This is an archive of past discussions with User:Yoshi24517. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello, hello! Welcome to Wikipedia! I'm PrairieKid and I am looking to adopt. It looks like you don't have very many main space edits yet and I would love to introduce you to the different fields. Some of the main articles I have worked on are Ann Rivers, a local-yokel politician who is representing me in the Washington State Senate; Rand Paul, whose father I liked a little more, but who I am going to accept; Anne Gust, who, despite everything she's done, has not been given a Wiki article until recently. I have gotten a few articles to Good article status, as well as having a few Did You Know?s featured on the front page. I generally edit articles in the US political field and have some experience in other fields.
To get a little about me, I'm a 15 year old living in Vancouver, Washington who has been editing Wikipedia for about a year. I have about 2000 edits and I am slowly building that up. I am a business major at Clark College and hope to transfer to Georgetown University or University of Washington to get a bachelor's in education and political science, before getting a J.D. I like biking, running and going on Reddit. I think you have a pretty good idea of how to make an edit, so I'll just ask that you leave me a reply below if you're interested in being adopted! Have a good day! PrairieKid (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Fantastic! I will begin designing a curriculum tomorrow. If you have any questions let me know. For now, I will be adding everything at this page and I suggest adding it to your WP:Watchlist. To do so, click the little star in the upper-right corner of the page. Then, every time someone makes an edit to the page, you can see it here. We'll talk more about tricks as time goes on. I look forward to getting started on this process! PrairieKid (talk) 05:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Howdy- I wrote out the first lesson/assignment for you. It is basically a way to introduce me to you. I'll start writing out the second lesson now! PrairieKid (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi thanks for cleaning out User:Sandbox, it is a task which needs doing frequently. If you do it again can you do it to a revision which has the sandbox template in it such as [1].
Hi, Yoshi24517 – Since the Wikipedia page is on my watchlist, I just noticed that you had a question nobody answered. That's probably because that talk page, like all talk pages, is only for discussions of the content of of the primary page, in this case, the Wikipedia page. You might like to ask your questions in other places, even here on your talk page with the {{Help me}} template. Check out WP:GRFA to find the answers you seek about the number of edits and other considerations in regards to adminship. Joys! – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX!09:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
@Cyberpower678: Can you set it up for me? I tried copying it to my preferences and changing so it fits my username, but it says invalid signature. Can you help? Thanks! Is this right? Yoshi24517Yoshi2451702:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC) (Sorry, forgot to log in. The recent changes made by the ip was me not logged in.)
I'm not sure what part of the signature you're looking to copy. I'm also rather busy in Real Life right now and the setup of the signature is rather complex.—cyberpowerChatAbsent03:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi there. I noticed that you keep cleaning the sandbox, sometimes minutes after users have edited in them. Please keep in mind that the sandbox is meant to be played around in, and there are two bots that automatically clean the sandbox. Please refrain from using the "Undo" function on other user's editing tests, as this can discourage new editors (they were told the sandbox was a place for them to make a mess and then they see their sandcastles were removed). The only reasons that you should manually clean the sandbox is 1. A user has placed inappropriate content in the sandbox, or 2. You want to clear the sandbox for your own experiments.
Can somebody fix my user page so that it shows my userbox on the right and fixes the English Wikipedia Stats so that its lined up? Thanks! Yoshi24517ChatAbsent01:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
The bot was set up to do just that. It was also set up not to archive the latest four threads; that's why it had stopped editing your page. I have reverted the bot settings to what they were before today and changed "minkeepthreads" to 1. You can omit that parameter entirely, but I don't think there's much of a point in having even the last thread archived. Huon (talk) 23:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Yoshi24517ChatAbsent 03:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC
Mariko Yamada
Yoshi, I have removed from Mariko Yamada an article that you cut and pasted from a USC School of Social Work magazine. Aside from the issue of copyright, the material seemed too promotional for a Wikipedia article. Please feel free to use the magazine article as one source for a (hopefully somewhat reduced) biographic section. If you have questions or comments about this, we can start a discussion on the article's talk page. Thanks. Peter Chastain (talk) 01:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
@Peter Chastain: Whoops! Sorry. I accidentally added more before because your comment didn't come in until after I saved it. I was just trying to get some mainspace edits. Plus, i did add it as a source though. Sorry about that! Yoshi24517ChatAbsent02:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm Lixxx235. I have been a registered user since 2010 and I am currently a rollbacker and reviewer. Are you still interested in the adoption program? If so, I'd be honored to adopt you. If you would like me to adopt you, please leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Lixxx235Got a complaint?20:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I removed your speedy deletion tag for now. Let's keep our eyes on it, and see what happens in another week. Then you can send it to WP:AfD. Bearian (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello Yoshi24517. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Talia Melanie McCray, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. §FreeRangeFrogcroak03:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Since there was a controversion related to the symbols, and at least three people did not want to keep the discussion related to symbols in the currency infobox. There was no section where this could be discussed before, and "Units" turns out to be a perfect fit. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Round one of the 2015 WikiCup has begun! So far we've had around 80 signups, which close on February 5. If you have not already signed up and want to do so, then you can add your name here. There have been changes to to several of the points scores for various categories, and the addition of Peer Reviews for the first time. These will work in the same manner as Good Article Reviews, and all of the changes are summarised here.
Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round, and one of the new changes this year is that all scores must be claimed within two weeks of an article's promotion or appearance, so don't forget to add them to your submissions pages! 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 GAN, 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. Good luck! Figureskatingfan (talk·contribs), Miyagawa (talk·contribs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk·contribs)
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. Miyagawa (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
edits on Bitcoin
Hello, I'm Wuerzele. I noticed that you made a change to an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.
--I flagged your unsourced additions on Bitcoin, rather than deleting them to give you a chance to add WP:RS.
Note, that your addition is also too imprecise to serve an encyclopedic purpose, like fee[which?] or costs[where?].
If you want to edit on wikipedia with lasting impact (leave alone become an admin) you must not only understand, but "live" by its core principles. --Wuerzele (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bitcoin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nonce. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bitcoin you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Replaceinkcartridges -- Replaceinkcartridges (talk) 02:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
If you passed the article, you should update the talk page to reflect the change as well as listing the article at the GA page. Dough487219:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
That is not necessary at GAN. One reviewer reviews the article and the nominator fixes the article as requested by the reviewer. It is the reviewer's decision to pass the article based on the nominator's fixes. Dough487219:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Yoshi24517. You have new messages at Talk:Libyan Civil War (2011). Message added 22:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
If you don't know how the process works, then please don't review articles: [2] I will be passing the article now, because you have failed to do so, despite clearly being online for several "next times", and have archived the thread. --Rschen775419:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, did you view the talk page before editing the bitcoin page? Perhaps you missed this part of the article? "For those of our readers who want to learn more, below is a very interesting interview with Bitcoin expert Erik Voorhees, conducted by Thomas Woods." Hes refered to specifically as a bitcoin expert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.65.203.162 (talk) 20:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
He said "In any event I dont think he is reliable, and a blog is not a source for the article." How is an expert's own blog not a reliable source of what an expert says in that blog? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.38.120.194 (talk) 22:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
You might want to ask him. AlbinoFerret said, "I don't think he is reliable." That's the reason why it is not in the article. Sorry. Yoshi24517ChatOnline22:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I've posted in the bitcoin talk page but hes not responded. What does it matter if AlbinoFerret thinks he's reliable or not. You can argue whether a source is reliable, or if someone is an expert or not, but arguing that someone is not a reliable expert doesn't have in basis in policy. 96.38.120.194 (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Best way to get me. I dont think the source or the writer is reliable. A blog is not a reliable source, that some other writer in an article, not a news piece, thinks he is an expert is questionable. I dont think this one makes it, and use of blogs imho is only in rare cases where its beyond doubt that the person is a qualified expert. AlbinoFerret22:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Rollback
Hello, this is just to let you know that I've granted you Rollback rights. Just remember:
Rollback gives you access to certain scripts, including Huggle and Igloo, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
Only you (and administrators) can edit your .js files. Also, we have no idea what's wrong; give us some details on what's wrong please. Cheers, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I have the script for igloo here at my vector.js page, and it doesn't show the "Launch igloo" button. I want an administrator to tell me if I did anything wrong. Thanks! Yoshi24517ChatOnline22:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I have Igloo too and I don't have a launch igloo button on the side either. I think there's a new way of accessing it. I'll look around and if I find anything I'll write it here. -Newyorkadam (talk) 01:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam
Hey guys. Yeah i dunno why the web service isn't up- let me restart it. And sorry about the lull in igloo development recently- real life caught up. --Kangaroopowah22:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
One of several of Godot13's quality submissions during round 1
That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. 64 competitors made it into this round, and are now broken into eight groups of eight. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups. Round 1 saw some interesting work on some very important articles, with the round leader Freikorp (submissions) owing most of his 622 points scored to a Featured Article on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, as Godot13 (submissions) had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge, Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) led round 1 with 601 points in 2013.
In addition to Freikorp's work, some other important articles and pictures were improved during round one, here's a snapshot of a few of them:
Rodw (submissions) developed an extremely timely article to Good Article, taking Magna Carta there some 800 years after it was first sealed;
And last but not least, Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points) worked up a number of Featured Pictures during round 1, including the 1948 one Deutsche Mark(pictured right), receiving the maximum bonus due to the number of Wikis that the related article appears in.
You may also wish to know that The Core Contest is running through the month of March. Head there for further details - they even have actual prizes!
Hi there, I thought I should add a note to your talk page to explain the removal of the good article reviews from your submission page. I felt that per the Scoring rules, that the reviews are considered to be short and therefore not valid for points. My advice would be that if you were to start your own reviews then you would have to cover a wider subject base and therefore it would be clear that your reviews were not short. This should solve the problem. Miyagawa (talk) 13:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
It isn't just about length, it's about the subject matter. While there is a set minimum of 1000 bytes for a review, it also needs to be a full review. So in that, it's hard to justify any reviews where a second reviewer has come in and added something. Miyagawa (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
Hello, Yoshi24517, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes!
We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and Widr (talk) 12:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Editor Review
@MusikAnimal:, @Yunshui: --- I was thinking: Can I request an editor review from one someone like you guys? Can you also ping other editors too? It could be labeled as User:Yoshi24517/Editor review. That would be a big help. Thanks! Yoshi24517ChatOnline02:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Yoshi. I was going to point you to WP:ER but looks like the formal process is no more. I was then going to point you to a voluntary request for comment of user conduct, but low and behold that has also been closed down... Anyway, I know you were blocked back in January for apparent lack of competence, but I am unable to comment on that. Perhaps Yunshui will have some insight into how you've changed since then. From my standpoint, your anti-vandal activity looks good, and you appear to have an understanding of basic policy. So as long as you continue to make constructive edits as you have been, and are having fun doing it, I think your place on Wikipedia is valued and you need not worry about that. Another thing that might help you get more involved in the mainspace is to join one of our many WikiProjects. Working with others who share similar interests can help you both become a better editor and make a real impact. It's fun to think the things you write could potentially be read by millions. Set some goals for yourself, be bold but not reckless, learn as you go along, and you'll find long-term satisfaction being a part of this fine community. All the best — MusikAnimaltalk03:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I would give it considerable thought before attempting an RfA. That can be a brutal process, and don't take this the wrong way but you're probably not ready for it. Adminship isn't that great anyway :) If you want to move this discussion to User:Yoshi24517/Editor review just go for it. Attribution of who actually said what is here on your talk page, you can just copy and paste the content over. Cheers — MusikAnimaltalk03:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal: Ok, I will move it there. Can you please ping other editors that I might have been involved with or worked with and tell them to go there? Thanks. P.S. Thank you for giving me the Pending Changes Reviewer flag. I'm glad you think I am worthy enough to use it. If you want to comment any more on this, just do it there. Ping me first though. Cheers, Yoshi24517ChatOnline04:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
The article Bitcoin you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Bitcoin for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TheMagikCow -- TheMagikCow (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I have a DYK submission (see message above for location) and it has been promoted to GA status within the last 7 days. Do I put it under a random day cause I just don't get the last step. Help me please! Yoshi24517ChatOnline16:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I'd say you put it under the day on which it was promoted to Good Article, ie April 16. However, that article already was on the main page on April 11 via "in the news"; I don't think getting it on the main page again should be a high priority. Huon (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Bitcoin article in the WikiCup
Yoshi, Apologies for doing this after the deadline when there's nothing else you can change, but the reason why we've delayed sorting out the next round was because of the difficulties with your GA points for Bitcoin. The problem is that by your own admission in the edit summaries, you effectively did a fair few copyedits - but to claim points in the cup they need to be "significant work" and copyedits doesn't cut the mustard. Therefore I'm sad to do this because it'll mean your elimination from the cup, but I'm going to have to remove the Bitcoin article claim from your score. I'm sorry this wasn't picked up earlier so that you could do something about it, as it only came to my attention when I was drafting the newsletter for the next round because I was going to feature your work on the Bitcoin article in it and I wanted to describe what you did - hence why I double checked. I'm truly sorry for this, but I hope you'll come back next year. Miyagawa (talk) 08:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
The second round one has all wrapped up, and round three has now begun! Congratulations to the 34 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our second round. Leading the way overall was Cas Liber (submissions) in Group B with a total of 777 points for a variety of contributions including Good Articles on Corona Borealis and Microscopium - both of which received the maximum bonus.
Special credit must be given to a number of high importance articles improved during the second round.
Coemgenus (submissions) was one of several users who worked on improving Ulysses S. Grant. Remember, you do not need to work on an article on your own - as long as each person has completed significant work on the article during 2015, multiple competitors can claim the same article.
The points varied across groups, with the lowest score required to gain automatic qualification was 68 in Group A - meanwhile the second place score in Group H was 404, which would have been high enough to win all but one of the other Groups! As well as the top two of each group automatically going through to the third round, a minimum score of 55 was required for a wildcard competitor to go through. We had a three-way tie at 55 points and all three have qualified for the next round, in the spirit of fairness. The third round ends on June 28, with the top two in each group progressing automatically while the remaining 16 highest scorers across all four groups go through as wildcards. Good luck to all competitors for the third round! Figureskatingfan (talk·contribs·email), Miyagawa (talk·contribs·email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk·contribs·email) 16:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I want to have an odometer on my user page, that shows the number of edits I've made, and that it will automatically update as I make an edit. Can someone help me with that. Thanks! Yoshi24517ChatOnline01:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't think that's possible. You'd need a magic word; however, I don't think there is one to give a certain user's edit count. There's Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters, which would certainly be a place I'd expect to be aware of a way to display one's number of edits on Wikipedia, but they only show external tools and pages such as Special:Contributions/Yoshi24517. I also checked the list of edit count-related userboxes, another place that definitely would have an automatically-updated one if that were possible; they all require manual updating. On the other hand, an exact edit count isn't all that important; rounding to the next full 1000 should suffice. Huon (talk) 01:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Bitcoin, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Newyorkadam (talk) 03:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam
WikiCup 2015 September newsletter
The finals for the 2015 Wikicup has now begun! Congrats to the 8 contestants who have survived to the finals, and well done and thanks to everyone who took part in rounds 3 and 4.
In round 3, we had a three-way tie for qualification among the wildcard contestants, so we had 34 competitors. The leader was by far Casliber (submissions) in Group B, who earned 1496 points. Although 913 of these points were bonus points, he submitted 15 articles in the DYK category. Second place overall was Coemgenus (submissions) at 864 points, who although submitted just 2 FAs for 400 points, earned double that amount for those articles in bonus points. Everyone who moved forward to Round 4 earned at least 100 points.
The scores required to move onto the semifinals were impressive; the lowest scorer to move onto the finals was 407, making this year's Wikicup as competitive as it's always been. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:
Cas Liber (submissions), who is competing in his sixth consecutive Wikicup final, again finished the round in first place, with an impressive 1666 points in Pool B. Casliber writes about the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. A large bulk of his points this round were bonus points.
Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points), second place both in Pool B and overall, earned the bulk of his points with FPs, mostly depicting currency.
Cwmhiraeth (submissions), first in Pool A, came in third. His specialty is natural science articles; in Round 4, he mostly submitted articles about insects and botany. Five out of the six of the GAs he submitted were level-4 vital articles.
West Virginian (submissions), from Pool A, was our highest-scoring wildcard. West Virginia tends to focus on articles about the history of (what for it!) the U.S. state of West Virginia.
Rationalobserver (submissions), from Pool B, came in seventh overall. RO earned the majority of her points from GARs and PRs, many of which were earned in the final hours of the round.
Calvin999 (submissions), also from Pool B, who was competing with RO for the final two spots in the final hours, takes the race for most GARs and PRs—48.
The intense competition between RO and Calvin999 will continue into the finals. They're both eligible for the Newcomers Trophy, given for the first time in the Wikicup; whoever makes the most points will win it.
Good luck to the finalists; the judges are sure that the competition will be fierce!
WikiCup 2015 is now in the books! Congrats to our finalists and winners, and to everyone who took part in this year's competition.
This year's results were an exact replica of last year's competition. For the second year in a row, the 2015 WikiCup champion is Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points). All of his points were earned for an impressive 253 featured pictures and their associated bonus points (5060 and 1695, respectively). His entries constituted scans of currency from all over the world and scans of medallions awarded to participants of the U.S. Space program. Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came in second place; she earned by far the most bonus points (4082), for 4 featured articles, 15 good articles, and 147 DYKs, mostly about in her field of expertise, natural science. Cas Liber (submissions), a finalist every year since 2010, came in third, with 2379 points.
Our newcomer award, presented to the best-performing new competitor in the WikiCup, goes to Rationalobserver (submissions). Everyone should be very proud of the work they accomplished. We will announce our other award winners soon.
A full list of our award winners are:
Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points) wins the prize for first place and the FP prize for 330 featured pictures in the final round.
Cwmhiraeth (submissions) wins the prize for second place and the DYK prize for 160 did you knows in the final round (310 in all rounds).
Cas Liber (submissions) wins the prize for third place and the FA prize for 26 featured articles in all rounds.
Harrias (submissions) wins a final 8 prize and the FL prize for 11 featured lists.
Rodw (submissions) wins the most prizes: a final 8 prize, the GA prize for 41 good articles, and the topic prize for a 13-article good topic and an 8-article featured topic, both in round 3.
ThaddeusB (submissions) wins the news prize for the most news articles in round 3.
We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, and all are welcome to participate. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2016 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.
Hello everyone, and we would like to wish you all a happy holiday season. As you will probably already know, the 2016 WikiCup begins in the new year; there is still time to sign up. There are some changes we'd like to announce before the competition begins.
After two years of serving as WikiCup judge, User:Miyagawa has stepped down as judge. He deserves great thanks and recognition for his dedication and hard work, and for providing necessary transition for a new group of judges in last year's Cup. Joining Christine (User:Figureskatingfan) and Jason (User:Sturmvogel 66) is Andrew (User:Godot13), a very successful WikiCup competitor and expert in Featured Pictures; he won the two previous competitions. This is a strong judging team, and we anticipate lots of enjoyment and good work coming from our 2016 competitors.
We would also like to announce one change in how this year's WikiCup will be run. In the spirit of sportsmanship, Godot13 and Cwmhiraeth have chosen to limit their participation. See here for the announcement and a complete explanation of why. They and the judges feel that it will make for a more exciting, enjoyable, and productive competition.
The discussions/polls concerning the next competition's rules will be closed soon, and rules changes will be made clear on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring and talk pages. The judges are committed to not repeating the confusion that occurred last year and to ensuring that the new rules are both fair and in the best interests of the competition, which is, first and foremost, about improving Wikipedia.
We are about to enter the second week of the 2016 WikiCup. The most recent player to sign up brings the current total to 101 contestants. Signups close on 5 February. If you’re interested, you can join this year's WikiCup here.
We are about to enter the second week of the 2016 WikiCup. The most recent player to sign up brings the current total to 101 contestants. Signups close on 5 February. If you’re interested, you can join this year's WikiCup here.
The review you conducted of Talk:A_Wrinkle_in_Time/GA1 is too short to constitute a submission for points (and is incomplete). It has been removed from your submission page. If you have any questions, please let me know.--Godot13 (talk) 09:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
One of Adam Cuerden’s several quality restorations during round 1
That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. Forty-seven competitors move into this round (a bit shy of the expected 64), and we are roughly broken into eight groups of six. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups.
Hello, Yoshi24517. You have new messages at Talk:Chips and dip/GA1. Message added 17:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
The message was sent using the case's MassMessage list. Unless you are a party, you may remove your name from the list to stop receiving notifications regarding the case.
WikiCup 2016 May newsletter
FP of Christ Church Cathedral, Falkland Islands by Godot13
Round 2 is over and 35 competitors have moved on to Round 3.
Ronhjones, that template is really only good for if you're doing something like a total rewrite of a page. {{in use}} may be more appropriate for an "I don't want anyone to have an edit conflict with me while I edit the entire page." However, my personal feeling is that if you're not going to be editing the page for longer than five minutes, chances are incredibly slim that you'll have an edit conflict with someone. Primefac (talk) 22:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I see. That's called an edit notice. It's a bit complicated to do, so rather than walk you through everything I'll just direct you to Wikipedia:Editnotice. If you do have other questions, though, feel free to reopen the helpme. Primefac (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Can an admin or template editor create an edit notice for my /AWB-settings.js page so it says "Note to administrators, please do not delete this page!" Thanks! Yoshi24517ChatOnline20:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Edit: Never mind, fixed it myself.
G13 deletions
you have recently flagged (correctly) a number of articles for speedy deletion under the G13 criterion, but you have not correctly applied the template. You have not included the last date of editing, which the reviewing admin needs in order to action the request. to see how to do this, please look at {{Db-g13}}. --Anthony Bradbury"talk"10:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
@Anthony.bradbury: Hello, thank you for notifying me. I am trying to find a much more faster way to edit those articles. Would putting the CURRENTTIMESTAMP magic word work also?
@Yoshi24517: No it would not. The only way to do it is the correct way, as I have pointed out. If you are not prepared to do it the correct way then please do not do it at all. Doing it the incorrect way after this conversation is both unhelpful and time consuming. there is no value in looking for a faster way to do this tagging if it just makes final disposal of the draft slower. Please do it the right way. --Anthony Bradbury"talk"15:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
My friend, if you can find a faster way of doing it ok, do that. I ask you now to go back and look at one of the pages = there are still a lot on the CSD page - which you have template. You will see that they all state your error. If you can template the articles so that the last edit (before your flag) shows on the template, which should turn green when correctly formatted, then fine. If your way does not work, do it the recommended way. But do not carry on as you are.--Anthony Bradbury"talk"15:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
@Yoshi24517: I can't quite see what you are doing, but your G13 nominations are all coming up showing you editing them twice, the first one being right before the nomination. This makes just as much admin work as your previous activity. I suspect that you are adding a date stamp and then adding the G13 tag, which as I have said is the wrong way to do it. I say again, PLEASE do it the recommended way. Although I understand that you are trying to find a faster way to nominate, there is not that much hurry. Look at the page after you nominate it. The message should be green; if it is not then you have done it wrong. Again, I appreciate that you do not intend to make life difficult, but you are doing so. If you continue in this fashion eventually an admin will label it disruptive editing, which I am sure you want to avoid.--Anthony Bradbury"talk"22:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
@Anthony Bradbury: All I'm doing is adding (in template,) Db-g13|ts=CURRENTTIMESTAMP. The past 150 or so articles, I did it, 110 are in the backlog, and 40 of them got deleted by G13 for speedy deletion. What do you mean the article turning green? Yoshi24517ChatOnline22:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Pinging Sphilbrick to get his opinion because he is the one who is deleting all the pages I nominate for G13. Sphilbrick, am I tagging them for speedy deletion the correct way? I'm using AWB as a means to make the process go much faster. I am finding the begging of the AFC template and replacing it with the same thing with the speedy deletion tag in it. Am I tagging them correctly? Thanks, Yoshi24517ChatOnline05:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
To be fair, I have also deleted quite a lot; but it takes longer with the ones you tag incorrectly. When tagged correctly the centre part of the tag turns green and the date on which the article ewas last edited shows up. It does not do so on the ones you tag, using your non-standard method. --Anthony Bradbury"talk"10:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I thought I saw the problem. The nomination was initially done with a misspelled "CURRENTTIMESTAMP" magic word then corrected. While the correction was necessary, the template "correctly" notes that the last prior edit was very recent.
I did note that the bar was red not green which was a problem because it meant I had to double check the dates on every one but I wrote it off as a one-time error (albeit repeated several times this day),--S Philbrick(Talk)12:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
However, I did not notice the misspelling in all, so there may be a different issue as well. Yoshi, I understand you might tag and move on, but do you look at the post-tag articles to see the green or red (sometimes yellow) bar we are talking about?
I'll also explain my process and little more detail I can't speak for Anthony Bradbury but I won't be surprised if my approach is similar to others.
While there were a few hiccups when the template was first created they were ironed out. When I see a nomination I look for two things: the name of the nominator to see if I have had experience with that nominator in the bar to see if it's green. In the case of a new name, I check a few of the nominations in detail to make sure the nominator knows what they are doing. Once I reach that comfort level if I see a green bar I will manually spot check a small subset just to make sure the template hasn't broken, but I will delete a batch at a time. If I see the red bar, I have to manually check the dates on each one. This isn't just slower it is slower by maybe a factor of five.
Don't take this as harsh criticism — is a process issue that needs to be addressed and we can address it. However, there are typically hundreds of these every day, so we must make sure that we don't bog the process down.--S Philbrick(Talk)13:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Apparently yes. I pulled it up on an iPad and I briefly saw the red or pink bar but then it disappeared when it went into mobile mode. (I see what you see).--S Philbrick(Talk)15:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick: I saw it! The same way you did. Very briefly, but I saw it. I click the desktop view button on an iPad, so that's why. I do not have access to a computer right now, so I'll check on a computer when I get the chance. Yoshi24517ChatOnline15:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Essentially we al three have the same problem: you are not doing it the way everyone else does; I personally cannot see why you should not do so. Why not give it a try using the approved method and see how it goes? You will appreciate that SPhilbrick agrees that there is a problem.--Anthony Bradbury"talk"18:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I was initially less concerned, because I thought it arose from a misspelled Magic Word, which would not be repeated, but now I realize it is something else.--S Philbrick(Talk)19:14, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick: I see what's going on. It's not the current revision time stamp I need to add, but the last revision time stamp I need to add. I am very sorry about this, and I shouldn't have tried to do that. (After all, all my work was replaced with more plus 100 more eligible articles.) I'm sorry about this and I will nominate them the right way. Yoshi24517ChatOnline03:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
.jpg)
The Herald (submissions) during the second round.
.svg)
.jpg)
