User talk:NickPenguin/Archive 3

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Hip Hop Theat"er"

Thanks for the merge. Although an easy move, you saved me from the work. Gbern3 (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pasta problem. Tho in this case I didn't do much, just a simple redirect. All of the content was already duplicated in the other article. --NickPenguin(contribs) 04:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merging during live AfD

You are receiving this notification because you commented at WT:Articles for deletion#Merging during live AfD. I have started a follow-up discussion at WT:Articles for deletion#Revisiting Merging during live AfD. Flatscan (talk) 02:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:2008 main page redesign NickPenguin.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:2008 main page redesign NickPenguin.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 14:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merging

plese don't merge anything unless we have reached a full consensus.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revert if you disgree. I have no vested interest in the articles I merge, I'm cleaning up the backlog. That article is your project now. --NickPenguin(contribs) 19:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA

Hey Nick. Regarding your RfA, the lack of recent activity is a great cause for concern in many, many RfAs. My personal standards are usually around five out of the past six months of continuous activity. Personally, they're not really a major factor to me (I've chosen to ignore them), but I fear a lot of people will oppose simply because you only have one full month of activity after a year of inactivity. I just wanted to drop by to wish you the best, as well as let you know that if the recent activity issue derails your RfA, don't be disheartened by it. You seem like a good editor and I'm sure you'll have a much better chance with a few more months of recent activity under your belt. Regards, Swarm X 07:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Though I did give my support, I do think your edit gaps might be cause for concern. –BuickCenturyDriver 08:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No worries in any case. It's good to get feedback all the same. --NickPenguin(contribs) 12:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I'm very pleased to have seen the support side picking up momentum throughout the RfA. Who knows if it'll be enough, but it's pretty rare to see a RfA with a bad start swing in the candidate's favor like this. I suspect you'd be passing with flying colors if it wasn't for the recent activity concerns. Whatever the outcome, congrats. Swarm X 23:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would describe the whole experience as extremely successful, regardless of how it turns out. I think most editors have never run across me before, and that has a part in it. The criticisms are for the most part true, and it's been positive feedback. But I'm not going to change my editing style just because of some opinions. I edit wikipedia the way I do because I enjoy it that way, and if you're not having fun doing something, then it's simply not worth doing. --NickPenguin(contribs) 05:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bold merge of World Science Festival, 2008

Regarding your bold merge of World Science Festival, 2008 into World Science Festival... well, I don't oppose it but I hope you do know that the article was previously split due to a (probably poor) FARC conclusion. And you could have had your merge easier. See here. Nageh (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know the two articles were the result of a split, but something did seem a little odd there. Somehow I didn't think both articles were featured, and in any case, it seems to makes more sense to have one article on an annual event of this nature. If anyone disagrees, then they can revert and discuss. --NickPenguin(contribs) 18:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Hello, NickPenguin. Concerns have been raised that your username may be incompatible with policy. You can contribute to the discussion about it at the page for requests for comment on usernames. Alternatively, if you agree that your username may be problematic and are willing to change it, it is possible for you to keep your present contributions history under a new name. Simply request a new name at Wikipedia:Changing username following the guidelines on that page, rather than creating a whole new account. Thank you. Addbot (talk) 03:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC) ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 12:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at it and, in my opinion, the RfC/UN submission is specious, if not spurious. What's more, while your name (NickPenguin) doesn't appear to be a violation of any policy, EBE123 did violate RfC/UN policy when he/she posted the RfC. I have warned EBE123 that this is not the right way to do things here. — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 17:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's all good, thanks for that. I'm not particularly concerned about this, and if it was a big deal for some reason, I would simply change my username. Thanks for looking out for me tho. --NickPenguin(contribs) 17:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Hi Nick, I thought I had to leave you a note about your RfA and my oppose. First of all, let me say that you have made many quality contributions to the project. I don't have a problem with you or your edits; quite the opposite in fact. I hope you stay for many more years and continue to contribute. My reason for this post is I don't like the way my oppose thread had ballooned. I've had to repeat the same one or two minor points over and over to people that don't seem to listen. Most of the content there is me trying to rebuff the complaints of others. You probably, and quite rightly, don't care too much for what I think, nonetheless, I don't think you're ready yet, but after a year or so more of building the encyclopaedia, e.g. article creations, etc. I think you will be more than ready. The reason I write is that people have forced me to repeat over and over the same criticisms, and it must seem that I really hate you and that I see your contributions are worthless. I know the wording of my original oppose wasn't right and that's why it attracted so much criticism from the support camp. But it really isn't representative of my true feelings or the quality of your input. Please accept my apology for handling things so badly, please accept my compliments for your past work, and please accept my good wishes for your future work. — Fly by Night (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks for dropping by and saying that. I probably overreacted a little bit. I understand your perspective, and your criticisms are valid, I do have some areas I need to work on. Regardless of wither I pass or not, the whole experience was valuable, I got an external perspective on my editing, and what others think is important versus what I think is important. Certainly no one person is right, and that includes me just as much as everyone else. I didn't intend for the thread to balloon out of control, and hopefully people weren't too hard on you. With something like adminship, I can see why it would be a good idea to take a hard line, to keep the quality of admins high. So don't worry about it, it's all good, and cheers. --NickPenguin(contribs) 02:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA closing

Your RfA is going to close in an hour and to the fullest extent of my knowledge and belief you are an admin. You started off a little rocky but you have shown improvement. I was informed by a user per an email that the basis of successful RfAs are in a 70%-75% rabge. Your support percentage is 63%. Sorry about that. Jessy T/C 01:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, I was going to say, it could go either way, but by a pure percentage it is not exactly going in my favour. On the basis of argument strength, well, who knows. But in any case, it won't change my enjoyment from editing, and if I have a greater range to edit in, then awesome. If not, then I'll just keep doing what I'm doing. It's been a valuable experience all the same. --NickPenguin(contribs) 02:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, and as you've probably gathered, it is more about the numbers than about the strength of arguments. At 63 it was never going to pass. Had it got to the high 60s, one of our braver bureaucrats may have promoted. But as you say, it's a valuable experience and you don't seem to have out too bruised. If you were ever tempted to repeat this, I'm sure you would fare much better. (Just don't say you will work in areas where you don't have experience.) Best regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm certainly disappointed. If I really wanted to pass, all I had to do was go around and canvas all my buddies to raise my percentage up. It's too bad that the current system for admins is based around numbers rather than quality of work, integrity of the candidate and the quality of the arguments for and against. I suppose this is why I'm not cut out for politics, I'm not the kind of person to just say whatever I need to say to get elected, I speak off the cuff and on the record. Truthfully I probably wouldn't have spent much in the XfD discussions, I only added that in because I have a mild interest there, and I gather the impression that everyone would have flipped out if I said I don't think deletion is important. Perhaps I am not cut out for the admin club, I don't subscribe to all the 'popular views'. --NickPenguin(contribs) 16:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nick- if it wasn't for the recent activity issue, popular views be damned, you would have passed. Perhaps this isn't what you want to hear, but give it a few more months of editing and try again. Seriously, 51 people already think you're admin material, and a few more months of activity could add a significant amount of people to that number. At the very least, please don't rule adminship out at this point. Wikipedia would be better served if you had the tools. Best regards, Swarm X 18:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry it turned out the way it did :/. As Swarm said, I encourage you not to rule out the option of adminship at this point. Regards, Airplaneman ✈ 19:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is what it is, the criticisms are valid, and I'm not overly concerned. I've been thinking about the one comment about the tools being given out as a result of necessity, and I'm wondering if they are really necessary for what I like to do. Now, if we replaced 'necessity' with 'utility', then I would jump back in the foray in a few months, no problem. But as far as becoming seriously involved in arguments about specific articles or policies, I just don't know if I care enough about that. There are lots of other would-be politicians that enjoy that sort of stuff, me, I just like to improve articles. If there are specific tools I can identify that would be more useful in my every day activities, then perhaps I should just knock on those doors instead.
Still, you never know how I might feel in a few months, maybe I will just try again now that my personal life has slowed down a little bit and I could spend more time on here. But I enjoy the pace I move at, and sometimes I think if I worked at it 'harder', it would just stop being fun. --NickPenguin(contribs) 19:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your RFA has been closed

I regret to inform you that your Request for adminship has closed as unsuccessful. Please take the time to carefully review all of the opinions and comments left there, then use that information and apply it to your interactions and actions here. If you are considering a future run for adminship, I strongly recommend paying especially close attention to those areas where those participating saw room for improvement, then using their comments to make those improvements. If you have any questions about the closing (or anything else), please let me know. Thank you for participation, and good luck on all your future endeavors here. Your work is definitely appreciated. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well. I'm disappointed, but that's how it goes. Actually you're one of the few people I see around regularly in my area, so it felt appropriate for you to close. And now since that absorbed a whole week of my attention, I can actually get back to editing articles again. --NickPenguin(contribs) 16:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, see you around, then. :) ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. --NickPenguin(contribs) 18:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Sorry that went the way it did. I've set your account as a wp:Reviewer just in case anything on your watchlist gets included in the pending changes trial. ϢereSpielChequers 20:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did just notice the RfA as it closed. I hope you are proud of your conduct during the RfA because I have nothing but respect for your manner. I am sure, as many have said, you will succeed if there is an RfA2 in your future. I would also understand if Wikipedia missed her one chance to see your full worth. Because the candidate you showed, was quality admin material, and no second showing should ever have been necessary. But that is your choice. I am proud I had a chance to support you when I had the chance. And that I did. Best regards my wiki friend. My76Strat (talk) 03:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the well wishes. I hope you will try again in a few months too. --NickPenguin(contribs) 05:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hard luck - you had my vote - let me know when you come to re-try Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! (Whisper...) 09:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick. I'm sorry I couldn't quite land on support this time, but I was really impressed by all your actions in your RFA. If you decide to run again and demonstrate a bit more experience of content creation and deletion, I'd certainly vote support in a few months time. I guess all the demands can seem a bit illogical (and there was probably an excessive amount of editcountitis in the oppose section). I think it's a bit like a driving test or an exam - the examiner wants to find evidence that you know all the syllabus, even if most of it isn't stuff you'd normally do.

Feel free to disagree and carry on editing the way you always have done - you're a much older, wiser editor than me, and the work you do here is excellent! All the best, --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 13:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know I opposed this time, but I'm sure that in the next couple of months you will be able to get up to speed and counter the main rationale for opposition. When you do, you can definitely count on my support. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contributing in the copyright area

Hi NickPenguin, my condolences on your recent unsuccessful RFA. One of the areas in which you expressed interest was dealing with copyright problems and you noted that you hadn't done much in that area for lack of the admin bit. I would like to suggest that you don't actually need the bit to make a very effective contribution in that area. Just go to WP:CCI, pick an investigation, pick a section of it that no-one else is working on, and get started. If you can clear the contribs to an article as free of copyconcerns, you can show that in the CCI just as well as anyone else. If you find something ambiguous (not sure if it's rewritten enough or suspicious wording based on a print source you don't have), you can flag it for followup. If you find a clearcut copyvio, just take it out of the article, or even better, rewrite it and integrate it with other sources.

I've discussed this with Moonriddengirl a few times (tangentially here for instance) and I believe she is OK with the approach of simply removing copyvios without necessarily revdeleting every instance in the article history. My rationale is that the copyvio is removed "from public display" and other valuable contributions are retained, whereas deleting all the versions can nuke a whole lot of other people's work. She does it her way and when I've worked on CCIs in the past, I've done it my way and we seem to get on fine. :) At some point in the future, I'd like to clarify with WMF counsel exactly how diligent we need to be, but until that day I know that I can remove any clearcut copyvio from an article on sight and if someone wants to get in a war with me to restore it, it will be a very short war.

So I would suggest that if you want to work on copyvio issues, just jump in and start. You will find the people working in that area to be very helpful and knowledgeable, and of course MRG is the best 'pedian there is. And the more you help out, the more you will learn. If you come back to RFA with a solid track record in copyvio work, I think that will be a very strong point in your favour and at least all of the three or four people who struggle with CPs all day, every day, will be happy to support you. :) Franamax (talk) 20:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made a comment on the page asking how the procedure works, I will wait for a response before I step on some toes or get myself in trouble. --NickPenguin(contribs) 23:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that edit when you made it, and a little disappointed but not particularly surprised you've had no response. Other than the procedures listed on each CCI page (which, note, say that any editor can help), it's very difficult to explain exactly what to do, since every case has its own twists. I'll let it sit for a day or two more to see if anyone else chimes in, if no-one does, you can just get started and I will check your work as you go.
The main rhing is just to assess overall what an editor has been doing, then look at the major contributions they have made to each article and figure out if they are copyvios or not. Most copyvios are just people uncritically copy-pasting from other sites in order to build articles. Sometimes they include the hyphens at line-breaks in the original text so it is glaringly obvious they made a copy. Other times they attempt minimal rewriting but copy the structure and selection of facts and just change a few words (still a copyvio). Sometimes you get lucky and they cite the source where they copy-pasted the text from (still a copyvio). Sometimes when you Google a piece of text from the diff where they added it, you will instead hit a mirror site of en:wiki. It's important to decide where the words came from first, so you have to carefully evaluate that by looking for typos and exact versions.
I would suggest you start by doing some evaluations of your own, and if anyone else responds at WT:CCI you can present your findings to date. I just randomly picked a CCI, TyDwiki's and looked at a few. Some were them overwriting redirects from "season" articles for TV shows - with no attribution for which parent article they got the text from, which is also a copyvio but can be fixed with a talk page note indicating the exact version the text was copied from. But here's one I looked at: [1] The added text appears basically identical to that on tv.com here. But tv.com is a user-contributed site, so then you have to decide who copied whom. I couldn't find an article edit history listing at tv.com, so then it could either be an email to tv.com asking for an explanation, or look at what else TyDwiki was doing at the time. If they were adding a bunch of edits of this type in close order, it becomes very unlikely it was all their original writing. And you can look at what other editors have been finding in the same CCI, in this case they have had a bunch of copyvios found, so again, this one looks suspicious. And the fact they posted all that in one huge edit also doesn't look good, they didn't make a single typo in all that? I'm not positive on who came first though, so it becomes a matter of evaluating the overall pattern of the editor and maybe discussing with the other people working on that CCI. What do you rhink?
Sorry I can't be any clearer, it really is difficult work, much harder than just blocking a vandal. Hopefully you'll start evaluating a few cases and start forming your own judgements and methods for investigation. You can always just post your comments on each line item rather than just a {{y}} or {{n}}, it will still be helpful for the next reviewer. I'm staggered by how long the open CCI list has become since I checked in there last, I really should get back to that work. Franamax (talk) 01:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if I get involved in this project, then probably the first thing I will do is write a guide on how to check for copyvios in CCI. What's the point of having a process that no one can jump into and help with? It doesn't sound a complex as everyone thinks, I know you have to be careful, but there's due diligence, and then there's over thinking the problem. If I don't get a response in a few days then I'll just start doing my own thing and see what happens. --NickPenguin(contribs) 02:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rfc closed

Just letting you know that I've officially closed the RFC on your username. See ya 'round. —GFOLEY FOUR— 04:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phew, good thing, I haven't slept in almost a week! --NickPenguin(contribs) 05:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

A discussion on a merge has stalled here. I hope you can join it please. Pass a Method talk 18:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I missed your RFA!

We must have started out on Wiki at about the same time as each other (although you clearly got an account earlier) - as a non-admin myself it's quite rare to see someone else of similar vintage up at RFA. I'm more used to seeing people who only started editing in 2010, and then wondering whether I'm getting too old for all this! ;-) If I'd noticed your RFA I'd have voiced my support, and I do hope you run again once you've jumped through a few more hoope. Best wishes, TheGrappler (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the words of confidence. After reflecting on the RfA for a long while now, and I don't think I would run again. My I still like to keep an eye on things here, but as far as being seriously involved, I think those days might be behind me. I have too many things to do in my life, I wouldn't be able to dedicate enough time to be a truly valuable asset. I enjoy being on the outside looking in. --NickPenguin(contribs) 06:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If we're treating adminship as something that needs big time commitments we're doing something wrong. If you don't get get involved with long-run disputes (or kick something off which is clearly going to run and run in a time-consuming manner), but instead were to focus on one of the many areas where a bit of non-controversial gruntwork is needed from time to time, you'd still be a truly valuable asset. TheGrappler (talk) 22:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and I think others share that general sentiment. Unfortunately, the groupthink disagrees, and there is a general feeling that progress can only (or primarily) be made by the creation and deletion of articles, rather than the manipulation of existing content. I think my personality is such that I would be treated as the odd man out, because I don't operate on the same sociopolitical platform of many of the would be politicians. Not that that's a bad thing. Rather, it's difficult to get elected by your peers when you've decided to stand apart from them and how they do things. --NickPenguin(contribs) 01:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to TAFI

Welcome to the project and thanks for joining! Also, thank you for updating the templated articles. I'm usually the one that does that, nice to get a week off (not that it is hard to do, but still, thanks for taking an interest in the maintenance of the project)! AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 01:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been away from the wiki for a long time, but I've been keeping up on the news. It's nice to see a worthwhile project start gaining steam like this, I hope to be a part of it's success. --NickPenguin(contribs) 01:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's great. It hasn't brought the results I envisioned from it yet. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 01:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Once it gets on the main page and it gets some real exposure, it should take off. And a little of positive canvasing wouldn't hurt either. --NickPenguin(contribs) 01:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. I hope it will be big one day (although it did work on Entertainment, if you look at the history there). Anyway, it was nice to meet you. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You made a mistake

I don't think this is what you were trying to do. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, you're right. Must have been a typeo in a link I followed. Thanks. --NickPenguin(contribs) 02:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably. I will have the page deleted for you and move your message to the right page. No worries. Happens to all of us. In the second article I created, the last name of the subject originally started with a lowercase letter. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you took care of it already. Carry on. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. Anyways, I'm hoping a little bit of canvassing will get some more eyes on the project page. We'll see what happens in the next couple of days. --NickPenguin(contribs) 02:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello,

I see that we share some common interests, especially the TAFI and other collaboration oriented projects. I was wondering if we could have an informal group of like-minded Wikipedia editors with common goals (Friendly atmosphere, more collaborations, easier to learn etc) so we can all have a common forum to centralize our discussions. Sort of like what WP:CENT does, only related to our areas of interest? I have seen many users (like Go Phigtins and Automatic Strikeout) whom I meet on more than one WikiProject.

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree wholeheartedly. I've felt for several years that the wiki has reached it's critical mass of article production, and it needs to switch into the improvement mode. Collaboration is the way to go. Maybe we could usurp the current WP:CO page for the purposes of discussion; I don't think anyone will miss it, there has been no talk page discussion in 4 years and averaged about one comment per year since for the last 8. --NickPenguin(contribs) 19:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just so that we are on the same page, are you suggesting to use the WP:CO page for our informal group that I have suggested, or do you want to use it for purposes in an article collaboration context only? I believe that page is best for the latter. What I propose is a group where we can suggest new ideas and request comments and ask for help on WikiProjects from each other - An active group which will strive for some common goals many of us share. What are your thoughts on the same? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those things sound good, and I see the distinction between them now. If we can come up with a suitable location for our collaboration think-tank, then I will most definitely be on the scene. --NickPenguin(contribs) 19:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Are you interested in new editors? Like maybe at the WP:Teahouse? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Teahouse seems like an interesting concept, I think i might keep an eye on what's going on over there. We really need to encourage and nurture editors when they show up on the scene. When I edited my first article, I got that nice welcome message at the top of this talk page, and even though I didn't get into it seriously for a few years, that had a big impact. --NickPenguin(contribs) 04:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thats good. :) It will be nice to have you there. One can always use extra help. Do also let me know what you think of this -User:TheOriginalSoni/AFC FAQ. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My first try at an essay/WikiProject -Tell me what you think

User:TheOriginalSoni/Rolling Ball.

Do leave your feedback on the talk page. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling Ball

Hello, The page is up and running. We also have a Wikipedia:Rolling Ball/Hang Out Zone for everyone to discuss whatever they want. You are also requested to watchlist/keep and eye on the Hangout page so you can keep track of whatever everyone's talking about. Cheers, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moving items into Schedule

Hello, Can I request you that when you are moving articles into the Schedule, please take care not to have too many articles of the same category on a given week. Currently, the 2 March batch has 2 from History, one of which I would ideally like to be shifted to 23 February. IMO no topic except Everyday life should have more than one item on a given week.

Thanks and cheers, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC) (Use TB please!)[reply]

I understand your point, but to be fair, I have only used the oldest nominations. It seems to be the case that there are some categories that generate more popular support than others, so I don't know what we can do about that. If you'd like to switch them schedule around then by all means, it doesn't make a difference to me, but I'm not sure how we can get an adequate distribution when we get an abundance of support for certain kinds of items. --NickPenguin(contribs) 17:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know that you used the oldest nominations. (It kinda was a hint when you said so on the edit summary ;) ) But as a general rule of thumb, I would suggest that you continue the way you do, but just keep an eye out to make sure not to cluster things on the same week (I note that you currently add two weeks at a time. So I think continuing the same will more-or-less even out any topics having multiple successful nominations). As for what happens later when certain categories get more supports, I am pretty sure you'll know how to deal with it then. This is why I dont try to do the scheduling or moving to the holding area myself. I just prefer to let you experts do the job, because you know what to do.
For now, mind if I suggest switching either History article with Home page? [Now that I see it, both the dates were very equally divided on that front- Only Home Page looked switchable] TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's any such thing as an expert, just people working together. But for sure, I'll take another look at things and be more careful whenever I'm the one doing selecting. --NickPenguin(contribs) 18:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At the Editor of the Week, we had an informal understanding of sorts on who does what. Ultimately we realised it was the best configuration we were working. Likewise I realised I ought not to be the one selecting nominations and scheduling them (because of my tendency to keep trying to change things). So I wait until you guys do it, and you are the one who happens to be the one scheduling the most. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would Paulo Coelho be a good nomination for TAFI? A bestselling author could use a lot of help from everyone! Will also be interesting enough to draw many readers. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I added it to the noms. Maybe it's time for me to pick up a book again. --NickPenguin(contribs) 20:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the Barnstar! I don't think I have ever been "awesome" before. I shall float around awesomely all day. :) Whiteghost.ink (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone can recognise good work, just not everyone gets to hearing about it. You are doing a fantastic job. --NickPenguin(contribs) 20:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of furniture types, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Table (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

Thanks

Thanks for thinking about how to improve things at Wikipedia talk:Today's article for improvement! I have a few thoughts in my head about how to improve things around here too. I'm not great at tech-y stuff around here, or I would comment. Let me know if I could help somehow. I guess that's the problem with breaking ground around here. You're the only one doing it so no one may be there with you to help! Biosthmors (talk) 06:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the vote of confidence, but you shouldn't feel apprehensive about commenting because you're not 'techy'. If anything, I think the conversation could use with some less-techy input. Any system is workable if the wiki-elite can slug through it, but it's useless is nobody else can. Even saying which bits about the proposal you like can help identify the stuff with support, because I'd prefer not to go changing things unless we all come to an agreement. --NickPenguin(contribs) 13:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just got around to seeing your reply (more bad technology ;-). Link me if there is a discussion you think I might be able to help advance. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 03:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TAFI template

I took the liberty of changing the link to stats.grok.se from displaying the the current month to displaying the last 30 days. This works better on the first few days of each month. -- YPNYPN ✡ 14:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks. I don't suppose you know hwo to get it to convert spaces into underscores, do you? Any article that's more than one word doesn't parse into the grok link. --NickPenguin(contribs) 23:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 February 2013

About TAFI

Hello,

I think that things are going nowhere for the TAFI, as far as the main page is concerned. In my opinion, the most viable way to solve this situation is to simply start an RFC on the main page talk to finalize all the little details (Where do we put it, How many lines, How do we balance it, etc etc). Link this rfc from CENT and the watchlist, and village pump, and jimbo's talk page. Get others to comment on it, and have a decision taken. This seems to be the best and in this case, possibly the only way, to actually implement it on the main page anytime soon. What do you think?

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Encountering resistance is not a lack of progress. Everyone just needs to be a little patient and respond carefully. --NickPenguin(contribs) 14:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The technical pump discussion also suggested we go forward with a final community wide consensus vote before making the change. And the options on the Main Page talk look like they arent likely to go forward unless with explicit participation of all the projects involved (ITN, DYK, OTD and TFA) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think calling an RFC would have the result you are expecting. Clearly I can't control what you do, but I would ask that you wait a few days while we work things out. If talks stop completely then we should go to an RFC, but I don't think we need to do that just because they aren't going how it was expected, the resistance might actually increase.
Remember it has been agreed that the result should be to implement, but not necessarily implemented in your preferred way. The idea is to get everyone to agree on how to implement, and that might involve everyone giving up some things that they want in order to achieve the larger goal of it being agreeable to everyone.
As for ITN, DYK, OTD and TFA, I've left messages on all the project pages except TFA, which might be a good idea to do, as well as TFP and TFL. Rather than go straight to an RFC, I'd ask that you first contact those groups for input. --NickPenguin(contribs) 14:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting thoughts there. I wonder if I could think this calmly and handle situations.
Never mind then. The reason why I contacted you (and coin and amadscientist) was because I wanted a discussion before acting. Lets all keep calm and carry on. (btw i dnt think i'll be a part of any discussion henceforth. duty calls.) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 February 2013

Spam

Hi, you're not signing your spam, perhaps you could do that so we all know who's addressing us? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, must have forgotten the sig. If you don't want the message I'll just remove it. --NickPenguin(contribs) 17:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The spam's not the problem, it's the lack of sig, you need to fix that on the places you've added your notice. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also check your target list - I don't know why you contacted me since I've had no involvement in it.  An optimist on the run! 17:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I saw you edit a project page in the last two months, perhaps only in passing. I apologise for my unsigned and unsolicited bulk email. I have fixed the signature. --NickPenguin(contribs) 17:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TAFI Holding area

Hello fellow TAFI member. Just a friendly note, when adding new nominations to the TAFI holding area, please post new entries at the end of the lists, so that older entries are scheduled first, and newer entries are scheduled after the older ones. I've added instructions on the page for further information. Thanks! Northamerica1000(talk) 09:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WantedPages

I came across your post at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_69#Wikipedia's Most Wanted (Pages) from 2011 about special:wantedpages. I raised similar concerns recently at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_108#Bug 15434: Disabled special pages are refreshed which I suspect you'll be interested in reading. It seems the technical problem regarding WikiProject /Assessment pages is not going away with developer resources applied to the problem, so the solution is to encourage the WikiProject to create their missing /Assessment pages. And the redlinks on /todo should be audited, and be removed from those pages if they are not highly wanted missing pages. Wikipedia:Most missed articles looks like a useful way to find the important missing articles, but it hasnt been updated in a long time because user:Melancholie and user:MelancholieBot was last active on wikimedia projects around 2009.[2] John Vandenberg (chat) 22:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I looked into those links, truthfully I had forgotten about my interest in missing pages. Wikipedia:Most wanted articles seems to be the way to go, and it looks like User:Topbanana has got that as under control has possible. I am currently interested in Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement, it would be nice if there was a way to integrate the most wanted articles somehow into the project.

TAFI

Hello,
In the past few days, Today's Articles for Improvement has gone through many changes.

  • We have modified the process for adding Nominations, which now uses a template/table format and requires only 3 supports for an article to be selected.
  • There is now a Holding Area, where articles are kept for discussion before being selected for a particular date.
  • The TAFI schedule now involves adding 10 articles weekly, chosen from a variety of topics.
  • We now have an Accomplishments page where we will be highlighting our older TAFI articles which have now become quality articles on the Wikipedia.

The Project is almost ready to hit the Main Page, where it will be occupying a section just below "Did you Know" section. Three article from the weekly batch of 7 will be displayed randomly at the main page, the format of which can be seen at the Main Page sandbox. There is also an ongoing discussion at the Main page talk over the final details before we can go forward with the Main Page.

If you have any ideas to discuss with everyone else, please visit the TAFI Talk Page and join in on the ongoing discussions there. You are also invited to add new nominations, and comment and suport on the current ones at the Nominations page. You can also help by helping in the discussions at the Holding Area.

Above all, please do not forget to improve our current Today's Articles for Improvement

Thank you and hoping to have some productive work from you at the Project,
TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(From the TAFI team)

Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Schedule

Thanks for helping to organize matters by updating the TAFI schedule with the notification you posted there and putting things on hold. It seems functional to utilize Group 1 there for when TAFI goes live onto the Main page. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with using Group one. If the proposal to implement goes according to plan, I would expect we can begin a week from now. --NickPenguin(contribs) 22:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 February 2013

Merge discussion for Nehwon

An article that you have been involved in editing, Nehwon , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Goustien (talk) 05:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Cleanup

Hello, NickPenguin.

You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion.

To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for joining the project, and please feel free to post articles for cleanup there! Happy editing, Northamerica1000(talk) 14:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

British Horseracing Hall of Fame

Hi, I noticed you blanked the page at British Horseracing Hall of Fame. Were you trying to redirect it? If so, it probably needs to be done through the proper page merger process. FunkyCanute (talk) 10:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oopse, I was certainly redirecting it, I merged the content into National Horseracing Museum. I had listed the edit summary as (#redirect National Horseracing Museum), but somehow I didn't save that as the article text. I will correct that now. --NickPenguin(contribs) 21:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 February 2013

WikiCup 2013 February newsletter

Round 1 is now over. The top 64 scorers have progressed to round 2, where they have been randomly split into eight pools of eight. At the end of April, the top two from each pool, as well as the 16 highest scorers from those remaining, will progress to round 3. Commiserations to those eliminated; if you're interested in still being involved in the WikiCup, able and willing reviewers will always be needed, and if you're interested in getting involved with other collaborative projects, take a look at the WikiWomen's Month discussed below.

Round 1 saw 21 competitors with over 100 points, which is fantastic; that suggests that this year's competition is going to be highly competative. Our lower scores indicate this, too: A score of 19 was required to reach round 2, which was significantly higher than the 11 points required in 2012 and 8 points required in 2011. The score needed to reach round 3 will be higher, and may depend on pool groupings. In 2011, 41 points secured a round 3 place, while in 2012, 65 was needed. Our top three scorers in round 1 were:

  1. Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), primarily for an array of warship GAs.
  2. London Miyagawa (submissions), primarily for an array of did you knows and good articles, some of which were awarded bonus points.
  3. New South Wales Casliber (submissions), due in no small part to Canis Minor, a featured article awarded a total of 340 points. A joint submission with Alaska Keilana (submissions), this is the highest scoring single article yet submitted in this year's competition.

Other contributors of note include:

Featured topics have still played no part in this year's competition, but once again, a curious contribution has been offered by British Empire The C of E (submissions): did you know that there is a Shit Brook in Shropshire? With April Fools' Day during the next round, there will probably be a good chance of more unusual articles...

March sees the WikiWomen's History Month, a series of collaborative efforts to aid the women's history WikiProject to coincide with Women's History Month and International Women's Day. A number of WikiCup participants have already started to take part. The project has a to-do list of articles needing work on the topic of women's history. Those interested in helping out with the project can find articles in need of attention there, or, alternatively, add articles to the list. Those interested in collaborating on articles on women's history are also welcome to use the WikiCup talk page to find others willing to lend a helping hand. Another collaboration currently running is an an effort from WikiCup participants to coordinate a number of Easter-themed did you know articles. Contributions are welcome!

A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 17:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Völsung Cycle

I have reverted your making this article into a redirect to Völsunga saga. So far as I am aware, there has been no discussion at the target talk page of this proposed merger except for my objection to it after another editor made the same edit last month, and you gave no rationale. They are not in fact the same thing; the Völsung cycle includes other works (the heroic poems in the Elder Edda) and as the article states, the Nibelungenlied is closely related. The article needs expansion, but please take care when making articles into redirects in such cases where there has simply been silence since the merger was proposed. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are 100% correct. When I skimmed the articles I thought they were the same thing, but clearly they are not. I will remove the merge tag from Völsung Cycle, since there is no consensus to merge in over three years. As an aside, it looks like Völsung Cycle would make an excellent article to nominate over at Today's articles for improvement, I certainly would support it. --NickPenguin(contribs) 23:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I didn't feel I should remove the tag. However, although I was impressed with what happened at Fun when it was the TAFI a few weeks ago, this article is demonstrably on too recondite a subject for that to be likely to help. There aren't many of us with the knowledge of the field and of the scholarship. I have it on my list to improve myself and will get to it soon, and that may draw attention from others. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Your input would be appreciated here. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 March 2013

GLAM

don't know why you're asking questions on a VP proposal page, (you would do better at wp:teahouse) however:

  1. how are we supposed to attract their attention?
    1. interact with them, look for the social media webmasters; special collection librarians
  2. What content are we asking institutions to give us?
    1. we are helping them migrate their images, references and citations Wikipedia:GLAM/US/About
  3. How are we going to convince them to give us that content?
    1. it's in their self interest; the diffusion of knowledge is a shared goal. [3]
  4. How can we get content without the institution being bitten?
    1. can't, they've already been bitten before we arrive; however, we can avoid COI issues by COI best practices.

Impressionist/Impersonator

Hi, I noticed that you merged these two articles and wondered what the rationale was. I couldn't find the debate and to me they are two very different things (an impersonator being a look-alike/dress-up-alike while an impressionist is someone that can vocally mimic a variety of well known persons). If you could point me in the direction of the discussion it would be much appreciated! Thanks and regards, danno_uk 01:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On further reflection, you're correct, that wasn't a good merge. I reverted those edits. --NickPenguin(contribs) 04:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for my belated reply. Thank you for your consideration of my slightly flippant point, which in hindsight should have been more constructively constructed. Kudos to you for taking the point and ignoring the ignorance. I am in your debt. danno_uk 01:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 March 2013

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's articles for improvement

Hello, NickPenguin. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Today's articles for improvement#Main Page deployment, or not?.
Message added by Northamerica1000(talk) 09:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

The Signpost: 18 March 2013

The Signpost: 25 March 2013

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter

We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate London Miyagawa (submissions) (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's New South Wales Casliber (submissions) (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr (Australia Hawkeye7 (submissions)), on the European hare (Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions)), on the constellation Circinus (Alaska Keilana (submissions) and New South Wales Casliber (submissions)) and on the Third Epistle of John (Indiana Cerebellum (submissions)). All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 01 April 2013

The Signpost: 08 April 2013

TAFI needs you

Hello,
Today's Articles for Improvement is about to go live at the Main Page on 15th April 2013. There are plenty of updating required, and many things left to be done before we can go there!! You are requested to visit the project talk page to iron out everything, and make sure the project is ready before we hit the Main Page.
Thank you,
TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(From the TAFI team)

The Signpost: 15 April 2013

The Signpost: 22 April 2013

The Signpost: 29 April 2013


OPSA Redirection?

What was the justification for redirecting the Otago Polytechnic Students' Association page to Otago Polytechnic. OPSA and OP are separate legal entities with different aims and objectives etc, and without the OPSA page useful information is lost (ie is not on the OP page). I think this redirection is a mistake. Tartanperil (talk) 00:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, if you think the articles should be separate, then feel free to revert and improve the OPSA article. --NickPenguin(contribs) 04:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for the reply, will do. Tartanperil (talk) 23:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2013 April newsletter

We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with Republic of Rose Island Sven Manguard (submissions) claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) claiming for a did you know of sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place New South Wales Casliber (submissions) and second place Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.

The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.

A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. 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) 15:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 06 May 2013

The Signpost: 13 May 2013

TAFI

  • pokes* I see your name in the edit log, and Soni's awol, so....the queue's empty. redlinks :( Revent (talk) 02:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


EMERGENCY

There are NO articles linked from the TAFI page!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panpog1 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal at TAFI talk

A discussion that may interest you is occurring at Wikiproject TAFI's talk page at: Proposal: use Theo's Little Bot to automate the schedule and queue. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 May 2013

The Signpost: 27 May 2013

The Signpost: 05 June 2013

The Signpost: 12 June 2013

The Signpost: 19 June 2013

The Signpost: 26 June 2013

WikiCup 2013 June newsletter

We are down to our final 16: the 2013 semi-finals are upon us. A score of 321 was required to survive round 3, further cementing this as the most competitive WikiCup yet; round 3 was survived in 2012 with 243 points, in 2011 with 76 points and in 2010 with 250 points. The change may in part be to do with the fact that more articles are now awarded bonus points, in addition to more competitive play. Reaching the final has, in the past, required 573 points (2012, a 135% increase on the score needed to reach round 4), 150 points (2011, a 97% increase) and 417 points (2010, a 72% increase). This round has seen over a third of participants claiming points for featured articles (with seven users claiming for multiple featured articles) and most users have also gained bonus points. However, the majority of points continue to come from good articles, followed by did you know articles. In this round, every content type was utilised by at least one user, proving that the WikiCup brings together content contributors from all corners of the project.

Round 3 saw a number of contributions of note. Idaho Figureskatingfan (submissions) claimed the first featured topic points in this year's competition for her excellent work on topics related to Maya Angelou, the noted American author and poet. We have also continued to see high-importance articles improved as part of the competition: Wyoming Ealdgyth (submissions) was awarded a thoroughly well-earned 560 points for her featured article Middle Ages and 102 points for her good article Battle of Hastings. Good articles James Chadwick and Stanislaw Ulam netted Australia Hawkeye7 (submissions) 102 and 72 points respectively, while 72 points were awarded to Poland Piotrus (submissions) for each of Władysław Sikorski and Emilia Plater, both recently promoted to good article status. Collaborative efforts between WikiCup participants have continued, with, for example, New South Wales Casliber (submissions) and Canada Sasata (submissions) being awarded 180 points each for their featured article on Boletus luridus.

A rules reminder: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on the 29/30 June, which may be claimed in this round. 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. We are currently seeing concern about the amount of time people have to wait for reviews, especially at GAC- if you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! 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) 09:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Amusement Park Quarter 3, 2013 Newsletter

WikiProject Amusement Parks Newsletter

Quarter 3, 2013

463 124 5.13 50 30% »
Full edition
Unassessed Articles Coordinates Needed WikiWork Load Project Members B&M articles are GA or FA

23:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 July 2013

The Signpost: 10 July 2013

The Signpost: 17 July 2013

This week's articles for improvement - 22 July 2013 to 28 July 2013

This week's article for improvement is
Tax return
Please be bold and help improve it!

posted by Northamerica1000(talk) 10:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an opt-in section for those interested in receiving TAFI notifications on the project's main page, located here. Those that don't opt-in won't receive this message again. Also, a revised notification template has been created, located at Template:TAFI weekly selections notice. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 July 2013

WikiCup 2013 July newsletter

We're halfway through this year's penultimate round, and the competition is moving along well. Pool A's Canada Sasata (submissions) currently leads overall, while Pool B's Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) is second. Both leaders are WikiCup veterans, and both have already scored over 600 points this month. If the round were to end today, London Miyagawa (submissions), with 274 points, would be the lowest-scoring participant to make it through. This indicates that participants will need a score comparable to last year's (573, the highest ever) to qualify for the final. The high scores this year are a testament both to the quality of participants and to the increased focus on significant content (eligible for bonus points) in this year's competition. So far this round, both Sasata and Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) have made up over half of their score through bonus points, with, for example, high importance FA koala earning Sasata a total of 440 points (from a multiplier of 4.4) and high-importance GA sea earning Cwmhiraeth a total of 216 points (from a multiplier of 7.2). Other articles on important topics submitted this round include a featured article on the Norman conquest of England by Wyoming Ealdgyth (submissions), and good articles on Nobel laureate in literature Henryk Sienkiewicz, Nobel laureate in physics Hans Bethe, and the noted Japanese aircraft carrier Hiryū. These articles are by Poland Piotrus (submissions), Australia Hawkeye7 (submissions) and Sturmvogel_66 respectively.

Other than that, there is not much to report! 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. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! 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) 23:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TAFI in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on Today's Articles For Improvement for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 02:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 July 2013

TAFI nominations

Hi NickPenguin. Please can you head over to the TAFI nominations page and either/both nominate and support articles? The page has gone to a near standstill in recent weeks, and at this rate we're going to run out of articles in the Holding Area within the next few months, if that. Also also try to spread the word. :)--Coin945 (talk) 12:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pass by there tomorrow and support some nominations. I also have a list of articles that I can start nominating from. --NickPenguin(contribs) 03:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. And yes, as you've peobably gussed by now, in a bid to get things moving again, I chucked a bunch of stuff at the wall and an currently in the process of seeing what sticks. I saw you likes a bunch of my nominations so we're on the right track.--Coin945 (talk) 06:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are some awesome ones, and some not as awesome. We really need at least 4 people for the nomination system to work though, two only gets us 66% there when we agree, and 4 gives us that extra overlap. --NickPenguin(contribs) 01:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 07 August 2013

The Signpost: 14 August 2013

The Signpost: 21 August 2013

WikiCup 2013 August newsletter

This year's final is upon us. Our final eight, in order of last round's score, are:

  1. Australia Hawkeye7 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer who has contributed on topics of military history and physics, including a number of high-importance topics. Good articles have made up the bulk of his points, but he has also scored a great deal of bonus points. He has the second highest score overall so far, with more than 3000 points accumulated.
  2. New South Wales Casliber (submissions), another WikiCup veteran who reached the finals in 2012, 2011 and 2010. He writes on a variety of topics including botany, mycology and astronomy, and has claimed the highest or joint highest number of featured articles every round so far this year. He has the third highest score overall, with just under 3000 points accumulated.
  3. Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions), 2012 WikiCup champion, who writes mostly on marine biology. She has also contributed to high-importance topics, seeing huge numbers of bonus points for high-importance featured and good articles. Previous rounds have seen her scoring the most bonus points, with scoring spread across did you knows, good articles and featured articles.
  4. Canada Sasata (submissions), a WikiCup veteran who finished in second place in 2012, and competed as early as 2009. He writes articles on biology, especially mycology, and has scored highly for a number of collaborations at featured article candidates.
  5. Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), the winner of the 2010 competition. His contributions mostly concern Naval history, and he has scored a very large number of points for good articles and good article reviews in every round. He is the highest scorer overall this year, with over 3500 points in total.
  6. Wyoming Ealdgyth (submissions), who is competing in the WikiCup for the second time, though this will be her first time in the final. A regular at FAC, she is mostly interested in British medieval history, and has scored very highly for some top-importance featured articles on the topic.
  7. London Miyagawa (submissions), a finalist in 2012 and 2011. He writes on a broad variety of topics, with many of this year's points coming from good articles about Star Trek. Good articles make up the bulk of his points, and he had the most good articles back in round 2; he was also the highest scorer for DYK in rounds 1 and 2.
  8. Scotland Adam Cuerden (submissions) has previously been involved with the WikiCup, but hasn't participated for a number of years. He scores mostly from restoration work leading to featured picture credits, but has also done some article writing and reviewing.

We say goodbye to eight great participants who did not qualify for the final: Poland Piotrus (submissions), Idaho Figureskatingfan (submissions), Ohio ThaddeusB (submissions), Michigan Dana boomer (submissions), Prince Edward Island Status (submissions), United States Ed! (submissions), Florida 12george1 (submissions), England Calvin999 (submissions). Having made it to this stage is still an excellent achievement, and you can leave with your heads held high. We hope to see you all again next year. Signups are now open for the 2014 WikiCup, which will begin on 1 January. All Wikipedians, whatever their interest or level of experience, are warmly invited to participate in next year's competition.

This last month has seen some incredible contributions; for instance, Cwmhiraeth's Starfish and Ealdgyth's Battle of Hastings—two highly important, highly viewed pages—made it to featured article status. It would be all too easy to focus solely on these stunning achievements at the expense of those participants working in lower-scoring areas, when in fact all WikiCup participants are doing excellent work. A mention of everything done is impossible, but here are a few: Last round saw the completion of several good topics (on the 1958, 1959 and 1962 Atlantic hurricane seasons) to which 12george1 had contributed. Calvin999 saw "S&M" (song), on which he has been working for several years, through to featured article status on its tenth try. Figureskatingfan continued towards her goal of a broad featured/good topic on Maya Angelou, with two featured and four good articles. ThaddeusB contributed significantly to over 20 articles which appeared on the main page's "in the news" section. Adam Cuerden continued to restore a large number of historical images, resulting in over a dozen FP credits this round alone. The WikiCup is not just about top-importance featured articles, and the work of all of these users is worthy of commendation.

Finally, the usual notices: 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. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! 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) 05:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 August 2013

The Signpost: 04 September 2013

Talkback

Hello, NickPenguin. You have new messages at WP:BTR.
Message added 04:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hasteur (talk) 04:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 September 2013

The Signpost: 18 September 2013

The Signpost: 25 September 2013

WikiCup 2013 September newsletter

In 30 days, we will know the identity of our 2013 WikiCup champion. Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) currently leads; if that lead is held, she will become the first person to have won the WikiCup twice. Canada Sasata (submissions), Australia Hawkeye7 (submissions)—who has never participated in the competition before—and New South Wales Casliber (submissions) follow. The majority of points in this round have come from a mix of good articles and bonus points. This final round is seeing contributions to a number of highly important topics; recent submissions include Phoenix (constellation) (FA by Casliber), Ernest Lawrence (GA by Hawkeye7), Pinniped, and red fox (both GAs by Sasata).

The did you know (DYK) eligibility criteria have recently changed, meaning that newly passed good articles are accepted as "new" for did you know purposes. However, in the interests of not changing the WikiCup rules mid-competition, please note that only articles eligible for DYK under the old system (that is, newly created articles or 5x expansions) will be eligible for points in this year's WikiCup. We do, however, have time to discuss how this new system will work for next year's competition; a discussion will be opened in due course. On that note, thoughts are welcome on changes you'd like to see for next year. What worked? What didn't work? What would you like to see more of? What would you like to see less of? All Wikipedians, new or old, are also warmly invited to sign up for the 2014 WikiCup.

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. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 22:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 02 October 2013

The Signpost: 09 October 2013

The Signpost: 16 October 2013

The Signpost: 23 October 2013

WikiCup 2013 October newsletter

The WikiCup is over for another year! Our champion, for the second year running, is Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions). Our final nine were as follows:

  1. Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions)
  2. Australia Hawkeye7 (submissions)
  3. Canada Sasata (submissions)
  4. Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions)
  5. New South Wales Casliber (submissions)
  6. Scotland Adam Cuerden (submissions)
  7. London Miyagawa (submissions)
  8. Poland Piotrus (submissions)
  9. Wyoming Ealdgyth (submissions)

All those who reached the final win prizes, and prizes will also be going to the following participants:

  • New South Wales Casliber (submissions) wins the FA prize, for four featured articles in round 4, worth 400 points.
  • Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) wins the GA prize, for 20 good articles in round 3, worth 600 points.
  • Portland, Oregon Another Believer (submissions) wins the FL prize, for four featured lists in round 2, worth 180 points.
  • Scotland Adam Cuerden (submissions) wins the FP prize, for 23 featured pictures in round 5, worth 805 point.
  • Republic of Rose Island Sven Manguard (submissions) wins the FPo prize, for 2 featured portals in round 3, worth 70 points.
  • Australia Hawkeye7 (submissions) wins the topic prize, for a 23-article featured topic in round 5, worth 230 points.
  • Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 79 did you know articles in round 5, worth 570 points.
  • Ohio ThaddeusB (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 23 in the news articles in round 4, worth 270 points.
  • United States Ed! (submissions) wins the GAR prize, for 24 good article reviews in round 1, worth 96 points.
  • The judges are awarding the Oddball Barnstar to British Empire The C of E (submissions), for some curious contributions in earlier rounds.
  • Finally, the judges are awarding Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) the Geography Barnstar for her work on sea, now a featured article. This top-importance article was the highest-scoring this year; when it was promoted to FA status, Cwmhiraeth could claim 720 points.

Prizes will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!

Congratulations to everyone who has been successful in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and a particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition. While it has been an excellent year, errors have opened up the judges' eyes to the need for a third judge, and it is with pleasure that we announce that experienced WikiCup participant Miyagawa will be acting as a judge from now on. We hope you will all join us in welcoming him to the team.

Next year's competition begins on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; it is open to all Wikipedians, new and old. Brainstorming and discussion remains open for how next year's competition will work, and straw polls will be opened by the judges soon. Those interested in friendly competition may also like to keep an eye on the stub contest, being organised by Casliber. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2014 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 October 2013

Talkback

Hello, NickPenguin. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Today's articles for improvement.
Message added 13:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Northamerica1000(talk) 13:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 06 November 2013

Nomination for deletion of Template:In popular culture

Template:In popular culture has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Trackinfo (talk) 07:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 November 2013

The Signpost: 20 November 2013

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:NickPenguin/Archive_3"