User talk:Theleftorium/Archive 10: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
MiszaBot III (talk | contribs)
597,462 edits
m Robot: Archiving 2 threads from User talk:Theleftorium.
MiszaBot III (talk | contribs)
597,462 edits
m Robot: Archiving 2 threads from User talk:Theleftorium.
Line 1,201: Line 1,201:
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! <small>If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from [[Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send]].</small> [[User:J Milburn|J Milburn]] ([[User talk:J Milburn|talk]] • [[Special:Emailuser/J Milburn|email]]) and [[User:The ed17|The ed17]] ([[User talk:The ed17|talk]] • [[Special:Emailuser/The ed17|email]]) 06:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
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! <small>If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from [[Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send]].</small> [[User:J Milburn|J Milburn]] ([[User talk:J Milburn|talk]] • [[Special:Emailuser/J Milburn|email]]) and [[User:The ed17|The ed17]] ([[User talk:The ed17|talk]] • [[Special:Emailuser/The ed17|email]]) 06:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
<!-- EdwardsBot 607 -->
<!-- EdwardsBot 607 -->
== ''The Signpost'': 28 August 2013 ==

<div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-08-28}}
</div><!--Volume 9, Issue 34-->
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
* '''[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost|Read this Signpost in full]]'''
* [[Wikipedia:Signpost/Single|Single-page]]
* [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Subscribe|Unsubscribe]]
* [[User:EdwardsBot|EdwardsBot]] ([[User talk:EdwardsBot|talk]]) 13:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
</div>
<!-- EdwardsBot 0609 -->

== Main Page appearance: The Simpsons: Hit & Run ==

This is a note to let the main editors of [[The Simpsons: Hit & Run]] know that the article will be appearing as [[Wikipedia:Today's featured article|today's featured article]] on September 16, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask {{user|Bencherlite}}. You can view the TFA blurb at [[Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 16, 2013]]. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at [[Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions]]. The blurb as it stands now is below:

<blockquote>
'''''[[The Simpsons: Hit & Run]]''''' is an [[Action-adventure game|action-adventure]] [[video game]] based on the [[animation|animated]] [[Situation comedy|sitcom]] ''[[The Simpsons]]''. It was released in North America on September&nbsp;16, 2003, and in Europe and Japan later in the year. The story and dialogue were crafted by [[List of writers of The Simpsons|writers from ''The Simpsons'']], with all character voices supplied by the [[List of cast members of The Simpsons|actual cast]]. The game follows the [[Simpson family]] and the citizens of [[Springfield (The Simpsons)|Springfield]], who witness strange incidents in town and discover that two aliens are filming a [[reality television]] series about the populace. To make the show more interesting, the aliens release a new version of the popular soft drink Buzz Cola into Springfield's water supply, which causes [[insanity]]. With help from [[Professor Frink]], [[Homer Simpson|Homer]] destroys the aliens' spaceship, and Springfield and its inhabitants are returned to normal. The game received generally favorable reviews from video game critics. Praise focused on the interpretation of the ''Simpsons'' television series as a video game and its parodical take on the game ''[[Grand Theft Auto III]]'', while criticism mostly surrounded some aspects of gameplay. The game received the award for Fave Video Game at the 2004 [[Nickelodeon Australian Kids' Choice Awards]] and sold three million copies. {{TFAFULL|The Simpsons: Hit and Run}}
</blockquote>
[[User:UcuchaBot|UcuchaBot]] ([[User talk:UcuchaBot|talk]]) 23:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
{{clear}}

Revision as of 22:54, 2 October 2013

Re: Images

Looks like some good ones for general illustration, and that's certainly a better image of Yeardley. Shame the only people who bothered turning up were her, Nancy and Jean. Gran2 10:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snowball (The Simpsons)... Thoughts? I personally agree with the nom, that it should just be re-directed to Simpson family, but I guess it could be improved. Also, this - List of The Simpsons chalkboard gags - was recreated for some reason. Gran2 09:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Season 14 pp. 667-711, Season 15 pp. 714-761, Season 16 pp. 764-807, Season 17 pp. 811-859, Season 18 pp. 862-909, Season 19 pp. 912-955, Season 20 pp. 958-1003. There you go! Gran2 16:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

List of The Simpsons video games

Thank you so much for your fives of the list. I appreciate it! Statυうぷしろんs (talk) 13:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, no problem! :) I wont support though since I'm a member of WP:DOH. Theleftorium (talk) 14:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Theleftorium. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of The Simpsons episodes/archive1.
Message added 17:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks, TBrandley 17:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 August 2012

The Signpost: 13 August 2012

Talkback

Hello, Theleftorium. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Homer Simpson, This Is Your Wife/archive1.
Message added 22:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I have added some sourcing comments, and am adding more comments as we speak. Cheers, TBrandley 22:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Theleftorium. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Homer Simpson, This Is Your Wife/archive1.
Message added 19:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cheers, TBrandley 19:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Ebenezer Hanks

It seems this article was deleted quickly without allowing time to research and correct the error. What is the purpose of this? Ks03 (talk) 21:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The article was tagged as being a close paraphrase on June 12, 2012, yet you haven't made any effort to fix the problem. I investigated the article today and found that most of the article is a duplicate of the source. That is not acceptable on Wikipedia and therefore the article was speedily deleted. Regards, Theleftorium (talk) 21:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I guess I missed that tag. Been in and out of the country the last while, so must have slipped thru. Bummer.Ks03 (talk) 11:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
If you want to start over on the article, I can restore the infobox and the references for you. Theleftorium (talk) 11:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Shree Jain Vidyalaya

Hello and thanks for your contribution towards sorting out the copyright problem with the article. As the creator of the page, I shall assume guilt for copying copyrighted content and adding it to Wikipedia due to my ignorance towards policies. However, I shall not agree to you upon the fact that all of the content on the page was a blatant copy of those links. The section about principal, teachers and stats can be retained. I shall request you to kindly maneuver your experienced eyes over the article yet again and retain as much information as possible. Thanks (Vivek Rai). 203.110.247.221 (talk) 17:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Feel free to restore that information yourself, as long as you don't re-add any copied sentences. I advise you to read through WP:WPSCH/AG#WNTI first, though. Regards, Theleftorium (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Megan Redmond

I am the copyright owner of the Megan Redmond content which you just requested to delete and now it is gone.. Again.. I own the content and we manage the content for Megan Redmond. Please restore the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makmedia (talk • contribs) 15:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Theleftorium. You have new messages at Talk:Kill the Alligator and Run/GA1.
Message added 16:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cheers, TBrandley 16:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

GA

Kill the Alligator and Run is now a Good Article
Congrats! The article you nominated Kill the Alligator and Run was just promoted to Good Article status! Great job to all of your hard work!
TBrandley 16:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Fancy! Thanks! :) Theleftorium (talk) 16:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 August 2012

Your GA nomination of Exit Through the Kwik-E-Mart

The article Exit Through the Kwik-E-Mart 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 needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Exit Through the Kwik-E-Mart for things which need to be addressed. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 August 2012

WikiCup 2012 August newsletter

The final is upon us! We are down to our final 8. A massive 573 was our lowest qualifying score; this is higher than the 150 points needed last year and the 430 needed in 2010. Even in 2009, when points were acquired for mainspace edit count in addition to audited content, 417 points secured a place. That leaves this year's WikiCup, by one measure at least, our most competitive ever. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:

  1. Conradh na Gaeilge Grapple X (submissions) once again finishes the round in first place, leading Pool B. Grapple X writes articles about television, and especially The X-Files and Millenium, with good articles making up the bulk of the score.
  2. Wisconsin Miyagawa (submissions) led Pool A this round. Fourth-place finalist last year, Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, and has reached the final primarily off the back of his massive number of did you knows.
  3. Minnesota Ruby2010 (submissions) was second in Pool B. Ruby2010 writes primarily on television and film, and scores primarily from good articles.
  4. Scotland Casliber (submissions) finished third in Pool B. Casliber is something of a WikiCup veteran, having finished sixth in 2011 and fourth in 2010. Casliber writes on the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. Over half of Casliber's points this round were bonus points from the high-importance articles he has worked on.
  5. Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came second in Pool A. Also writing on biology, especially marine biology, Cwmhiraeth received 390 points for one featured article (Bivalvia) and one good article (pelican), topping up with a large number of did you knows.
  6. New York City Muboshgu (submissions) was third in Pool A. Muboshgu writes primarily on baseball, and this round saw Muboshgu's first featured article, Derek Jeter, promoted on its fourth attempt at FAC.
  7. Michigan Dana Boomer (submissions) was fourth in Pool A. She writes on a variety of topics, including horses, but this round also saw the high-importance lettuce reach featured article status.
  8. Canada Sasata (submissions) is another WikiCup veteran, having been a finalist in 2009 and 2010. He writes mostly on mycology.

However, we must also say goodbye to the eight who did not make the final, having fallen at the last hurdle: Russia GreatOrangePumpkin (submissions), England Ealdgyth (submissions), England Calvin999 (submissions), Poland Piotrus (submissions), North Carolina Toa Nidhiki05 (submissions), Florida 12george1 (submissions), Cherokee Nation The Bushranger (submissions) and North Macedonia 1111tomica (submissions). We hope to see you all next year.

On the subject of next year, a discussion has been opened here. Come and have your say about the competition, and how you'd like it to run in the future. This brainstorming will go on for some time before more focused discussions/polls are opened. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 September 2012

This

Don't know if you've seen this. Jean saying that HOFP was going to be the finale in the sadly unlikely event that the show was canceled. Gran2 10:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Heh! Yeah he said that in a few interviews. I never got around to adding it to the HOFP article though. Seems like it would have been a good choice, it was easily the best episode of the season IMO. Theleftorium (talk) 10:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 September 2012

The Signpost: 17 September 2012

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

  1. Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
  2. Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
  3. Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
  4. You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).

If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).

  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
  • Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
  • Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox Simpsons characters

Template:Infobox Simpsons characters has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 September 2012

WikiCup 2012 September newsletter

We're over half way through the final, and so it is less than a month until we know for certain our 2012 WikiCup champion. Conradh na Gaeilge Grapple X (submissions) currently leads, followed by Canada Sasata (submissions), Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) and Scotland Casliber (submissions). However, we have no one resembling a breakaway leader, and so the competition is a long way from over. Next month's newsletter will feature a list of our winners (who are not necessarily only the finalists) and keep your eyes open for an article on the WikiCup in a future edition of The Signpost. The leaders are already on a par with last year's winners, but a long way from the huge scores seen in 2010. That said, a repeat of the competition from 2010 seems unlikely.

It is good to see that three-quarters of our finalists have already scored bonus points this round. This shows that, contrary to criticism that the WikiCup has received in the past, the competition does not merely incentivise the writing of trivial articles; instead, our top competitors are still spending their time contributing to high-importance articles, and bringing them to a high standard. This does a great service to the encyclopedia and its readers. Thank you, and good work!

The planning for next year's WikiCup is ongoing. Some straw polls have been opened concerning the scoring, and you can now sign up for next year's competition. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 October 2012

The Signpost: 08 October 2012

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q3 2012

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 5, No. 3 — 3rd Quarter, 2012
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q3 2012, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 16:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 October 2012

The Signpost: 22 October 2012

List of The Simpsons home video releases

Why is Blu-ray listed first when DVDs is a far more complete collection? CTF83! 00:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, I don't know about your screen, but mine I can't read either season 14, because of the black. CTF83! 00:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea, I don't even think the "home video releases" deserve their own article anyway. I can see season 14, the text is white on my screen.. Tried another browser? Theleftorium (talk) 10:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I'll try the browser on my computer as opposed to the work computer. I'll probably switch DVDs and Bluray order later. CTF83! 10:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Ok, on a better then internet explorer browser the colors are white. CTF83! 00:36, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 October 2012

WikiCup 2012 October newsletter

The 2012 WikiCup has come to a close; congratulations to Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions), our 2012 champion! Cwmhiraeth joins our exclusive club of previous winners: Dreamafter (2007), jj137 (2008), Durova (2009), Sturmvogel 66 (2010) and Hurricanehink (2011). Our final standings were as follows:

  1. Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions)
  2. Canada Sasata (submissions)
  3. Conradh na Gaeilge Grapple X (submissions)
  4. Scotland Casliber (submissions)
  5. New York City Muboshgu (submissions)
  6. Wisconsin Miyagawa (submissions)
  7. Minnesota Ruby2010 (submissions)
  8. Michigan Dana Boomer (submissions)

Prizes for first, second, third and fourth will be awarded, as will prizes for all those who reached the final eight. Every participant who scored in the competition will receive a ribbon of participation. In addition to the prizes based on placement, the following special prizes will be awarded based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, the prize is awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round.

Awards will be handed out in the coming days; please bear with us! This year's competition also saw fantastic contributions in all rounds, from newer Wikipedians contributing their first good or featured articles, right up to highly experienced Wikipedians chasing high scores and contributing to topics outside of their usual comfort zones. It would be impossible to name all of the participants who have achieved things to be proud of, but well done to all of you, and thanks! Wikipedia has certainly benefited from the work of this year's WikiCup participants.

Next year's WikiCup will begin in January. Currently, discussions and polls are open, and all contributions are welcome. You can also sign up for next year's competition. There will be no further newsletters this year, although brief notes may be sent out in December to remind everyone about the upcoming competition. It's been a pleasure to work with you all, and we hope to see you all in January! J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by The Simpsons

Would you mind performing a cleanup to List of awards and nominations received by The Simpsons, as it isn't currently up to featured list standards right now? Examples include "This is a list of", that shouldn't be used per WP:MOS, tables don't meet WP:ACCESS, WP:DTT, the lede should be expanded probably, avoiding bold links to the infobox of it per WP:MOS, helping it represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, alt text should be added to the images for MOS:IMAGES. I'll try to help out also, but, though I still sometimes watch the show, don't know about some "in-universe" stuff still, like if the list is still up to date. Thanks, TBrandley 23:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 November 2012

Realty Bites

The Signpost: 12 November 2012

Image deletions

So some user wants to run for adminship, and is trying to boost his chances by nominating as many images for deletion as possible. It's very annoying because it's quite clear that he didn't bother checking the rationales for each and every image and the context in which they are used in the article. It's also clear that nominating hundreds at a time is a very effective tactic, because who has the time and energy to go through every single one? I've just made it through the ones that I nominated and I'm already sick of it. Some of them are deletable and not worth fighting, but others should not be deleted. I've commented on some of them, could you help me go through and find images worth keeping? -- Scorpion0422 20:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more... It's sickening. Even though I agree that many of the images are useless, he/she shouldn't have done a mass-nomination like this. I voted "keep" here and here. Unfortunately, I'm extremely busy in real life right now and don't have time for commenting on any other images at the moment. I barely have time to check my watchlist. If only he wouldn't have nominated so many at the same time we wouldn't have that problem... Theleftorium (talk) 14:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't have much time for wikipedia either, and I am very pissed off that I have to waste that time on this crap. -- Scorpion0422 15:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

So our friend has now decided that his rationales were wrong, and rather than withdrawing them, he went and changed EVERY SINGLE RATIONALE. This guy is a joke. Do you think it would do any good to try to have him barred from IFD? I'd love to try to do it, but it would simply waste my time since no good would come of it. -- Scorpion0422 20:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

It's probably just best to ignore him right now, hopefully he understands that you can't mass-nominate images from a single wikiproject like this. It's impossible for the members of a project, especially as small as WP:DOH, to respond to each and every one of these nominations and check if the images meet the NFCC. Theleftorium (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • OK, you just wheelwarred when involved by reversing the deletion of a non-free image whose deletion was under discussion at DRV. This is an abuse of your admin permissions and I strongly urge you to reverse yourself as this is precisely the kind of action that leads to admins being taken to arbcom and they have an extremely low threshold for misuse of admin tools while involved. Spartaz Humbug! 16:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Yikes, talk about making threats. Don't you think it's an "abuse of admin permissions" to close an FFD like this as Delete, as User:SchuminWeb did? And even this, where the nominator actually agreed with me that the image meets the NFCC! I'm simply ignoring the rules here and correcting a mistake. It's not like I'm not acting in good faith; I've removed maybe 50 "decorative" images from WP:DOH articles during my time with the project and I've also been working with copyright on Wikipedia for several years. I know when an image is blatant decoration and when it isn't. Theleftorium (talk) 17:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Do you think I would be doing you any favours if I raised the issue without making it clear to you how serious a breach of WP:ADMIN I consider this to be? For the record can you explain why you don't think that you are involved and able to act adminstratively in the case of file that is already under discussion at DRV? Spartaz Humbug! 17:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
        • Because the admin who closed all the FFDs made the assumption that all of them were used purely for decoration. He or she did not bother to carefully evaluate all of the nominations. While most of the images were correctly deleted as decorations, these two files clearly aren't used for that purpose (especially not File:Bart_to_the_Future.png). I'm just saving everyone's time. Can't you see where I'm coming from? Theleftorium (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
          • You are basically saying that you disagree with the outcome and have used admin tools to obtain an advantage by voiding the outcome of an IFD that is already being discussed at DRV. That's classic involved and you have no basis for using your tools in that manner. Please reverse yourself. Spartaz Humbug! 18:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
            • You are too close-minded to see that sometimes it is okay to break the rules when it means correcting a mistake made by an administrator. Theleftorium (talk) 18:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
              • You are the one abusing the rules. Please correct yourself and allow an uninvolved admin to decide when they close the DRV. Spartaz Humbug! 18:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
                • I have actually done that already, just to shut you up. :) Theleftorium (talk) 18:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
                  • Fabulous, thank you. Spartaz Humbug! 02:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
                    • Actually not fabulous as you still haven't removed [:File:Bart to the Future.png]. Spartaz Humbug! 02:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 November 2012

The Signpost: 26 November 2012

The Signpost: 03 December 2012

The Signpost: 10 December 2012

File:Cecil and Bob.png

Can you temporarily undelete it please, so we can check whether omission is detrimental to understanding the article or not? --George Ho (talk) 08:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Done! :) Theleftorium (talk) 16:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 December 2012

The Signpost: 24 December 2012

Ferret legging

Ferret legging, an article that your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual 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 will be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 15:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 starting soon

Hi there; you're receiving this message because you have previously shown interest in the WikiCup. This is just to remind you that the 2013 WikiCup will be starting on 1 January, and that signups will remain open throughout January. Old and new Wikipedians and WikiCup participants are warmly invited to take part in this year's competition. (Though, as a note to the more experienced participants, there have been a few small rules changes in the last few months.) If you have already signed up, let this be a reminder; you will receive a message with your submissions' page soon. Please direct any questions to the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! J Milburn 19:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 December 2012

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter (4th Quarter 2012)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 5, No. 4 — 4th Quarter, 2012
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q4 Template:Vgy, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.
This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

WikiCup 2013 January newsletter

Signups are now closed; we have our final 127 contestants for this year's competition. 64 contestants will make it to the next round at the end of February, but we're already seeing strong scoring compared to previous years. Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) currently leads, with 358 points. At this stage in 2012, the leader (Irish Citizen Army Grapple X (submissions)) had 342 points, while in 2011, the leader had 228 points. We also have a large number of scorers when compared with this stage in previous years. Florida 12george1 (submissions) was the first competitor to score this year, as he was last year, with a detailed good article review. Some other firsts:

Featured articles, portals and topics, as well as good topics, are yet to feature in the competition.

This year, the bonus points system has been reworked, with bonus points on offer for old articles prepared for did you know, and "multiplier" points reworked to become more linear. For details, please see Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. There have been some teething problems as the bot has worked its way around the new system, but issues should mostly be ironed out- please report any problems to the WikiCup talk page. Here are some participants worthy of note with regards to the bonus points:

  • United States Ed! (submissions) was the first to score bonus points, with Portland-class cruiser, a good article.
  • Australia Hawkeye7 (submissions) has the highest overall bonus points, as well as the highest scoring article, thanks to his work on Enrico Fermi, now a good article. The biography of such a significant figure to the history of science warrants nearly five times the normal score.
  • Chicago HueSatLum (submissions) claimed bonus points for René Vautier and Nicolas de Fer, articles that did not exist on the English Wikipedia at the start of the year; a first for the WikiCup. The articles were eligible for bonus points because of fact they were both covered on a number of other Wikipedias.

Also, a quick mention of British Empire The C of E (submissions), who may well have already written the oddest article of the WikiCup this year: did you know that the Fucking mayor objected to Fucking Hell on the grounds that there was no Fucking brewery? The gauntlet has been thrown down; can anyone beat it?

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 February 2013

The Signpost: 11 February 2013

Main page appearance: The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II

This is a note to let the main editors of The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on March 2, 2013. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 2, 2013. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegates Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you can change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The "One Ring" in The Lord of the Rings

The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II (BFMEII) is a real-time strategy video game by Electronic Arts. It is based on the fantasy novels The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit by J. R. R. Tolkien and the Lord of the Rings live-action film trilogy. The game is the sequel to Electronic Arts' 2004 title The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth. The Windows version of the game was released on March 2, 2006, and the Xbox 360 version was released on July 5, 2006. In the game, the Good Campaign focuses on Glorfindel, an Elf who, with help from the Dwarves and other Good forces, attempts to eliminate Sauron and his army to restore peace in Middle-earth. In the Evil Campaign, Sauron sends the Mouth of Sauron and the Nazgûl to muster wild Goblins as part of his plan to destroy the remaining Good forces with his army. BFMEII received generally favorable reviews from video game critics. Reviews praised the game's integration of the Lord of the Rings universe into a real-time strategy title, while criticism targeted the game's unbalanced multiplayer mode. BFMEII received numerous awards, including the Editors' Choice Award from IGN. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 February 2013

Simpsons episode parameter

Hey, Leftorium. I can see your viewpoint at this page, but how bad can it really be? Everybody is encouraged to be bold and just do stuff. I did that, and ignored all rules while doing so. Also, I've devoted most of my day adding it to the episode articles and I'm up to season four. OR? Anybody can simply pick it out from the text of the plot, or for a loose source there's this which provides a clear definition of who the episode is centred on. As for edit warring? That can be sorted same as any other edit war - both reverted, or a compromise of both their nominations for protagonist. It isn't a huge problem, and is just another great parameter for the Simpsons WikiProject. However, if you are still not convinced, we should try and get consensus for our viewpoint somewhere, and if possible, reinstate it. Don't tell me I wasted a day. Yours, Rcsprinter (lecture) @ 22:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

FYI, that wiki is just random user's opinions. For example, the Rich Texan is the focus of 0 episodes, yet the Simpsons Wiki has him listed has 6 episodes. I agree with Leftorium, that this is unecessary. CTF83! 00:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
This parameter will also take up unnecessary space in the already cluttered infoboxes, and in what way is it helpful for readers? The plot of an episode is always summarized in a few sentences in the lead. If you want to go ahead and start a discussion at WP:DOH, which you probably should have done in the first place, then feel free to do that. Although I don't think you'll get a lot of support. Theleftorium (talk) 14:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry Rcsprinter, but I think you wasted a day. The problem is that it's incredibly objective. Some shows like Lost could get away with having such a parameter because it's pretty clear who the character of focus is (for example, the majority of Lost episodes have flashbacks centered on one character). With The Simpsons, there are some obvious "featured" characters, but often there aren't. Let's use one random example: Krusty Gets Busted. Who is the featured character there? Sure, it says Krusty in the title, but you could say the featured characters are Krusty, Bart, Lisa and Sideshow Bob. Plus you could make an argument for Homer. And that's just one example. What about Treehouse of Horror episodes? Three-part episodes? 22 Short Films About Springfield? They have multiple "featured" characters and to list them all would make the template rather long and cumbersome. -- Scorpion0422 00:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

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) 01:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 March 2013

GVnayR

Hi Theleftorium.

I'm Hydao, and I was recenly blocked for insulting another user (gvnayr), and im my opinion I totally deserved to be blocked.

Anyway, I'm sending you this long message because of a certain Wikipedian, his username is GVnayR.

As I remember you blocked him in 2011 because of MANY copyright infringement. And before unblocked him, gvnayr said something like: "I've learned my lesson, I fully admit to creating copyright violations in the past but I've learned my lesson now. There will be no more copyright violations from me."

(......)

However only after a week or so I remember he added this.

"One of the main critiques of the game is that the blue and red stripes of the Russian flag are reversed. Stupid. Meanwhile, the flags of Argentina and El Salvador is oversimplified, while the Ecuadorian flag looks like Colombia. This is because Ecuador's yellow stripe should be the same length as the other stripes."

He not only copied the text from a site, but also didn't bother removing the word "Stupid". I saw it and though to myself: "he's hopeless, I pity him...", and didn't bother making a report or whatever.

This was just an example...

His excuses are always the same: "I was tired". "I'm busy playing my NHL game". stuff like that. If you check his talk page (2010~2012) you will see these lame excuses many times.

More recently he ADDED THIS. In my opinion someone who is editing Wikipedia since 2005 or 2006, and considers himself as a "Professional Wikipedian"...... (yes, I saw his social network profile 2 years ago and at that time, his work was "Editor at Wikipedia")...... can't add these sort of things. He's always adding "crap" like that. always.

I lost the count, I already wasted too much time correcting and removing the crap added by him. And I know that other editors wasted their time too because of gvnayr's stupid edits. they just don't say anything because they are way too "polite" I guess.

About two years ago I found an article created by him, Janitor Man, and the text was something like: Janitor Man is a video game that was never released because it never existed."

The article was created in 2007 and no one gave a flying sh*t, until... 2010. I was checking a list of Super NES games here on Wiki and saw that weird title... never heard about it before. So I contacted an Administrator to simply delete that crap.

In December 2011 someone from MobyGames called him a "Dicksucker" because of THIS. "Removed content plagiarized..."

I don't remember but I think I asked gvnayr why he was always like that and his excuses were always: "I was tired", etc.

Another problem is that when someone complain or "criticize" him... or simply remove something really lame, totally false and useless added by him, he "sulks" (sorry, my English is not that good so I'm not sure if this is the correct term), and then it is always the same story: I'm retire, from now on I'm going to watch WWF and play my PlayStation, bla bla bla, etc."

"I simply don't have time to create images by myself. Outside of Wikipedia, I like to play my PlayStation 3, play some AssaultCube, watch professional wrestling, and watch a little bit of NASCAR on the side."

"Sorry to say this, Hydao, but I do not have a real life job. My favorite things happens to be PlayStation 3, masturbating, Wikipedia, and watching WWE wrestling. Also, I have never attended an university because my math-science marks were awful in high school. I'm on a monthly government pension. I can pay my Internet bill and get PS3 games. BTW, Katherine VanGoethem is my aunt so no more of that talk, OK? And for the disorder part, I happen to be a high-functioning autistic. Need I say more?"

"From now on, I'm going to be playing PlayStation 3, watching YouTube, watching WWE professional wrestling and not thinking about that "glorious" past that I had editing Wikipedia."

Etc.

Please note that I have nothing against him (although I kinda insulted him 4, 5, 6, or 7 times), but I truly believe that Wikipedia is a much better place without people/editors like him.

If you think these "arguments" are not enough, maybe you can waste some time of yours and check his talk page. You can see that I tried to "work" with him, and actually I improved MANY pages created by him, but you know, there is a limit... and when you open your watchlist page and see the same freaky user adding NONSENSE/FAKE/INCORRECT things systematically... it's not flattering.

Also, if you need to hear more opinions about the user gvnayr, maybe you can ask Wikipedians Jtalledo, Knoper, and etc...

For example Knoper (I didn't know about him) sent me this message after he noticed that gvnayr was "retired" (for the xxx time). HERE

This message says a lot. gvnayr is a complete mess, disruptive, and nonsense. He's much more than that but maybe it's better if I stop "insulting" him (or simply saying the truth).

I'm really done with him and I don't feel like opening my watchlist page and seeing these edits all the time/in the future. I admit he has "improved" a little bit last year, but the "improvement" happened only because I started to "provoke" him and being a little bit agressive or judgemental. I'm nothing special as an editor but I can assure that... if it was not me (Hydao), hundreads (or thousands!?!?!) of Wikipedia articles would be filled with nonsense and completely false and nonsense information added by ppl like him.

Yes, if you read my messages on his talkpage, you might think that I'm agressive, but the only thing I can say about this is that until today... I was agressive only with him here on Wikipedia.

Many times I see vandals, anonymous IPs and whatever who make stupid edits, but it's like... they just come here, vandalize the page and then they disappear.

gvnayr is not a vandal, ermmm, but a "professional wikipedian" (he make obsessive edits every single day)... so what's the difference between a vandal and gvnayr?

a vandal adds false/nonsense information to troll or so, gynayr adds false/nonsense information because he's.... [INSERT BAD ADJECTIVES].

gvnayr spent the last 7 or 8 years of his idle life flooding Wikipedia with the most stupid/non sense stuff... I've ever read. If you want more examples/incidents, I can give you, there are so many.... countless... I guess I have to waste at least 5 hours or more to list them all.

Like I said may times, gvnayr is a good guy, but he has a serious problem (something close to dementia), and I'm 100% believe that... Wikipedia is a better place without people/editors like him.

I still remember when I started editing Wikipedia... when I created the first pages.... few hours (or minutes??) later after creating X page, gvnayr appeared always, adding the box art image and whatever, and at that time I thought: "Wow, this gvnayr must be someone who works here on Wikipedia!!!". (yes, silly me...)

But then, slowly... in the course of time... I was checking the articles with more attention, and realized that those articles (edited and created by him) were full of nonsense and false information. Why? That's sad and simple... he writes about stuff/games that don't know about/didn't play at all!!!!!

One day I created Popeye (Game Boy) (one of my first Game Boy games), I was preparing to add the text... but gvnayr did it before me and wrote this:

"Items like hamburgers and spinach can be used to increase Popeye's strength." (you can check the history)

Well, totally false information because hamburgers aren't there to increase the strenght or whatever, but to block the path.

Can you imagine... this is a "shitty" game with an extremely basic gameplay... now imagine those Japanese games... and other games with more "complex" gameplay... imagine other articles....

my guess at that time was... well, gvnayr never played the game, watched 30 seconds (or less) of a youtube video that I uploaded (i think it was the only one available at that time), and started editing the article like a... freak.

Another kinda recent incident. The article Super Mad Champ, I had to remove THIS.

"There is a glitch in this video game that allows players to play as Chubby without his bicycle. However, the player has to be in the fourth race in the Super Grand Prix in order to pull off the glitch."

Once again (like always), he watched few seconds of a random video on YouTube, and added that totally nonsense text to the article... (that character is not called Chubby, and etc.)

I just gave you these two examples, gvnayr is doing these kind of things all the time since 2006, he writes about stuff that simply don't know about, etc, etc, and in my opinion it is extremely dangerous...

He doesn't care at all, for him what really matter is... his number of edits. I believe he's obsessed with it, that's why everytime when he changes something on his page... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:GVnayR&diff=502553372&oldid=502174648 .... as if people cared about his number of edits.... 85% of those edits are totally useless/nonsense anyway.

gvnayr is doing nothing "innovative" here on wikipedia. he is basically a copycat (a terrible one) who is just giving trouble to other editors (not only me).

You know, I don't want to judge people like that :\ but, as he said... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GVnayR/Archive/Archive017

he doesn't have a job, he spent his days at home masturbating, watching YouTube videos, and playing PlayStation 3. He certainly feels useless, and have to do something with his life right? So Wikipedia is a escape for him...

Yes, there is ABSOLUTELY no problem with that, it's not my life, not my business, Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, he can make 1000000 edits a day, but the major problem is... all those things I just said. false info, disruptive, nonsense, etc, etc.

My question is... why is he still here??

My opinion is very simple: Wikipedia will be a better place without editors like him. "I've learned my lesson", no, gvnayr didn't learn the lesson. he will never learn it.

Please, tell me what you think about this whole annoying and sad situation. --AgaintsFakeAndNonsense (talk) 10:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 March 2013

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) 22:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 April 2013

The Signpost: 08 April 2013

The Signpost: 15 April 2013

The Signpost: 22 April 2013

The Signpost: 29 April 2013

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) 16:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 May 2013

The Signpost: 13 May 2013

The Signpost: 20 May 2013

The Signpost: 27 May 2013

The Signpost: 05 June 2013

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre

Hello! Now, some of you might have already received a similar message a little while ago regarding the Recruitment Centre, so if you have, there is no need to read the rest of this. This message is directed to users who have reviewed over 15 Good article nominations and are not part of WikiProject Good articles (the first message I sent out went to only WikiProject members).

So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers:

  • Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with (at the time this message was sent out, 2 recruiters have volunteered), the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available".
  • Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497).
  • Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article.

If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along.

A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk)

This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 15:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

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) 10:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q2 2013

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 6, No. 2 — 2nd Quarter, 2013
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q2 2013, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 17:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 July 2013

The Signpost: 10 July 2013

The Signpost: 17 July 2013

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) 23:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2013

The Signpost: 07 August 2013

The Signpost: 14 August 2013

Remember these types of issues?

Hey, remember me? My blissful semi-retirement was interrupted by one of those editors, the type who have no interest in maintaining an article, but think they know what is best just because they took a few minutes to make an addition to it. The issue at question is a family tree in the Simpson family article (yes, again). Could you please weigh in here? Thanks, Scorpion0422 21:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey Scorpion! Of course I remember you! ;) I will never forget the fun times I've had on Wikipedia, but hopefully I'll forget the less fun times such as this one. I responded at the RfC. Theleftorium (talk) 21:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
There are times I do miss editing and researching. I think I just burnt myself out (churning out a few GAs and a few FLs a month at my peak) and finished most of the articles I wanted to work on. And, of course, constantly getting dragged into fights over minute issues like whether "Funeral for a Fiend" is a reference to the band or the Elton John song does tend to break one's spirit. I'm sure I will return some day to continue editing, but for now I've been happy with my current role. What about you? I see that your talk page isn't very active these days. -- Scorpion0422 21:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I know what you mean. I miss the feeling of finding a nugget of useful information in some twenty-year-old newspaper article. For me it's the lack of time that's keeping me from editing (my last GA passed on August 26 last year). This fall I'll begin studying law at the university (takes 4.5 years to get the degree), so it doesn't look like the trend is changing. I'll keep checking Wikipedia every now and then though (I've spent too much time here to just let it go!), and whenever someone writes on my talk page I get an email notification on my phone. Anyway, what are you up to these days? You're still into journalism? :) Theleftorium (talk) 22:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't like going into too many details on open wikipedia, but the condensed answer is yes, but it's difficult finding full-time jobs (my previous joke, "It will be a while before I'm cited in a wikipedia article" still stands). In the mean time I've been doing freelance video work, which is fun. -- Scorpion0422 13:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good! Theleftorium (talk) 15:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 August 2013

The Simpsons: Hit & Run TFAR

FYI, just letting you know that, since you're a major contributor to the article, I nominated The Simpsons: Hit & Run for TFAR at Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests#September_16. Gary King (talk · scripts) 17:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for letting me know! Hopefully it's still in pretty good shape (I reverted some recent IP edits). Theleftorium (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

How was that "crap"?

You removed a lot of information from the Simpson's hit and run page and claimed it was crap. The stuff removed was about reception from fans and gamers by displaying a petition and showing other people are interested in creating the game — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerhx (talk • contribs) 05:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

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) 06:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 August 2013

Main Page appearance: The Simpsons: Hit & Run

This is a note to let the main editors of The Simpsons: Hit & Run know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on September 16, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 16, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The Simpsons: Hit & Run is an action-adventure video game based on the animated sitcom The Simpsons. It was released in North America on September 16, 2003, and in Europe and Japan later in the year. The story and dialogue were crafted by writers from The Simpsons, with all character voices supplied by the actual cast. The game follows the Simpson family and the citizens of Springfield, who witness strange incidents in town and discover that two aliens are filming a reality television series about the populace. To make the show more interesting, the aliens release a new version of the popular soft drink Buzz Cola into Springfield's water supply, which causes insanity. With help from Professor Frink, Homer destroys the aliens' spaceship, and Springfield and its inhabitants are returned to normal. The game received generally favorable reviews from video game critics. Praise focused on the interpretation of the Simpsons television series as a video game and its parodical take on the game Grand Theft Auto III, while criticism mostly surrounded some aspects of gameplay. The game received the award for Fave Video Game at the 2004 Nickelodeon Australian Kids' Choice Awards and sold three million copies. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Theleftorium/Archive_10&oldid=575505268"