Please stop your negative and exceptionally counterproductive interaction with LuciferWildCat. Please take him off your watch list. Please take the articles he cares about off your watch list. Please ignore everything he does on Wikipedia and let other editors mentor him. You, and only you, can end this drama fest. Please drop the stick and stop beating the horse. Please step back now. Cullen328Let's discuss it06:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you volunteering to monitor his edits, and make sure he eventually has a grasp of policy? Good. Thanks for stepping up. And don't blame me for his rampant violations/misunderstandings/ignorance of policy. That's him...he's been here three months and has a dirtier block record than I do Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈
I would be happy to mentor him and I am sure that other experienced editors will as well. But, as usual in recent weeks, you divert the discussion. I am discussing your behavior now, not the other editor's. As I see the situation, your behavior has been confrontational and you have failed to de-escalate, mentor, welcome and concentrate on improving articles. Over and over, you have chosen to throw down the gauntlet. You could have set an example by welcoming a new editor and working with them patiently to develop their understanding of our policies and guidelines. Instead, you chose the path of confrontation and hostility. Why is that? Please ponder carefully and thoughtfully before you answer. And when you do, do not blame the other editor. That is getting really old. Thank you. Cullen328Let's discuss it06:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think to say that I am "confrontational and hostile" is stretching it...and when did expecting articles to be in line with policy and guidelines become "throwing a gauntlet?" You seem to care too much about civility and too little about all the other policies and guidelines we have here. Over and over, I attempted to explain why edits that normally would need no explanation were perfectly acceptable...the result was that I was yelled at constantly, and other editors who should be also improving articles turned blind eyes Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈08:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interaction ban and mentorship
Thank you for your email. I see no evidence of an interaction ban being agreed to between you and LuciferWildCat. Am I missing something? How can someone violate a ban that hasn't been imposed? Also, there has been no mentorship discussion let alone an agreement, although I offered. Why do you continue to nominate articles of interest to that editor for deletion? Don't you "get it"? Cullen328Let's discuss it04:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Melanie's proposal has broad-based support when I hit the sack last night, so I'd expected he'd be codified by now. I expected you to say something on the lines of "don't nominate anything for deletion". The agreement was Richmond only; none of those articles have anything to do with Richmond. LWC didn't comment on those AfDs because they "interest him". He commented on them simply because I nominated them, and he wanted another chance to confront me. Two people have been nominating school-related entries that disagree with school precedent...Epeefleche and I. LWC only comments on the ones I nominate; almost never on Epeefleche. You CANNOT say that I can't ever AfD an article just because LWC doesn't like them (and apparently he doesn't; he's voted "Keep" in every AfD I've started in the last two months, regardless of topic). Banning me from nominating an AfD on a Catholic school in Texas because LWC bumbled over there with his "all schools are notable" position (a position which numerous editors have told him on both his talk page and at the AfD is unsubstantiated by policy) is completely punitive and frankly nonsensical. If the interaction ban goes through the way I'd hoped, LWC can't comment on AfDs I start, and we won't have this problem. It could also be solved by blocking LWC, or by topic-banning him from school-related AfDs. Cullen, you need to stop blaming me exclusively. Why didn't you post a message on LWC's talk page that said, "Why'd you comment on these AfDs? You're stirring up more trouble" Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈04:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, got cut off there...survived an AfD and is an unreferenced BLP (I was challenging the PROD while changing the "unreferenced" tag to "unreferenced BLP" tag). Since it's already been PRODded and AfDed once; it's time to go back to AfD. Immediately after contesting the PROD, I nominated it for AfD Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈18:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AN/I
Why did you delete my comment at AN/I? Your edit summary doesn't give any comprehensible reason, and I can't understand what you hope to gain by this disruptive edit. Please do not delete it again, or I shall make a formal complaint. RolandR (talk)20:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reason my edit summary doesn't make sense is that when I accidentally deleted your comment, I was posting to another thread. The edit summary given fits with my comment on your thread. Again, I repeat I had no intention to remove your comment Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈21:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see. I wasn't following the other discussion, and was upset when I noticed the removal of my comment in the thread I was following. RolandR (talk)21:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to give you a heads-up about the next wiki-meetup happening in SF. It'll be located at our very own Wikimedia Foundation offices, and we'd love it if some local editors who are new to the meetup scene came and got some free lunch with us :) Please sign up on the meetup page if you're interested in attending, and I hope to see you soon! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 23:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on the verge of asking for my bit back. The next one of you or Purplebackpack who brings a baseless complaint to ANI gets blocked. This is the end of the line. There is no sanction on PBP that prevents him voting at AFDs. Do not refer to him, respond to him or post about him at any forum. Just ignore each other and you will find your wikipedia experience much less stressful. There will be no further warnings.
I acknowledge that you are blameless in this latest case but I want to be very clear. You should not respond to Luciferwildcat, nor should you comment on them in any shape way or form. Just ignore them completely. There will be no further warnings. Just blocks. And I will be exceedingly irked if I have to ask for my bit back. I also acknowledge that you have been the slightly more sinned against then sinning yourself but this has to stop and this is the only practical way to end it as you both find it difficult (impossible) to not rise to each others comments. SpartazHumbug!20:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Userfied
Per request on my talk page, I've userfied the two pages requested:
Sorry, no — I've never successfully closed anything. The last time I tried, I accidentally closed the entire day's AFD log. Since it's been speedy deleted, anyone may close it, since the decision has already been made. Nyttend (talk) 14:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
I'm very concerned that you're not getting the point of AfD, particularly in regards to schools. You don't seem to have a particularly strong success rate of having your vote agree with a consensus decision. Looking at your talkpage, here, it seems that you've had some problems for a while.
I really need for you to pay attention to these points:
It is not WP:CLEANUP, a place where you send articles that could do with some improvement.
It is not about winning. It's clear from this talkpage that you've got some problems in your attitude in this regard. Further, your badgering of keep votes in many of the AfD's in which you've been involved seem to show an underlying desire to "win"; it's not about that. You are badgering, by the way; very few other AfD participants keep nitpicking at what keep voters have said for so long that people have to keep AfD's on their watchlist.
WP:BEGIN, while optional, is an important part of the process. If you don't have the time to go through with it, then you are starting with an assumption that the article is problematic and leaving the investigation requirements in the hands of the people who have to respond to what could be a frivolous AfD. If you don't have time to go through with WP:BEGIN, then tag the article and move along.
I think that you seriously need to think about the following as a way forward:
Tag articles, work through them with their main contributors or send them to WP:CLEANUP before moving it to AfD. The one article that I have ever been keen to see deleted was SGHS Rowing Club, where I tried to discuss it through with the main contributor before someone else moved through the AfD.
Leave keep votes to stand as they are unless you have a serious issue that you want to bring up with them, in which case, take it to their talkpage. In the end it might not matter, anyway, you might still "win" without making people think you're nitpicking or having WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT or WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT issues.
Commit to WP:BEFORE, and indicate that you have done so (and what you have done) in your rationale for any AfD nominations you make from here so that people can WP:AGF and not scramble around doing WP:BEFORE for you.
I think these three points are completely reasonable and are, in fact, what many other editors are already doing. It's not unreasonable to expect this of you. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ]00:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In short, no. Actually, with regard to schools, the Wisconsin one is the only one that's been so much as relisted of the more than dozen I've nominated, so there's your "success rate". I've been nominating, and I think I pretty clearly understand what is entailed. I will not commit to WP:BEFORE 100% of the time; it is optional and is an attempt to unnecessarily burden nominators. Nor will I commit to cleanup standards; you're operating under the assumption that any article can be cleaned up enough to pass an AfD. There are some articles that can never be cleaned up enough and others that would just be a waste of time to clean up when the vast majority of our vital articles aren't up to GA yet. Your schools are one of those two. And if a vote of any stripe doesn't get it, I will explain why policy supports my position over theirs. And you claim I'm badgering you, then write a long diatribe on my page that is a borderline personal attack. I'm afraid you're starting to sound a lot like Dream Focus, so I suggest you stop badgering me, before you end up blocked like Dream Focus. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈00:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I make no assumption that any article can be cleaned up. I said above that I think that you should try other methods before (I even italicised "before") sending them to AfD. What's the rush?
I noticed you again deleted a comment I posted at your talk page, possibly without reading it. The point is that this isn't a competence issue...just because you don't like mine and Epeefleche's AfDs doesn't make us incompetent. You've racked the rhetoric on this far too high...almost to Dream Focus levels. I again ask you to stop claiming that Epeefleche and I are incompetent just because you don't like our AfDs Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈01:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I removed your comments because, with deference to WP:OWNTALK, I'm not really keen on people telling me how much their feelings are hurt.
I have not claimed that Epeefleche is incompetent. I have said, in the past, that s/he was rushed, and s/he seems to have taken that on board and modified his approach to AfD. Brilliant. On the other hand, you seem to be going out of your way to deflect/resist criticism.
Many people, on the other hand, have said that your attitude in regards to AfD is problematic, evidenced in your badgering. Your slipups, such as saying that primary schools are "inherently non-notable" and that you don't need to care for WP:BEGIN add further weight to my concerns over your WP:COMPETENCE.
These are the points, therefore:
Your attitude, evidenced in badgering;
Your understanding of key approaches to AfD, such as WP:BEFORE;
Your serious misunderstanding of notability approaches, evidenced in your statement that primary schools are "inherently non-notable".
Again, no. The people who have problems happen to do so primarily because they vote keep and I vote delete, not because my deletion discussions violate policy, which they don't. And it's been reaffirmed hundreds of times that primary schools are non-notable, so to call that a serious misunderstanding is, well, a serious misunderstanding. See the common outcomes page. And why are you attacking me when it's Epeefleche that created most of those? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈04:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying that the only people with whom you have a problem are the people with whom you disagree, and this is the problem. WP:OUTCOMES says the following:
Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability are now getting merged or redirected in AfD.
Emphasis added.
There is a clear difference between that and primary schools are "inherently non-notable". Furthermore, there is a clear difference between "delete" and "merged or redirected".
So, basicly, you're working from a misunderstanding of policy regarding notability, a lack of application of WP:BEGIN and this generates your attitude. My three points above still stand. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ]04:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, this is not "attacking" you. This is me pointing out an issue that's causing conflict, and not just with me, but apparently with many people as evidenced by this talkpage. The difference between you and Epeefleche is that s/he got the point and modified his/her approach, as I have already stated. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ]04:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quit bringing up BEGIN. It doesn't have to be done, especially since I didn't nominate the Australian school for deletion. And when you say "many people", you're mostly referring to people who vote keep and never want anything deleted, ever. And if people have problems with my school-related deletions, how come they never get kept? Your third point is baloney, your second point is half baloney and half irrelevant, and your first point is just hypocritical Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈05:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is not just about schools. If it was just about schools, I would have used a longer title like "School AfDs".
Please don't move any articles about NCAA men's basketball champions, as you did to List of Ohio Valley Conference men's basketball champions and List of Southern Conference men's basketball champions. You are incorrect when saying that "Southern Conference men's basketball tournament" is a "better name" for two reasons: (1) The article comprises both regular season and tournament champions, not just tournament champions, and (2) even if it were a better name, you're still mis-capitalizing the article since the whole tournament spelled out should be capitalized (but that's beside the point since they shouldn't be moved in the first place). Before you arbitrarily decide what a "better" name of an article is, leave a message at Talk:WikiProject College basketball where others who have worked extensively on the project can chime in. Thank you. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's two very good reason's why the article should be at the title I put it 1) If it's at your title, it's going to get deleted again; and 2) Every other conference with an article like that has the title under the tournament. Furthermore, if it weren't for me, the articles would still be deleted...why are you complaining about the article's title instead of thanking me for getting them off the ashheap? And it is not necessary to get a project's approval for anything that goes on with the project Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈14:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A notification that the Templates for Discussion discussion (oy, repetition) has been taken to a deletion review discussion. The Article Rescue Squadron was notified, and as notifications to previous involved parties isn't normal practise, I and a few ARS members agreed that, in the interests of transparency and fairness, we should let everyone know...hence this talkpage message ;).
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 ed1700:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the reference
"Reduce to a day or two: unless MSK or Risker shoots an elephant in their pajamas" - Am I supposed to be in my pajamas? Is the elephant in pajamas? Is the elephant in my pajamas? Sorry, I'm not trying to be funny (as I'm sure I'm failing), and I'm sure this is in reference to something, but I have no idea what. Could you let me in on the joke please? Risker (talk) 01:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Last night I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas I'll never know" is a famous quip by Groucho Marx, who is frequently quoted by Bugs. No, you don't have to shoot an elephant in your pajamas. Yes, I do believe Bugs' block should be reduced Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈01:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Perhaps actually using one's own words instead of quoting a notably sarcastic comic might be helpful. I am relieved, at least, that I guessed the bit about the elephant in my pajamas, though. Risker (talk) 02:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
steak-frites?
Purple, not sure what you meant to do, but you seem to have created a new page, with just a redirect back to itself. I'm sure that's not what you meant to do. cheers IdreamofJeanie (talk) 20:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Inherently non-notable" - don't post to my talkpage
I have tried to work this out with you, but it is pretty clear that you are never going to compromise on this issue where your position is wrong and deleterious to the purpose of wikipedia. Therefore, I'm going to ask that you stop posting to my talkpage. Your comments are therefore not helpful and you are not welcome on my talkpage per WP:BLANKING and WP:NOBAN. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ]00:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken you to Dispute Resolution as you continue to keep harping about the fact that I'm wrong; when numerous others have told you I'm not wrong. BTW, I had to post the DR notice; it was mandated I do so Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈00:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Time of the DRV close
Saw that response about the date. I think you are misreading things. Here is the diff of me creating the DRV and here is the diff of Marshall closing it. The time stamps plainly show that I created the DRV at 01:01 on 11 February 2012 and it was closed at 12:24 on 15 February 2012. Seven days from when I created it would be 1:01 18 February 2012. Actually taking a second look, it was closed even sooner than I said. Technically, I would have had nearly 60 hours, about two-and-a-half days, left before it would have been closed normally.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My preferred avenue would be to just have you admit the eventuality of a redirect rather than wasting a bunch of community time. I guess redirects for discussion works for Salem and Texas State (note that Texas State has a very weak case for not being a redirect; it's mostly primary sources and hasn't survived an AfD). Ashland is at AfD again, so no point having. The main thing is get it off AN; it's not an AN matter Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈02:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I saw it because Reader posted a link in an AfD discussion. Could you do me a solid and get WR Reader out of mine and Reyk and Tarc's hair for a couple days? It's pretty plain he's being disruptive and that the SPI investigation was retaliatory Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈00:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder-- delete votes hurt
Dear Purplebackpack, you !voted to delete an article about a losing candidate-- but the article was about a successful candidate who has served for some time. I want you to be aware that you actions have deep consequences by explaining emotions during the process:
My time is surprisingly valuable to me. I have family duties, I have work duties, I balance them all.
I gave Wikipedia a gift of my time. I gave it a little piece of my life.
If Wikipeda keep my gift and improves it, I will be vastly more inclined to donate even more of my time in the future. But if you take my hand-made gift and visibly throw it in the trash, I will have a different reaction.
I probably won't feel very welcome here. I may feel "Wikipedia" doesn't like me or want me. I may not feel very open to giving Wikipedia any of my own time. After all why waste more time on things that will just get deleted??
(Forget me personally-- I'm just one person, not an important one, and I'll probably keep contributing anyway.)
You need to be aware-- delete !votes have a very real, lasting emotional consequence that cripples editor morale. Make sure you realize that. Make sure you remember that "Delete !votes" carry a cost to our mission.
I do understand-- we must have deletions-- bad-faith contributions, illegal contributions, etc. But when good-faith people are trying to do good-faith things, deletion is a very insensitive tool. HectorMoffet (talk) 02:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so sorry you felt it was a guilt trip-- it's not. I agree wholehearted that it would inappropriate to change you editorial decision just because an author whines about it.
It's just a message for you, something you can know for NEXT time-- for the NEXT author, for the NEXT time you shape policy, whatever.
I'm not asking you to change your vote, I'm just giving you feedback on the total effects of your actions, so you can use that information in the future to help Wikipedia. --HectorMoffet (talk) 03:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why we're bumping heads
I really don't have a problem with you and your actions. I just like the community to have the chance to make decisions. I encourage you to help out in whatever way your feel is best, either with the project (should it start) or on your own.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was a little concerned with what I percieved as too enthusiastic, but after a bit it made a little more sense. I feel you deserve an apology for the "campaigning" and "canvassing" remark. It may look that way at first but I think your main purpose is a "good faith" attempt to address concerns you have.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:57, 25 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) 00:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm dropping you a note because you filled out the New Page Patrol survey, and indicated you'd be interested in being contacted about follow-up work. This is to notify you that we've finally released both the initial documentation about the project and also the engagement strategy, which sets out how we plan to work with the community on this. Please give both a read, and leave any comments or suggestions you have on the talkpage, on my talkpage, or in my inbox - okeyeswikimedia.org.
Friend, you really should take a step back there. Even if you don't think it bullying, it comes off as overly aggresive when you keep repeating essentially the same thing over and over to everyone who disagrees with you there. Surely, you can see that? --The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to see how your RfA panned out. It can't have been the best experience, but I just wanted to let you know that, despite the pile-on opposes you got, the good work that you do here really is appreciated. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 04:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My RFA oppose
I want to explain my RFA oppose more, so that you can work more on you: Beside the reasons which were already given, I oppose your nomination because of your AFD results, an area you want to work in (as you stated). You have not closed any AFD (non admin close, at least the toolserver tool doesn't find any); you haven't !voted on many afds; and you have a high rate on "false positives" on nominations. Here is a list of a few kept articles (not all, I don't want to digg too deep in your history)
I left out the borderline cases, merge results, etc., but working at afd and having so less contributions there and with nominated many articles which were kept is not a good sign in my eyes. mabdul13:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It might be worth noting that several of the articles I nominated were tagged for rescue. Had they not been tagged, and canvassed by the ARS people, they would have been deleted (ergo, had they been tagged now instead of three months ago). I think it's a bit unfair to include rescued articles in your computation Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈14:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Huch? Although many editors think that the ARS is canvassing, articles can only be rescued if they have good reasons why the article shouldn't deleted. But my other points are still valid: you want to work in the AFD space, but don't have enough edits (in my opinion) there. mabdul16:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was kinda wondering the same thing. If I nommed or voted in a lot more AfDs, people would've said my votes were hasty and ill-considered (they've said the same of Epeefleche and TenPoundHammer) Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈00:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This tool is saying that you made since last April 4341 contributions: only nominations, please be careful, the tool seems to have dyscalculia and thus counting incorrect: the tool is only listing 89 contributions and not 203! (will ping snotty about this; workaround: copy and paste the lines into Excel, Calc or your fav. spreadsheet application) mabdul00:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The tool found edits on 203 unique AfD pages, but that doesn't necessarily mean that all the edits were votes. Some might have been closures, redirects, comments, or just otherwise votes that were not able to be parsed. You can see all of the individual AfD edits by using this tool. —SW—comment03:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PAGEANT THE DOCUMENTARY
hi....you just declined my most recent submission. I don't understand what you mean by not good enough references? I have the NY Times and Village Voice.
Perhaps I am not understanding? I work at HBO and this film is one of the films one of our directors did. My last film, GOD IS THE BIGGER ELVIS, with far fewer references was accepted by Wikipedia so I'm baffled.
I did not decline your submission due to lack of references, but because the references were not formatted in inline citation format (see WP:INCITE). Furthermore, you need to use capital letters a lot less. Also, admitting you work for HBO is essentially a COI. I suggest you read WP:COI. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈16:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PAGEANT
I am sorry if I freaked you out---that was not an accurate statement as I am a consultant. I do not work for HBO! I worked at HBO on teh film GOD IS THE BIGGER ELVIS and my point was that when I went on to Wikipedia to see if our last film had gotten on there, it was and how they had structured that page. I assume HBO put that one there? Anyway--- please know-----I don't have conflicts of interest, here. I became aware of Ron Davis and went to see his work. That isn't a conflict of interests either. I think Pageant is SO cool and really a great piece of work. I'm not gay, bi, or transsexual, don't know the people in the film. I just really think it is important. I had a good friend who was a transsexual and I saw how difficult life was for him, wanting to be a woman and I thought this film was great. Ok?
Thank you so much for the more helpful comments as to why my citations aren't right. Wikipedia has so many different referencing pages...very confusing. I will re-submit, okay?
Nancy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonchic (talk • contribs) 21:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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) 23:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Talkback
Hello, Purplebackpack89. You have new messages at WT:AFC. Message added 23:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Possible interview about Palin/Revere edit war in June 2011
My name is Sara Marks and I am doing research for a masters thesis at Fitchburg State University. My thesis has to do with resolving conflicts on Wikipedia entries and I am focusing on what happened to the Paul Revere entry after Palin's comments last summer. I have been going through the archives and would really like to talk to you about what happened after her comments, especially your part in it. I want to get a better idea of what happened and your thoughts on the resolution process. You can get back to me on your talk page, my talk page or via email at librarygurl at gmail.com. I can also answer any questions you may have about my thesis. I look forward to hearing from you. --LibraryGurl (talk) 19:44, 25 April 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) 23:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Declined BLPPROD
Sorry about that, the relevant policy pedantics are at WP:BLPPROD#Nominating, and even the IMDB link is enough to preclude placement of the BLPPROD tag.
Hello. No, it is you that have proved me wrong AND you have educated me, handsomely I might add. I have made a general edit to push back the date, but you have a more exact date, though I believe the Murphy presence at PL may precede 1905. Not sure. Please edit away in both the Simon Murphy article and the PL article regarding both the arrival of Simon Murphy and then the actual moment he took control of PL in Humboldt County (not sure if they are different dates or not). Its interesting. At first I was shocked to see your addition to the PL article as I had not ever seen the connection that he was a big deal Murphy of Detroit. But much of my information came from the old PL webpage before it was taken down after the sad, pathetic contrived PL bankruptcy (following the 20 year rape of that great company by Charles Maxxam of Texas) a few years back. Clearly all the facts related to PL need cleaning up and secondary sources are needed in any case. I love the Wiki for these kinds of connections. Thank you for making the vital connection all the way back to Whittier and Detroit before that. It doesn't surprise me that this family, who did so much in Humboldt was special before their arrival there. Please note the mention of Simon, and the legendary Murphy Family of Humboldt, and the tragic end of their dominion of PL and the irreparable cost of what was done to this storied company, which had (by the wisdom of the Murphys beginning with Stanwood) set the standards of forest stewardship by which all others companies were expected to behave, in this article: Remembering Scotia, the last of the company towns. There is so much more that is written on what they have done and how they did it. There are many other references to the last Murphy, Woody (a nick for Stanwood the Second or Third I suppose), who was taken down by Hurwitz in 1985-86. I just have not had the time to do justice to this great story. Norcalal (talk) 23:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I recall 1931 being an important date. I am not sure if that was when one of the Murphys assumed Presidency of the company after the death of another. Cannot know since the old PL website is down. But as you and I both know the company website, itself, is not sufficient for the Wiki anyway. Do what you can and I will as well. A portion of my printed library is packed, and I had little on PL to begin with, and very little is online on PL during the early years. Norcalal (talk) 23:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fair to say Murphy's environmental track record isn't that good. He cut down a lot of trees in Maine, then ran out of trees to cut down there. So he moved to Michigan and cut down a lot of trees there. After that, he started on California, and in addition had a major oil-drilling operation in the Puente Hills. pbp23:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is interesting is that his son or grandson (I am not clear which), Stanwood, set the standard for the timber industry AND actually invented selective cutting (or at least was the first to use it on a huge scale in the great forests of the Pacific). But this was not until the 1930's (and he may have seen the writing on the wall) and I know there was at least one fist fight between a PL executive and a lawyer for the Save the Redwoods League in SF. But in any case Stanwood made historic agreements with the Save the Redwoods League, which set up the original redwood State Parks in CA, including the massive Humboldt Redwoods State Parks (and others) ON PL land!!! Stanwood IS a legend in the industry AND in the world of conservation. Their management of Pacific Lumber was legendary. Their practices were the baseline by which conservationists set a bar EXPECTING all other companies to achieve as a baseline. So, while I cannot speak for Simon, and none of us can fairly Monday morning quarterback the 19th century practices with today's knowledge, certainly his son (or grandson?) was a visionary. This makes the demise of PL all the more bitter and unacceptable to those, like me, who witnessed the debauch of its destruction at the hands of that robber-barron Hurwitz, who knew better but was only interested in money...clearly to the detriment of the future of the company and its employees, the forest and the industry. Norcalal (talk) 00:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Back to Simon...I am at a loss on how much Simon could have had to do with PL, since by 1905 he would have been a very old man and I see that Simon Jr, by what I read in the article, stayed in the east and was a mayor, etc back there. These are great little mysteries to figure out. That is why I am wondering if the Murphy's were at PL years before they took control in 1905 or whatever. Norcalal (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, I have an alternate non-secure location account myself (User:Purplebackpackonthetrail) and several dopplegangers (User:Purplebackpack69 is registered to me to prevent imitation). But, by and large, sockpuppetry is frowned upon, and Jona had used sockpuppetry for reasons other than alts and dopps pbp01:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Leslie Daigle RfC
Your input on the Leslie Daigle page would be appreciated.
I responded to the RfC the other day, and one of the editors involved in the edit war agreed to some suggested changes.
Now others have been making edits on some of the material that had been contested, without making any comments on the edit page and without discussing changes on the Talk page.
I would rather not participate directly in the editing of the page, but no other outside observers appear to be following the page.
Some of the page's content at the moment reads like a campaign ad. Dezastru (talk) 04:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could you give me an example of what you mean? I'm not in a rush to take sides; what I want is a stable article that doesn't violate NPOV, BLP or other Wikipedia policies and guidelines pbp13:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned about the process that the editors are taking in producing the page. The political fanatic completely deleted the "Do You Know Who I Am?" section without leaving any comment explaining why and without discussing the change on the Talk page. He or she also (perhaps mistakenly) marked the change as being "minor." That section, of course, has been one of the most heavily contested in the article, so any change there should really be discussed. When I reverted the change with the comment that any change to the section should be discussed, an editor again deleted the section, again without leaving a comment or discussing the change on the Talk page.
Socalpolitik had been one of the only editors challenging some of the POV edits made by contributors who seem to be supporters of Daigle. I am afraid that my RfC criticism of some of Socalpolitik's edits has scared him or her off (he or she wrote in some of the comments that s/he would abide by the "moderator's" suggestions, apparently referring to me and perhaps not understanding that I was offering suggestions as a fellow editor, not as an administrator) — which would be a terrible outcome and certainly won't help improve the value of the page for readers.
Chow559 has also abruptly fallen silent since the RfC was opened, yet others who apparently are supporters of Chow559's position still seem to be contributing to the page.
I also think the section that quotes from the Newport Beach City Council website reads like a campaign ad. Who wrote the material? Because it is taken from a government website, there is an implication that the statement is nonpartisan and contains uncontested material, yet I wonder whether the rival candidates would agree that the statement is not debatable.
The last thing I would want would be for you to take sides. For the process to be fair, though, I think it would be helpful if you and other editors would speak up when sweeping deletions such as I have described are made without comments. I would make broader edits to the page myself, but I think it is bad form for someone who is responding to an RfC and who should be impartial to come in and start changing a page. Dezastru (talk) 20:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will revert Fanatic's rmval of content, but I'd like you to start a subthread of the RfC about the removal of content, and to notify Fanatic about the misuse of the minor edit function, the unexplained content, and the discussion. My talk page isn't where this should be fought out pbp22:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Backpack, don't worry about that AfD. ARS or not, the article will stand or not because of the right reasons. Dream Focus and LCW want to keep it, let them have their say without too much badgering please--it invites only negative reactions. Also, I've hired a thug to smash Dream Focus's laptop, so we will be totally cool. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I was about to respond on your talk page about all this when you posted here. To be honest, the ARS, and those two in particular, are really stuck in my craw. After repeated edit-warring and blocks and whatnot, I frankly don't get why they're still here. What I've seen time and again is a rescue tag brings out enough keepists to force it to be closed as no consensus. The ARS rarely improves an article more than just enough to pass GNG; the list of rescued articles that make it to GA isn't very long. Milowent's accusation that I off-wiki canvassed is almost hilarious...if he'd looked, he'd see that the discussion involved Ken saying "just nominate it for deletion" and me saying..."OK, I did". The article probably should be dropped to semi-protection, if for no other reasons than ten days is too long for full protection and the AfD may not be able to close if it's still protected. I know that the "it's a battleground/attack page" argument is weak, but I have seen it used in other AfDs (Mitt Romney Cranbrook incident, for one), and half the reason I really want this to be deleted is we'll end up with another clusterf*** next week if it's kept. And since I have a jury summons next week, you may be on your own. In the (hopefully unlikely) event that this is kept, we may need to look at topic-banning the four or so parties. pbp04:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I did find Milowent's comment hilarious: he was joking. Dream Focus (I can't speak for LCW) is here because his heart is in the right place. Of course, he's usually wrong. Protection is not a difficulty here: sources can be added to the AfD; edit requests can be made on the talk page. Don't worry; I'm not worried about a thing. Neither we nor they will break the wiki, and the world won't break as a result of our activities here either. Now, I'm going to go down to the bar with my laptop and sign up a couple new accounts (and I think you know how they'll vote). Drmies (talk) 04:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because you add the host team to the template, an it is just to link the qualifying articles not for anything else.--Uishaki (talk) 10:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly endorse deletion: I have four reasons; three minor and one major. The minor ones first:
This typically isn't subject matter we have on Wikipedia: Assemblywomen and City Councilmen in very large cities, yes. Assembly candidates and City Councilmen in medium-sized cities, no. This is borne about by WP:POLITICIAN
There really isn't much content to save: About the only thing the editors can agree on is that Daigle is a City Councilwoman and is running for State Assembly. The rest of the content has been challenged on BLP, NPOV and even COPYVIO concerns, making it a borderline CSD candidate. The dispute over the content led to the article being fully protected, and recreating the article would just lead to more unnecessary WikiDrama. Much better to start from scratch than recreate an article with so much challenged content
The references were there, and people still voted against keeping it: Well before the AfD was closed, there were lists of references in the article (i.e. the ones there before the goldlock), in the AfD, and in the AfD's talk page. At least two editors reaffirmed their votes at the AfD after these were posted, another reaffirmed his vote on another user's talk page.
Now the major one:
4. There was a strong consensus against keeping the article: With more than a dozen firmly-established editors participating, not keep opinions outnumbered keep ones by more than 2:1. There's no way with that strong a consensus for not keeping, the article could've been kept
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) 23:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of Doghouse Diaries
Although the article has been deleted, I wasn't able to get any response for my last edit, which includes another reference from webmagazine, MakeUseOf. I agree some of these webmagazines I have never heard of, but that doesn't really qualify them to be unreliable sources. For example MakeUseOf, has a full editorial board, and not just from the magazine, but also from its wiki entry it seems like a reliable web magazine. In any case, this was my final comment, if because of this you change your mind, please let me know what I could do.
I have added yet another reference which puts doghouse diaries in the list of Top 8 web comics. This was in the web-magazineMakeUseOf, an independent media magazine, with an independent editorial board. MakeUseOf, Mashable and Gizmodo, each of them have covered Doghouse Diaries well enough to qualify it to be notable. The objection however could be as to whether the above sources are reliable or not. Here are my points why they could be considered reliable
They are not related to Doghouse Diaries, nor does it seem that they are trying to unfairly promote Doghouse Diaries.
They have editorial system, for which I refer to their corresponding wiki articles, for example the editorial for MakeUseOf is Editorial staff. Each one of them has an Editor-in-chief and so on.
The clarity of this discussion would be enhanced if the other wiki editors could cite the reason why they think the above references cannot be taken as reliable. Points like Mashable is a trivial source, is a trivial argument.Shashi B Jain (talk) 09:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I noticed you voted to delete Ashton Kutcher on Twitter and I couldn't agree more. These articles are ridiculously unnecessary and I believe they fail GNG as all the sources are about Kutcher, Bieber, or Gaga for instance and not the account itself. When it is about the account it is simply not more than trivial and it's still more about X's account not famous X account that is operated by X if that makes sense. Would you care to nominate the Lady Gaga and Barack Obama on twitter accounts for me? I would say that Horse ebooks and Fiksimini however are arguable notable as they are more famous for their own account and that alone. The others should however be deleted with some content possibly merged to their parent account or Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians. I also believe you may wish to review Talk:Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians#Proposed moved as their seem to be a redundant list and general topic article on the same thing. I hope all is well on your end and have a great day PBP.-TroyLuciferWildCat (talk) 07:42, 29 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) 11:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=link}
