir the next week.--Scott Mac 03:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I understand. I opened a thread at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 51#Second opinion requested on File:Royal engagement official.jpg to get second opinions on this issue. –Grondemar 08:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 April 2011

March 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive award

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
For reviewing 5 or more Good article nominations during this past March 2011 GA backlog elimination drive, I hereby award you The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar. Good job! –MuZemike 17:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 April 2011

Re:Second opinion requested on image at FLC

I would not be inclined to call that ineligible for copyright. If there was no basketball, yes. One way you could "find out", as it were, is upload it to Commons and have the other user nominate it for deletion there- both make your case, and whichever way it is closed... However, that's a very slow process. Alternatively, you could get some more eyes on it by posting it on this page. J Milburn (talk) 08:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I opened a thread at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#File:Uconnwomenslogo.png. Thanks for the suggestions! –Grondemar 15:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Uconnwomenslogo.png

Per the discussion on this image, I've retagged this image as non-free, and marked it as missing a rationale and orphaned. Both of those taggings make the image subject to deletion. Please see WP:FURG for how to construct a valid rationale, and also see about getting the image used in the main article namespace (making it not orphaned). Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 13:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm about to leave on vacation and will not have a chance to do this until I get back on May 2. I temporarily deleted the image and will look to restore with the proper license upon my return. –Grondemar 17:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2011

WikiCup 2011 April newsletter

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. Scotland 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 Zanzibar Hurricanehink (submissions) and Assyrian people 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 Democratic Republic of the Congo 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 ed17 19:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


Engine Company 2 Fire Station

I expanded that article into something we could use on DYK. Thanks for the pic ... it was better than the one I had (although the best possible picture, I think, would be from across and up the street on a clear morning, to get a little of the side in). Daniel Case (talk) 15:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for letting me know! –Grondemar 02:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 May 2011

Talkback

Hello, Grondemar. You have new messages at Talk:List of Connecticut Huskies bowl games.
Message added 07:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Just a note... this has been like this for five months now. Either needs to be updated, or delisted. Courcelles 07:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 May 2011

The Signpost: 16 May 2011

The Signpost: 23 May 2011

The Signpost: 30 May 2011

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. Scotland Casliber (submissions), of pool D, is our overall leader with nearly 200 points, while pools A, B and C are led by Texas Racepacket (submissions), Zanzibar Hurricanehink (submissions) and Saskatchewan 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 ed17 23:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 June 2011

The Signpost: 13 June 2011

The Signpost: 20 June 2011

The Signpost: 27 June 2011

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 Scotland 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 Ohio Wizardman (submissions), claiming points for a featured article, a featured list and seven good article reviews, while pool C was led by Norway 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 Zanzibar 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 United Kingdom Jarry1250 (submissions) and Bavaria 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 ed17 23:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 July 2011

The Signpost: 11 July 2011

The Signpost: 18 July 2011

The Signpost: 25 July 2011


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 New Zealand Adabow (submissions) (Pool A, 189 points) and Russia 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 Scotland 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 ed17 11:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 August 2011

The Signpost: 08 August 2011

The Signpost: 15 August 2011

The Signpost: 22 August 2011

The Signpost: 29 August 2011

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:

  • Scotland 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.
  • Russia 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.
  • Zanzibar 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.
  • Ohio 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.
  • Principality of Sealand 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.
  • Canada 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.
  • Greece 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.
  • Australia 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.

We say goodbye to our seven other semi-finalists, Another Believer (submissions), Poland Piotrus (submissions), United Kingdom Grandiose (submissions), Bavaria Stone (submissions), Norway Eisfbnore (submissions), Saskatchewan Canada Hky (submissions) and Wisconsin MuZemike (submissions). Everyone still in the competition at this stage has done fantastically well, and contributed greatly to Wikipedia. We're on the home straight now, and we will know our winner in two months.

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 ed17 00:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Shea Ralph

Hi,

You tagged Shea Ralph as a start class, back when it looked like this. I've substantially rewriteen it, and would like to know if it deserves an upgrade.

I'd like to see if I can turn it into a GA. It probably has a ways to go, but if you could point out areas needing work, I'd appreciate it.

Any plans for a fall CT photo contest?--SPhilbrickT 20:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 September 2011

The Signpost: 12 September 2011

The Signpost: 19 September 2011

The Signpost: 26 September 2011



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 Principality of Sealand Miyagawa (submissions), Zanzibar Hurricanehink (submissions) and Australia 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 ed17 12:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 October 2011

The Signpost: 10 October 2011

The Signpost: 17 October 2011

The Signpost: 24 October 2011

WikiCup 2011 October newsletter

The 2011 WikiCup is now over, and our new champion is Zanzibar 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:

  1. Zanzibar Hurricanehink (submissions)
  2. Australia Sp33dyphil (submissions)
  3. Greece Yellow Evan (submissions)
  4. Principality of Sealand Miyagawa (submissions)
  5. Ohio Wizardman (submissions)
  6. Scotland Casliber (submissions)
  7. Canada Resolute (submissions)
  8. Russia PresN (submissions)

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.

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 ed17 00:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

College basketball national championship template

You were involved in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College Basketball/Archive 2#Championship teams.27 templates.27 standardization needed last year. You may want to be involved in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College Basketball#Assistant Coaches on championship navboxes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2011

2011 WikiCup participation

Awarded to Grondemar for participation in the 2011 WikiCup.

It was good to have you on board this time around- we hope you enjoyed the competition! In case you are interested, signups for next year are open. Thanks, J Milburn and The ed17 20:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

2011 WikiCup participation

Awarded to Grondemar, who reached round 3 in the 2011 WikiCup.

It was good to have you on board this time around- we hope you enjoyed the competition! In case you are interested, signups for next year are open. Thanks, J Milburn and The ed17 20:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back and, yes, I'd love to collaborate on Shea Ralph

First, welcome back. You've been missed. I'm still not fully back, but very interested in working in certain areas, and working on the Shea Ralph article is one of those areas. I'm fine with your preferences for not fine-tuning the letter grades - I can see arguments on both sides, but I'm happy with the stub,start, GA, FA quadruplet.

I have no GAs, so this would be my first. I'll do some reading up on what is needed, but I'd love to have some help; I'm sure I can handle it, but experience will help. And thanks for the kind words already, I did spend a fair amount of time on it, but I'm happy to spend more.--SPhilbrickT 00:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 November2011

The Signpost: 14 November 2011

The Signpost: 21 November 2011

The Signpost: 28 November 2011

The Signpost: 05 December 2011

Yale Laundry Building GAN

Hi Grondemar. Sorry about the mixup. I didn't realize that my name was listed as one of the nominators. Actually, Another Believer is the sole nominator. I don't object to the nomination, but I think Another Believer is more able than I at the moment to respond to your suggestions and questions. I deleted my name from the nomination template just now to head off any further confusion. Thanks for doing the review. I have done a lot of reviews, mostly at PR but also a few at GAN, and I know they are time-consuming. Finetooth (talk) 04:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 December 2011

GAN for Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996

I don't know if we will see any updates from the student or the professor on the article, but it would be a shame to have something reasonably close to GA status fail due to lack of interest. If you can give me a few days I'll try to fix my comments and yours and improve the article to meet GA standards. Protonk (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I was waiting for a response from the professor or students before continuing the review, but if you want to take the article on, that works just as well. –Grondemar 06:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 December 2011

GA review of SVU: Season 12

Grondemar,

Thank you for taking the time to review my GA nomination of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (season 12). I am currently working on addressing the concerns that you mentioned; however, I have a question on one of them that I was hoping you could answer for me. I left it on the talk page itself, but I will post it here as well:

Her death [that of Sonya Paxton] was shown in the episode itself; does this not count as a reference? Also, a quick Google search yielded no reliable sources for this, either, but I will do a more thorough search later if need be.

If you already had the page on your watchlist and were planning to answer it eventually, please feel free to remove this message. --Davejohnsan (talk) 17:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Update: I have one additional question that I've placed on the talk page. --Davejohnsan (talk) 19:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I will address your questions in a few days, probably after Christmas. I'll need to read through all the sources again. –Grondemar 21:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Not a problem. In the meantime, I'll look through all the sources again to see if I can, perhaps, answer my own question. --Davejohnsan (talk) 21:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Ryan Van Bergen/GA1

Please reevaluate Talk:Ryan Van Bergen/GA1.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Did you miss my not here?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
No, I saw it. Been really busy over the past few days. Will re-review tonight. –Grondemar 05:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Apollo 16/GA1

Not sure if you've forgotten about this one, but you reserved the review a couple weeks back. I just stopped by to inquire about the status of the GA review. Thanks, Tyrol5 [Talk] 15:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I did forget I tagged this one and didn't review it. I'll take a look tonight. Sorry about that. –Grondemar 23:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing the article; I appreciate it. I've addressed both your concerns at the GAN, so it should be good to go. Let me know if there are more issues. Thanks, Tyrol5 [Talk] 14:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 December 2011

GA and ArticleHistory

[2] When you add a GAN to a {{ArticleHistory}}, could you please use a full link (Talk:Maryland Route 234/GA1) rather than a relative link (/GA1). All the other links are full links, and this helps prevent broken links when pages are moved. People routinely forget to move subpages. Gimmetoo (talk) 05:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

2012 WikiCup

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) 01:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)