Round one is over, and round two has begun! Congratulations to the 64 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our first round. A special well done goes to Sasata (submissions), our round one winner (1010 points), and to Hunter Kahn (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions), who were second and third respectively (640 points/605 points). Sasata was awarded the most points for both good articles (300 points) and featured articles (600 points), and TonyTheTiger was awarded the most for featured topics (225 points), while Hunter Kahn claimed the most for good topics (70). Staxringold (submissions) claimed the most featured lists (240 points) and featured pictures (35 points), Geschichte (submissions) claimed the most for Did you know? entries (490 points), Jujutacular (submissions) claimed the most for featured sounds (70 points) and Candlewicke (submissions) claimed the most for In the news entries (40 points). No one claimed a featured portal or valued picture.
Credits awarded after the end of round one but before round two may be claimed in round two, but remember the rule that content must have been worked on in some significant way during 2010 by you for you to claim points. The groups for round two will be placed up shortly, and the submissions' pages will be blanked. This round will continue until 28 April, when the top two users from each group, as well as 16 wildcards, will progress to round three. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup; thank you to all doing this last round, and particularly to those helping at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey
How you been, Staxringold? It's been a while since we've talked. Man, you're doing good for yourself, with all those FL's and stuff, as said so on the WikiCup newsletter. Listen, the reason I write to you is cause I was just wondering whether or not you'd still be interested in getting the 30 Rock episodes of Season 3 to GA and stuff. If you are, that's great. If you can't, that's understandable. ;) -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)01:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I remember seeing you at GAN with the 2009 World Series article. I'm so sorry to hear that the article wasn't promoted to FA. I'd been there. You'll bounce back, I know it. :) Advice? IDK, about advice. I'm a "beginner", if you know what I mean. I would love it if you would collaborate with me on the episodes, mainly the Reception, cause that's not my "forté", I hope I'm using that right. Right now, I'm working on "Generalissimo", the only thing that needs is the Reception, and after that it's good to go. For future episodes, I can work on the Plot and Production, you know. I have the DVD, I know finally. There's a lot of good stuff. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)02:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the DVD has no info., then there's bound to be online sources available for those areas. Look to what I did in the Production section for "St. Valentine's Day". There's no commentary, but sources are. :) Yeah, that works fine. We can get "Generalissimo" first then move on to "The Ones" (DVD commentary), then to "The Bubble" (another commentary), etc. Basically, yeah, we move on like that. No, no *getting distracted by the handsomeness of Jon Hamm* Is there something I left out? -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)02:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think we can, cause some user went on to create almost every article. I was bummed about that, cause I really did want 30 Rock DYK?'s. Ah yes, Round 2, can't wait. ;) P.S. "Generalissimo" didn't have any commentary. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)02:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the reception for "Generalissimo" is not even done. It got to hard on me. Like I said, getting the reviews is tough on me. In the last times that I've collaborated on an episode, I always got the Plot and Production sections. I saw what you wrote for the reception in "Season 4", and thought you'd do a fine job with that. ;) -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)03:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I appreciate it. It's cool, nothing to worry about, really. If you're busy, you're busy, it's REALLY understandable. When you get the free time, we'll further expand these 30 Rock articles. :) -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)17:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I noticed that you currently have four FLCs running. Could you hold off on submitting any more lists to FLC until two or three of your existing nominations are closed (it shouldn't take long, based on the rate at which they've been getting reviews)? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
March, as you know, is an election month for our project, when we pick the coordinators for the next six months. We are seeking motivated individuals willing to devote some of their time and energy to the project so it continues to grow and prosper.
Also, I am making a personal appeal to each of you, the members of this project, to come out and vote for the candidates that run. These users will be responsible for managing the assessment process, answering questions, and making sure that the project's other needs are met. We have approximately 1,000 users who identify as being a part of our project, yet on average only about one-tenth of that number participate in elections. Moreover, as we typically hold referendums on major issues affecting the project along with these election, those who do not vote miss the opportunity to give their opinion on matters affecting the project as a whole. Remember, one vote always makes a difference. For the coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 23:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion has begun concerning our military history manual of style's guideline recommending preemptive disambiguation on the naming of military units. As the outcome of the discussion will likely effect a number of pages within our scope we are seeking input from the community on whether the guideline should be changed.
Late last year, several largely inactive task forces were merged. However, the mergers of the Australia and New Zealand task forces did not take place as there was no consensus for a new name. To resolve this, a discussion has begun and all editors are encouraged to participate.
Contest department
The Contest Department has completed its thirty-fourth month of competition; and its sixth month under the new scoring system. A total of 82 articles were entered by eight editors. Kumioko came first with 110 points, followed by Sturmvogel 66 with 87 points. They receive the Chevrons and Writer's Barnstar respectively. Honorable mentions go to Auntieruth55 (59) and Ian Rose (36). Binksternet, Cirt, Radeksz and YellowMonkey also fielded entries. Please submit any articles you are working on for the March contest.
Awards and honours
Brad101 has been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his excellent reviewing and work on a sizable number of nautical articles that fall within our scope, producing a number of high-quality articles for the Military history and Ships WikiProjects.
Across Wikipedia, guidelines have been set up so that editors can vet sources for themselves. Links to some of these and a guide for checking if a source is reliable can be found in an excellent Signpost dispatch written by Ealdgyth (talk·contribs). However, for the majority of military history-related topics, we strive for more than just a basic reliable source. Specifically, we aim for peer-reviewed articles and books over, for example, most websites.[N 1] Contemporary news articles or accounts can and should be mixed in (if possible) to give a picture of the general view point of the time—were they calm, afraid, unsure of what was going on?
Another major tenet is neutrality. If an editor rewrote the article Dieppe Raid using only the official Canadian history,[N 2] we would have a problem; while it does contain a thorough and in-depth overview, a point-of-view can still be read. For one, it gives an undue amount of focus to Canada's input in the planning of the landing, and it would probably give an undue focus to their troops if a majority of the landing forces hadn't been Canadian. Granted, this is a book written to document that country's role in the Second World War, so you would hope it focuses on them, but this same reason makes it unusable as the primary basis for an article.
In this case, you would like to utilize a few recent, peer-reviewed books and journals, the official British, Canadian and German histories, possibly a few books written by historians from the aforementioned countries, and newspapers from that time period.[N 3] Obviously this is ideal, but you need to represent all three sides in this (the United States would be a fourth, but they played only a minor role in the planning and invading). This neutrality aspect applies especially for battles and to a lesser degree biographies, but it can be utilized in virtually every article in our scope. For example, it could be beneficial to obtain Japanese accounts of B-29 Superfortress bombing raids or non-Puerto Rican peer-reviewed sources for that insular area's role in the Second World War. —Ed(talk • majestic titan)
Notes
^It should be noted that certain sites like Combined Fleet or Navweaps, which are authored by recognized or published experts in the field, are not "most websites."
^For example, some of the Canadian newspaper articles written about the raid are listed on their War Museum's website here, while a London Gazette supplement written after the war can be seen on their website. Anyone with access to the archives of The New York Times can view the stories printed by that paper on the raid by searching their archives, and the Google News archive lists many newspapers, some of which were scanned by Google and are available at no charge; most of the non-free material requires a subscription to ProQuest.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.
Hey, just wanted to make sure you're aware that none of the co-noms got credit for this on WP:WBFTN... don't know who needs to be contacted to change that. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whereas Staxringold has participated in the promotion of various and sundry lists and articles toward the admirable end goal of creating the Major League Baseball awards Featured Topic; and
Whereas the project expresses its appreciation to the participants for their hard work and dedication to furthering the coverage of the sport of Baseball; and
Whereas the aforementioned Featured Topic has been recognized by a group of peers and promoted to Featured Status on March 5, 2010—
This edit you made to the WP:DYKLIST has an edit summary of "26", one I assumed meant that you just updated your own number to 26. However, you chopped off 251 bytes of information including Epipelagic and TitanOne, while adding Geronimo20. You also changed the totals of some editors, including striking five points from TonyTheTiger. Can you explain what you did? In the preceding six minutes you made four other edits, and another one two minutes later—were you working carefully on this page or was it a mistake made in the rush? Color me curious... Binksternet (talk) 04:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You were fully aware what my reasons were, but perhaps you forgot. I have spelled out the harassment again. Seriously, though, what were you thinking? A person is complaining about harassment, and your first instinct is to trivialise it, and claim that I'm just delusional? I have a spare clue here. I suggest you take it. Shoemaker's Holidaytalk20:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although there are no official bonus points for the WP:Wikicup, I'd like to award you with 70 honorary bonus points for Round 1. I thank and congratulate you for your fantastic work on 2009 World Series and List of World Series champions, which each receives well over 500 page views per day. While you could have done an article on an easy unknown topic, you chose more difficult, important, popular articles that will be a great benefit to many more Wikipedia readers. Keep up the nice work! Reywas92Talk23:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, could you take a second look at this FLC to ensure that your concerns have been resolved? WRT the 2009 WS article, I don't know if I can do a full review, but I'll keep an eye on the FAC page and might slip in a few copy-edits now and then. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it. I'll try to do the Production section, though, it sucks that there's no commentary for the episode. Though, Steve Buscemi guest starred in the episode, so that can maybe help. Let's see. BTW, good luck with the World Series article at FAC. :) -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)18:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lucky you, at least you'll get 30 Rock DYK?'s. None for me. :( Hey, if you have time, can you look over "The Ones" and see if everything makes sense. I'm having doubts at the moment about nominating it to GAN. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)20:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On March 23, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Natural Order, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I have nominated Alison Krauss for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer)02:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know. As I pointed out in the FAR, I have the second-highest amount of edits to that article. I could save some of the smaller things (e.g., working in a mention of her Shenandoah duet), but I often feel overworked with the country music articles I'm already tweaking. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer)03:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I might be able to do something after it's delisted. As it stood, this needed so much work that I figured FAR would be the first step, since it often takes me months just to get something to GA. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer)03:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We're half way through round two, and everything is running smoothly. Hunter Kahn (submissions) leads overall with 650 points this round, and heads pool B. TonyTheTiger (submissions) currently leads pool C, dubbed the "Group of Death", which has a only a single contestant yet to score this round (the fewest of any group), as well five contestants over 100 points (the most). With a month still to go, as well as 16 wildcard places, everything is still to play for. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.
Although unrelated to the WikiCup, April sees a Good Article Nominations backlog elimination drive, formulated as a friendly competition with small awards, as the Cup is. Several WikiCup contestants and judges have already signed up, but regular reviewers and those who hope to do more reviewing are more than welcome to join at the drive page. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17
Delivered by JCbot (talk) 22:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Baseball signpost interview
Hey. WikiProject Baseball is going to get a report in next week's Signpost issue. Since you and Killervogel5 have done a lot of FL work on it, you being part of the users interviewed wold probably be a good idea. If you're up for it, the questions are here. If not that's fine, I think me and KV hit on most things. WizardmanOperation Big Bear22:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wally Hammond image
There is an Australian image library but the picture which was on the article is not there. There are other images of Hammond on the site but they aren't very good. I've asked someone who might have a better image (and the ability to scan it!) to have a look for one. Thanks for the review. --Sarastro1 (talk) 10:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for List of San Diego Padres first-round draft picks
I can't find any production info., though, I did find this set of photos, which is part of the Natural Order episode, if you want to use it. Hey, why don't we just do this, do the plot for "Christmas Special" and I'll take care of the production and reception section. How does that sound? Also, if you want to look over "The One with the Cast of Night Court", be my guest. We can definitely do this for a couple of episodes. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)23:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, sounds good. I'll do a couple of tweaks in the article later on. Don't worry, I know you're busy with other stuff here, so. ;) Well, I'm kind of serious in getting all these articles up to expansion so that we can get that GT. :) I believe there are six episodes that need expansion for season 1. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)17:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I believe at the moment I'm dominating on my bracket. :) If you add that bit I showed you, you have the production done. Though, the reception needs a little more expansion, just saying. "Christmas Special" is just done, we add the plot, it's done. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)17:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great work on expanding and fixing the article. However I think the broadcasters and quotes should be included to make the article complete. I understand they were removed because they were unreferenced, but there are plenty of sources out there, what do you think GWST11 (talk) 19:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am pleased to report that the March coordinator elections have concluded, and that 15 members have been selected to serve as coordinators from April to September. Special congratulations go to AustralianRupert, Dank, MisterBee1966, NativeForeigner, Patar knight, and Ranger Steve, all of whom are newly elected coordinators. As we start this new tranche we welcome all returning coordinators, and wish those who decided not to stand for reelection luck as they move on to new things.
In other election news, a motion made to extend the coordinator tranche from its current six-month term to one full year gained consensus from the election participants. This will take effect in September, during the next election cycle. For the IX Coordinator Tranche, TomStar81 (Talk) 05:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In May 2008 a small group of editors, operating from a page in Cam's userspace, began work on improving Wikipedia's articles relating to the pivotal Second World War Battle of Normandy that took place in northern France between 6 June and the end of August 1944. Milhist has now adopted this collaboration as our third special project. The aim of Operation Normandy is to bring all core topics—official operations, battles, and the invasion beaches—to featured status by the 70th anniversary of D-Day on 6 June 2014. More information can be found on the project page; any interested editors are most welcome to sign up and help us meet this challenging goal!
Our Henry Allingham World War I Contest ended on 11 March with the following results: in first place was Sturmvogel 66; in second place was Ian Rose; in third place was Dana boomer; and the finalists were Abraham, B.S., Carcharoth, and XavierGreen. The contest produced an incredible 238 recognised article improvements, of which 6 were Featured articles, 13 were A-Class articles and 22 were Good articles. In addition 43 newly created or expanded articles were successfully submitted for the 'Did you know' section on Wikipedia's main page. Our warmest congratulations go to the medallists and finalists, and our grateful thanks go to all participants and particularly to Eurocopter for organizing the contest.
Would you like to get more involved in the project? There are many open tasks that could use your help. The project's review department is always in need of input at peer reviews, A-class reviews, FACs and FARs; these can be found here. Also, the project maintains a list of deletion debates for military-related articles that have been nominated for deletion; project members are encouraged to provide their opinions in this forum so that consensus can be established. Finally, if content creation is more what you are looking for, each of the project's 48 task forces maintains a list of requested articles.
Your comments are invited in the following ongoing project discussions:
Pre-emptive disambiguation. Since 2006 our in-house style guide has recommended disambiguating the titles of articles about military units whether another article of the same name exists or not. The continued need for this practice is under discussion.
Nick-D in recognition of his long and distinguished service as a coordinator of this project from February 2008 to March 2010; sterling efforts on "big picture" subjects, including ten featured articles; and his tireless participation in discussion and review.
Sturmvogel 66 in recognition of his distinguished service as a coordinator of this project, extraordinary performance within the Henry Allingham World War I Contest and other extremely valuable contributions to the project.
Editorial: Translating article writing to real life
I (Ed) am a college student in the United States, and as part of attaining my desired degree, I chose to take a course in Arab-Islamic history. We began in the early 600s and spent some time on the origins of the Islamic conquering of the Sassanid Empire and partial takeover of the Byzantine Empire (c. 634–750). From there, we have moved through the various ages of history, and the class recently began discussing the Ottoman Empire and other Islamic regions of more recent times.
As we began discussing the Ottoman Empire's role in the First World War, our professor mentioned that they were blockading the Bosphorus, using it as a chokepoint to cut off needed supplies traveling to Russia's only warm-water port, Sevastopol. An astute classmate, realizing this meant the use of warships, wondered what naval technology was like during this time. The professor turned and asked me to answer the question, as he knew I had been studying naval history and believed that I knew more about the subject.
The point of this anecdote is not to boast, but to provoke some thought. By virtue of the research Wikipedia writers must do to write complete, referenced articles, many of us are acquiring knowledge in specialized topics that can surpass even learned scholars. Wikipedia might even provoke some of us into becoming learned scholars through the subjects we find here. To profile one such case, take a look at Parsecboy.
Beginning in May 2007, he came across a few essentially empty stubs on German battleship classes. Nearly 3 years later, he's written or collaborated on more than forty articles rated as good or higher, including over a dozen featured articles and a featured list; the majority relate to German warships. The work Parsecboy has done for Wikipedia has had a tremendous impact on his academic career: to complete his undergraduate degree, Parsecboy is currently writing an Honors Thesis that will analyze the British and German battlecruiser squadrons during the First World War. Parsecboy plans to attend graduate school and continue his research in the area, culminating in a dissertation. He comments that "without a doubt, I would not have had nearly as much knowledge and interest in the topic, nor would I have known where to begin researching if I had not become so involved with the topic here on Wikipedia."
The knowledge you acquire through writing Wikipedia articles will remain with you for the rest of your life. Try to find a way to use it to your advantage.
I don't know if you've seen or been a part of any of the Albert Pujols drama, but I thought we could use another pair of (administrative) eyes on the situation, as it stopped during the offseason and now just appeared again full tilt. Cheers. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing specific. Just thought we might be able to use another pair of eyes. I know you're active at the project talk and I know that you know about a lot of the recent consensuses (consenses?) that have been established there. It seems that Katydidit is still trying to make a point with the stat box and infobox regardless of the WT:MLB discussions from last year and this year. It got very dramatic last year, so I thought another cool head might be prevailed upon to participate. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice... I just had another GA promoted today. I'm gonna get to that Alexander the Great Triple Crown eventually!... Do you need a GA review; is that article nominated yet? I'll gladly hop on board (gotta finish Paul Krichell too, though). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No topic there, I wouldn't have the patience to turn the Whiz Kids into a topic, especially since the main article got all shot up in a peer review. I just want their roster to be complete, and obscure players seem to translate well into my style of writing since I'm so meticulous about statistics and such. And trust me, I understand that data entry stuff. I still haven't started the strikeout champs and the wins champs is sitting at FLC. Plus, data entry is a big part of my job too, so I get burned out on it pretty easily. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed deletion of List of Major League Baseball one-game playoff broadcasters
Why not have a list!? One-game playoff games are of course, a very rare and special occurance. The games themeselves, were always nationally televised unlike say, your typical no-hitter. It's a whole lot easier to just have it laid out there in simple detail than having to search high and low or examine more closely who exactly broadcasted the games themselves. And there is a list for one-game MLB playoffs: One-game_playoff#Major_League_Baseball. And to talk about "questionable notabilty", well this is Wikipedia afterall. And what's not to say that I know more about what I'm talking about than the other way around!? TMC1982 (talk) 03:41 p.m., 13 April 2010 (UTC)
The list of the broadcasters for the MLB one-game playoffs is at the very end of the section. It seems like you're insisting on that particular info having its own, individual article or every other pro sports one-game playoff having its own list of broadcasting info. TMC1982 (talk) 03:48 p.m., 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Having something like a list of parks that have hosted one-game playoffs in contrast is too broad and vague. TMC1982 (talk) 08:21 p.m., 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Again, you completely removed the lists despite me offering a compromise (since they're not entirely "cited")! First you don't an individual page, then you don't want an independent bracket in the same page. Whether you like it or not, there going to be on Wikipedia somewhere in some shape or form! TMC1982 (talk) 06:43 p.m., 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Whether you like it or not, the fact of the matter is that the one-game playoffs have for the most part, been broadcast somewhere. It would be a major disservice to readers on Wikipedia (which could and should always be improved upon, not torn down and completely discarded) by not sharing this additional information. I've proposed a "merge" since as a compromise (as I've previously alluded to). It's incredibly ignorant and short-sighted to think that there isn't some sort of curiosity behind this. If not, then what's the point of having various lists that's devoted to archiving sports broadcasters (comparing the games' temperature to this is totally apples and oranges). TMC1982 (talk) 06:57 p.m., 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Are you freaking serious! So if I'm a frequent editor on one particular article, that automatically means that it's of little value if it's not 100% cited!? Again, isn't the whole point of Wikipedia to help each other out information wise. It shouldn't have to be entirely dependent on only one editor or information donor. TMC1982 (talk) 07:18 p.m., 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey. Since you have been working on the tie-breaker games and I look to be working on the 48 one soon, would you like to see if we could make it a Good Topic? I'd say featured but I don't think there's enough to say about each game to get them all through FAC. If you're up for that let me know. WizardmanOperation Big Bear13:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, making a list of one game playoffs would work fine. There's enough of them to turn it into an FL without it being too daunting. For now I'd say let's concentrate on the one game playoffs, though we can always add in the best-of-3's later. WizardmanOperation Big Bear15:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know, I removed the proposed deletion tag for this article. One editor protested its deletion, and if anyone contests a prod (by removing the tag, or just openly saying they don't want it deleted) then the deletion is controversial and invalid. I'd suggest WP:AFD, since the argument you had with TMC1982 is exactly the kind of discussion that should take place at a deletion discussion. Thanks! -- Atama頭23:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
GAN backlog elimination drive - 1 week to go
First off, on behalf of myself and my co-coordinator Wizardman, I would like to thank you for the efforts that you have made so far in this GAN backlog elimination drive. It has been nothing short of a success, and that is thanks to you. See this Signpost article about what this drive has achieved so far.
We're currently heading into the final week of the drive. At this time, if you have any GANs on review or on hold, you should be finishing off those reviews. Right now, we have more GANs on review or on hold than we do unreviewed. If you're going to start a GA review, please do so now so you can complete it by the end of the month and so that the nominator has a full 7-day window to address any concerns.
Damn, the commentaries are what I need, well, just for "Black Tie". Currently, "The C Word", "Corporate Crush", and "Black Tie" are the only episodes left for season 1. After that, a GT can be made out of it. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)17:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the copy-edit, my good sir, it is most appreciated. ;) Also, "Christmas Special" is good to go. I did my best for the Reception. If you want to take a look at it, be my guest. But, it's good to go. Sorry to bother you again, but do you have a better screencap for "The Source Awards"? The one in the article looks weird. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)22:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, when you get the time. :) No, of course not, you did your part, it's only fair. Actually, I was hoping that you'd nominate it, that's what I meant that it's good to go. Ever since the GAN nominations have been going down I don't want to be known as that person who nominates a ton of articles, you know. This is the best way of us working together for season three. ;) Hey, I know that "Do-Over" is yours, I don't want to take it from ya, but do you mind if I add info. for the production? -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)22:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, I believe that's the shortest time I've had to wait for a review. Anyway, I've responded to your comments at the review page. Cheers, ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 17:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because you've contributed to FPC either recently or in the past, I'm letting you know about the above poll on the basis of which we may develop proposals to change our procedures and criteria. Regards, Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your signature
Hey, I just wanted to let you know that I hacked your signature to make a sortable table cell work here (take a look at the crap I had to deal with in 1939). I knew that I was going to run across that situation sooner or later. Argh! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
haxx0r indeed. It took me, like, 40 minutes just to figure it out. I'm pathetic. That said, I'm in no rush to get these done; I'm just waiting to the next round of progress to be completed on the GA I'm reviewing, and I got tired of writing them for a little bit. I'm very happy with the last one, though, as it's a crossover topic, and I don't get to write in a lot of areas outside baseball (mostly because I don't know anything but). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eesh, good luck with that. I'll stick with my 2010 Phillies season, thanks. Seems to be coming along pretty well. There's a lot less random participation than there was last year, so things are fleshing out the way I want them to. Once we hit summer I'll start cruising along on it pretty good. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I saw that on one of your talk pages (he's writing the GA I'm reviewing right now; I think it was at his talk). Sounds like a very interesting idea. Maybe in 10 years I'll have a Phillies seasons of the decade article. LOL. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually a very intriguing possibility. I think maybe everything you mentioned, plus maybe 2009 MLB season...? I don't know if that's really an essential component. If the postseason proper was the topic, then we wouldn't need the regular seasons... I'm not sure. That's a really hard one to define. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Stax. You reviewed this FLC earlier; now that a couple other editors have taken a look do you think you could declare whether you support, oppose, or are neutral toward the list's promotion? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WikiCup 2010 April newsletter
Round two is over, and we are down to our final 32. For anyone interested in the final standings (though not arranged by group) this page has been compiled. Congratulations to Hunter Kahn (submissions), our clear overall round winner, and to ThinkBlue (submissions) and Arsenikk (submissions), who were solidly second and third respectively. There were a good number of high scorers this round- competition was certainly tough! Round three begins tomorrow, but anything promoted after the end of round two is eligible for points. 16 contestants (eight pool leaders and eight wildcards) will progress to round four in two months- things are really starting to get competitive. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.
Judge iMatthew has retired from Wikipedia, and we wish him the best. The competition has been ticking over well with minimal need for judge intervention, so thank you to everyone making that possible. A special thank you goes to participants Stone (submissions) and White Shadows (submissions) for their help in preparing for round three. Good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed1717:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Harry Potter has been rather inactive recently. I've been working on the Evanna Lynch article lately, and have based it off the featured article Emma Watson. I thought I'd ask if you would like to collaborate on the article, as part of a possible WikiProject revival. Leave your response at the article's talk page. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 11:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your participation in the April 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive
GAN backlog elimination drives chart up to 1 May
On behalf of my co-coordinator Wizardman, I'd like to especially thank you for your efforts over this past month's GAN backlog elimination drive. It has been nothing short of a complete success, which hopefully results in more expedient good article reviews, increasing users' confidence in the good article nomination processes. Even if you made just a small contribution, it still helped contribute to the success of this drive. Here is what we have accomplished this last month in this drive.
661 total nominations were reviewed. 541 of them passed (~81.8%), 97 (~14.7%) failed, and 23 (~3.5%) ended on hold.
Excluding extremes, the longest wait for someone's GAN to be review was about 11.5 weeks at the beginning. (I mistook the figure when I reported to the Signpost that it was 13.) At the end, with the exception of one that was relisted, the longest wait is now at 10 days.
63 different users participated, each having completed at least one GAN, with others also having helped out behind-the-scenes in making the drive a success.
The drive started with 463 GA nominations remaining and 388 unreviewed. At the end of the month, we ended with 89 remaining (374 or about 80.8% less) and 47 unreviewed (341 or about 87.9% less).
For those who have accomplished certain objectives in the drive, awards will be coming shortly. Again, thank you for your help in the drive, and I hope you continue to help review GA nominations and overall improve the quality of articles here on Wikipedia.
I couldn't be a Phillies fan without some stones, so I'm guessing that's gonna do it. I think the plan of attack is to do them letter by letter first, adding the "main articles" to the current all-time roster article, and then somehow convert that one into a summary list, which will be the biggest challenge. I might do them en-masse as a giant sandbox project (like 20 subpages) and then go for the biggest DYK hook ever (would 20 articles qualify for that?). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a month since the end of the coordinator elections, and I am proud to inform the project that the IX coordinator tranche is doing well. Our new coordinators are rapidly learning the ropes, and the last of the task forces under consideration for merging have been consolidated into a new task force which should increase productivity and improve quality article output.
At the moment the coordinators are discussing preliminary plans for an improved version of The Bugle, and are working with editors from the American Civil War task force who are in the process of organizing a new special project relating to that conflict. It is our hope to see these changes implemented in the upcoming month. Lastly, as many of our members are also in school, we extend our best wishes to all who will be taking final exams both this month and next. For the IX coordinator tranche, TomStar81 (Talk) 22:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This month we're taking a look at the Military history WikiProject's special projects. At present we have three—Operation Great War Centennial, Operation Majestic Titan, and Operation Normandy—with, as Tom mentions in his introduction, a fourth coming on line as this newsletter goes out.
Officially the longest running of our special projects, this started in December 2008 with the ambitious goal of improving our core articles relating to the First World War by June 2014. As it states on the project's page, "the centenary of the start of World War I ... will doubtless be a mammoth commemoration of one of the most significant wars in history, attracting vast interest from schools, universities, veterans groups and the media. It offers us the chance to showcase what a brilliant resource Wikipedia is". With World War I receiving well over 20,000 page viewsper day on most days, the truth of these words is evident and the opportunity too good to miss. Operation Great War Centennial has compiled a list of over 300 articles covering topics such as battles, geographical areas, people, armaments, and technology; while some have achieved featured or good status, the majority are at B-Class or below, so there is plenty there for willing editors to get their teeth into.
The home of our much-respected and admired "Battleship Cabal", Operation Majestic Titan started in June 2009 with the aim of creating the "single largest featured topic on Wikipedia, centered around the battleships considered, planned, built, operated, canceled, or otherwise recorded." At time of writing the prolific Majestic Titan team has produced an impressive 33 featured articles, 19 A-Class, 60 good articles, three featured topics and six good topics. According to the project's working list, there are only 427 more articles to go...
Although it first appeared in Milhist's pages in March 2010, this project had been formerly operating out of Cam's userspace as the "Normandy Team" since May 2008, making it a contender for our longest-running unofficial special project. Operation Normandy is aiming to create a Featured Topic on the Second World WarBattle of Normandy by the 70th Anniversary of D-Day on 6 June 2014. With nine featured articles so far and 29 more to go, progress has been steady. More help, however, is always welcome.
Our fourth special project, American Civil War Sesquicentennial, is in the process of organising and at present lacks a name (see this discussion if you have any suggestions). The project will be looking to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the American Civil War by its sesquicentennial anniversary in 2011. The beginning of a drive is always an exciting time to get involved, so interested editors are strongly encouraged to drop by and sign up.
Special projects are a great way of organising a long-term collaboration with a specific end-point in mind, and tend to be more goal-oriented and focused than the general task forces or informal working groups. Joining a special project is also a fantastic way to work alongside like-minded editors with whom you'll undoubtedly develop close working relationships; by your third or fourth FA submission you'll hopefully be operating as part of a well-oiled team. Editor roles are many and varied: content writers, source material providers, image- and map-makers, copy editors, reviewers, MoS gurus, wikignomes, specialists and generalists... you're sure to find a job that suits you and benefits the team. If you have an idea for a special project or are already undertaking a collaboration that you think fits in with the ethos of those above, and you'd like to benefit from Milhist's support and infrastructure, consider dropping the coordinators a note. Personally I've found the synergy and teamwork of contributing to a special project (Operation Normandy in my case) to be one of the most rewarding and enjoyable aspects of my time here. I hope you will too. EyeSerenetalk14:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.
Hello, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Phi Kappa Psi brothers/archive1 was listed 20 days ago, and is now also listed as one of the "nominations urgently needing reviews." So far four reviewers have weighed in. All objections have been met. There are two votes of support, and none opposed. As per The Rambling Man, "typically, although not prescriptively, Dabomb or I will look for around four votes of support." He also suggested that I contact "regular reviewers" such as yourself to see if you would be willing to comment. I'm happy to address constructive criticism. Hopefully upon resolving critiques, if you believe that the list is worthy, you will also grant support. Thanks, NYCRuss☎17:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use rationale for File:Being digital negroponte.gif
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Being digital negroponte.gif. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I see that you have made a few edits on List of 30 Rock episodes. I am interested in improving a list type page. Can you provide me any info on standardization and such that you used to improve the article? Thank you in advance. Anne Maxight (talk) 23:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, just wanted to know. Hey, if you have time, which you probably don't have, can you look over "Retreat to Move Forward"? I'm kinda having doubts on the article, and would appreciate a second opinion. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)18:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will definitely add the Wikipedia bit, thanks for reminding me of that. Alright, I'm done with "Do-Over", and have nominated it, I hope you don't mind that I added your name to the nomination, if you do, then oops my bad. I just didn't feel right nominating it by myself, since you really did all the work, I just did tweaks here and there. After I add the Wikipedia bit, do you want to nominate "Retreat to Move Forward"? -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)16:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know. I'm doing my part with reviewing articles, but nothing happens. It doesn't matter really, we just need "Retreat to Move Forward", which I will nominate soon, "Apollo, Apollo", and "Kidney Now!", and we'll be done. :) Then it's off to season four. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)21:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care, I just want the article to read better from somebody else's perspective, and sure I can review that article, but it'll have to wait cause I got two articles I need to review first. Is that cool? -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)20:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I'm done with "Kidney Now!", what do you think, is it alright or do I need to add more info.? Anyways, I have a question, would it be important to add that Grizz, in real-life, needed a kidney? [1] And if so, should I mention it in the lead and what section should this go in? I'm having a bit of a problem with this, your help would be most appreciated. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)22:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I did a read-through, and nominated the article. Well, after the episode aired Grizz announced he needed a transplant. If the show knew about this before hand, Fey or Jeff Richmond should have mentioned it in the commentary, which they didn't. The only thing they said was that Grizz was in need of a kidney. Oh, and I added the chicken and the baby bit, see if it makes sense or not. Oh, before I forget, here's hoping that "Do-Over", "Mamma Mia", "Retreat to Move Forward", "Cutbacks", and "Kidney Now!" are GA status, what image should we use for the GT? A picture of Fey or the 30 Rock building? -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)22:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True, but let's just see how this plays out. There's a lot of work to do with season four; I'm starting backwards. I haven't forgotten about your article, it's just that I want to finish up "I Do Do" and get it over with. I'll get the review under way right now. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)20:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats on 1999 passing. :) You're welcome for the review, like I said I didn't forget about it. I was thinking of doing Liz's, but there's too much activity going on over there. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)15:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, would it be alright if I nominated "The Problem Solvers" after going through it and stuff? And if so, do you ming if I add your name to the nomination, after all you did get a DYK? out of it. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)16:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I created a page for THOTCON for a few month ago and you deleted it. The event occurred on April 23rd. It was the first hacking conference ever held in Chicago. There were 250 attendees from around the world and 13 speakers. There were even a few main stream press articles and a numbers of blog reviews of event I can use as attributes. Can I create this page again?
Ok, so I'm done with the first letter. Would love to hear your input. Format hasn't changed any, but I wonder if this is going to be too long of a list when I'm finally done. I would love to have it be one giant list, but I don't know if it's going to happen. — KV5 • Talk • 22:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question on this: I've just gotten to my first player who's currently with the team. I've taken care of that, but I don't want to be updating this list during the season all the time, so I am going to keep the stats "as of the end of the 2009 season". What should I put in the "Notes" column for players like Danys Baez who don't have a complete season of Phillies stats yet but still have tenure with the team? — KV5 • Talk • 17:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another roster question: do you think I need to stub out all the redlinks before moving to mainspace and nominating for FL? Or should I just leave them for now? — KV5 • Talk • 15:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hate to keep bugging you for this thing, but do you mind checking my progress if you have a few minutes? I haven't written any prose yet, but the TOC is done and the tables are complete through E. Thanks man. — KV5 • Talk • 18:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We are half way through round 3, with a little under a month to go. The current overall leader is Sasata (submissions), who has 570 points. He leads pool C. Pools A, B and D are led by Hunter Kahn (submissions), Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) and White Shadows (submissions) respectively. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.
Two of last year's final 8, Theleftorium (submissions) and Scorpion0422 (submissions), have dropped out of the competition, saying they would rather their place went to someone who will have more time on their hands than them next round. On a related note, a special thank you goes to White Shadows (submissions) for his help behind the scenes once again. There is currently a problem with the poster, perhaps caused by the new skin- take a look at this discussion and see if you can help. The competition has continued to tick over well with minimal need for judge intervention, so thank you to everyone making that possible. Good luck to all! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed1720:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With Eurocopter's resignation (see editorial below), this month marks the end of his tenure as a project coordinator. Eurocopter has been with the team for almost three years now and will be sorely missed, but he has taken the tough decision that his real life commitments have unfortunately made it too hard for him to focus on his coordinator duties. We wish him good luck in the future, both in real life and on-wiki.
Efforts to redesign The Bugle are moving forward and it is our intention to roll out a new format, based on the Signpost, for next month's issue. We hope that this will allow us to provide better coverage of the project's news by allowing more room to expand on the stories we bring to you. If you have any comments or suggestions on what we can do to improve coverage, please let us know.
With consensus reached on a name the American Civil War task force has officially opened our newest special project. Codenamed Brothers at War, its goal will be "...to improve [US Civil War] related Wikipedia articles to featured status, and to see as many of these as possible appear on the main page on their respective 150th anniversaries."
The straw poll concerning preemptive disambiguation of military units as outlined by our Manual of Style has been closed, with near unanimous consensus that the current practice of preemptive disambiguation be retained. Thanks to everyone who participated in either the discussion or the straw poll.
Members of Operation Majestic Titan have adopted a three-tiered award system to show appreciation to those who have done work on battleship or battlecruiser articles. Formally known as the Titan's Cross, the award has been issued to Parsecboy, Climie.ca, The ed17, and MBK004.
The project's official IRC channel (#wikipedia-en-milhist) has been restarted. Project members and anyone interested in military history are encouraged to join us for substantive discussions, social discourse and a few laughs. Instructions on how to get on IRC are available here.
Editorial: Project coordination and constructive editing
For those of you who might not know me, I'm Eurocopter. I served as a coordinator of the Military history WikiProject from August 2007 until few days ago, when I decided to resign due to real life issues making it impossible for me to continue to perform project duties on a regular basis. Reflecting on my experience and activities within the project, I decided to write this editorial to set out a few thoughts and offer some advice to interested members.
First of all, what does project coordination mean and how does it help the Military history WikiProject? Although the coordinators do not have any real executive powers, they play an important role in project management. To make editing contributions easier for our members we establish guidelines, manage Peer and A-Class reviews, and consult and assist when needed. The primary goal of the coordination team has always been to stimulate the development of quality articles and, once they have been developed, to facilitate maintaining them at a high standard for as long as possible. This has been carried out through the organization of a considerable number of assessment drives, contests and special projects. However, there is still much to be done to make the project one of the best and most active wiki-communities. Coordinator involvement in trying to achieve this, as the central promoters of any activity undertaken within the project, is more than important; the coordination team should stand as an example of civilised and constructive cooperation. Perhaps the most annoying issue—unfortunately quite widespread through the pages of Wikipedia—is POV-dominated conflict. While such a phenomenon might seem inevitable in a community within which hundreds of members of different nationalities with different historical and political views interact, it doesn’t mean we should accept it. The ability to neutrally mediate such conflicts is an important and desirable coordinator function.
Secondly, but most importantly in my opinion, is the question of how the project enables editors to contribute effectively. Perhaps you already know how difficult it is to take an article to the highest quality levels such as A-Class or featured status. It is even harder to do this working alone. I believe the best thing the Military history WikiProject has done is to bring together groups of editors with similar interests. As there are very few editors skilled in all the diverse article development areas, you might feel the need for help from editors more experienced in, for example, advanced copy editing, image editing etc. To this end the project provides task forces and special projects where members should always feel encouraged to ask questions, discuss, debate and give advice. Such cooperation is the best way to create properly balanced articles and to establish a neutral point of view. Our Style guide and Academy are also useful in guiding you along the path of writing an article. A final, but vital, part of the collaborative article writing process is editor behaviour when interacting with other editors who are contributing to the same article. Even on those occasions where an editor upsets you or allows their personal opinions to influence their editing, always remain calm, civil and try to reach an agreement. Contributing to Wikipedia is something most of us do as a hobby; time spent in useless conflicts is precious editing time wasted.
All in all, the Military history WikiProject is a good meeting point for milhist-interested editors, both beginners and advanced, with someone always there to give help and advice when needed. I wish to thank all my fellow coordinators and project members who keep this beautiful community running. I will certainly miss it!
I didn't use a script. It was actually quite fast. I copied and pasted the table into Word, then Ctrl-H (Find and replace). Then I did things like, Replace all " || " with " || {{sortname|", then replace all" || [[$" with " {{{last}}}]] || $", etc. So it wasn't too bad. I'll do the same with the dates and {{dts}} in a week or so, unless you'd like to try your hand at it. Cheers! –Schmloof(talk·contribs)02:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...into your gallery, saw this and was impressed. A lovely picture dude. Oh, and you + cat was cute too, but not as cute as said pic. Keep up the work on the lists, you're top of the class right now, as far as I'm concerned. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Only one I didn't go was the Angels' list, given that 1. they had five picks and as such that would take a while, 2. there's other things to fix up in that list, it's good but a bit away from other lists. As for the tie-breaker game I'll get to it tomorrow. WizardmanOperation Big Bear01:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, 1948's done now. Was harder than I thought to build it up to similar length as the others. 7kb will have to do, there's not much on stats and the like. I hope it's good, I've never written an article that fast before, lol. (who writes a GA in three hours? @_@) WizardmanOperation Big Bear02:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the "Shot Heard 'Round the World" (baseball)
I am aware that they aren't entirely the same (the series leading up to said incident). However, the best offer (as a means of keeping things simple, less redundant and streamlined) that I have to modify this is to add on the article itself a summary of the games in the Giants/Dodgers 1951 NL playoff series prior to the "Shot..." game. TMC1982 (talk) 06:47 p.m., 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Then why don't you go ahead and actually "create" an individual article yourself instead of rejecting my assistance!? TMC1982 (talk) 06:59 p.m., 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
I'm having an ethical dilemma (weird, I know, right?). To give myself a break from data entry after the endless project that was the Phillies' "B" roster, I'm examining and placing lead images in each of the articles. What I'm trying to do is find the player with the best image who had the biggest impact on the team; in essence, the "most notable". For some, it's quite difficult, as images just don't exist or they are fair-use. I've gotten to "K". The most notable player is definitely Chuck Klein, but his images are fair use. Tim Keefe is a Hall of Famer, but I hate the pictures of baseball cards, and he didn't really have a big impact on the Phillies anyway. To be honest, the best images that I could have for the lead are ones of Harry Kalas. He was never a player but had the largest impact in the "K"s out of anyone other than Klein. What do you think? — KV5 • Talk • 16:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He's not. It's players only. That's why I'm having an ethical dilemma. There's really no player who's done anything worthy of that lead spot. — KV5 • Talk • 19:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Blue Jays list was partially made at least so improving it wasn't too bad. I'll probably do the Yankees next since there's not much to fix on that one (just the lead and pics). I'll start filling in the redlinks after that. Once I got the hang of it it hasn't been too hard. WizardmanOperation Big Bear18:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, per the thread "Dead links and verifiability" here, I have readded the review, it seems that we should leave it in there even if it goes dead. At the moment the google cache is still good, but if an when it goes dead, you (or someone!) should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Citing sources#Preventing and repairing dead links to either hide the link or turn it into plain text. Regards, --BelovedFreak10:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Removing horribly formatted references. I left a request for formatting for quite a while."
I've noticed that you've removed anything resembling a "reference" on the Major League Baseball tie-breaker game articles. You also the other day left messages to me practically "demanding"/"ordering" me (what, you can't do it yourself) to format them differently. It shouldn't solely be my job to do certain things on one particular type of Wikipedia article (I have other matters to take care of in the mean time). And just removing the references altogether isn't the way to go either. TMC1982 (talk) 05:03 p.m., 27 June 2010 (UTC)
“
I left it here a week ago, not "the other day". And no you are not solely responsible, but when you are the one adding the content yes you are at least partially responsible. I'm not going to take time out of my day to fix wildly messy references you add that add little to articles already recognized by he community to be of high quality.
”
What's the difference between "a week ago and the other day" (it's not like anybody said a month ago)!? And of course, I'm partially responsible, there's no denying that. But the bottom-line is that there's finally a cited reference that can verifying said information. And how exactly do these articles "add little" (they certainly added more than before), just because they're not yet formated in a better way!? And I find it funny that you complain about "not wanting to take time out of your day" when you're the one who is most demanding certain things be done in the first place! TMC1982 (talk) 05:15 p.m., 27 June 2010 (UTC)
“
And if you have "better things to do" than properly format your references, please don't just throw links onto a page and expect someone else to clean up your mess.
”
I'm not going to deal with the MLB tie-breaker articles anymore, because I'm getting increasingly sick and annoyed with having to comply and tow around to your wishes and strict demands (like you're my freaking boss or something)! To me, it seems like, you're the only one who's "worthy" enough to edit/format them. TMC1982 (talk) 05:22 p.m., 27 June 2010 (UTC)
We're half way through 2010, and the end of the WikiCup is in sight! Round 3 is over, and we're down to our final 16. Our pool winners were Ian Rose (submissions) (A), Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) (B, and the round's overall leader), ThinkBlue (submissions) (C) Casliber (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions) (D, joint), but, with the scores reset, everything is to play for in our last pooled round. The pools will be up before midnight tonight, and have been selected randomly by J Milburn. This will be the toughest round yet, and so, as ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.
Though unaffiliated with the WikiCup, July sees the third Great Wikipedia Dramaout- a project with not dissimilar goals to the WikiCup. Everyone is welcome to take part and do their bit to contribute to the encyclopedia itself.
If you're interested in the scores for the last round of the Cup, please take a look at Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Round 3 and Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Full/Round 3. Our thanks go to Stone (submissions) for compiling these. As was predicted, Group C ended up the "Group of Death", with 670 points required for second place, and, therefore, automatic promotion. This round will probably be even tougher- again, the top two from each of the two groups will make it through, while the twelve remaining participants will compete for four wildcard places- good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17
cup
2010 Wikicup Semi-finalist
Awarded for progression into the 4th round (semi-finals) of the 2010 Wikicup
Our goal... 30 Rock season three... to get our GT... has been accomplished, well it's done, but needs to be nominated. "Kidney Now!" was promoted, so we gots to nominate the topic to GTC. Now, I'm still oppose of adding an image of Hayek to the topic. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)19:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats to you, too, you did your part. :) I picked the classic image of Fey, the one featured in the season four page. For season four we can use the one with her holding her SAG Award, since she won it for that season. Already did, and here's the link to the GTC. On July 8 the Emmy nominations are going to be announced, just letting you know. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)21:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, me too, thank God for E! News announcing when the nominations were going to be revealed. No, I don't mind with season four, figured that's your thing. If you need help, I'll be happy to lend a hand. :) Now, I gotta wait for the release of season 4's DVD, which should be in September, right? -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)22:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'll be on the look out for that, then. Yeah, I congratulate those who've expanded on character articles, I like their work, I just don't see myself being included in that "list", though, I never saw myself in the "list" of expanding episodes. If you want, we can work on a character bio. in a sandbox, that way we can avoid any edit conflicts. Who do you want to work on? -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)23:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Spaceman would be easy to do, he's been well-received by critics and important thing to include, but what do we know about him, besides the fact that he's a doctor. How 'bout Kenneth or Jenna? I was going to work on Jenna, but I decided against it, but I'm having second thoughts. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)18:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use rationale for File:Being digital negroponte.gif
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Being digital negroponte.gif. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By this source written in 2005 they say none on the LPGA Tour, which is by far and away the most dominate tour in the women's game, so here it is for you to look at.69.137.121.17 (talk) 23:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Major League Baseball Triple Crown/archive1
Done. It was next on my list, just hadn't gotten to it yet since FTCs/GTCs are a PITA to close and wrap up. Luckily since it's down to a few there I can go back to handling FLs for a few days. WizardmanOperation Big Bear02:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And to you! Cheers buddy! Anything else in the works? I'm still kicking on the roster. Hoping to get a little work done on that today. — KV5 • Talk • 22:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for what you can work on next, I'm not positive myself. I'm going to keep working on the draft lists and see if I can squeeze in a tie-breaker article once in a while, since we're getting there now. Doing the All-Star Game list sounds like a good idea though. WizardmanOperation Big Bear16:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for reformatting the article. It looks great! However, I don't think you should have removed so much info without discussing it first. Please discuss. Thanks, Happy138 (talk) 07:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You stated in your message to me that just because the AA was a major league doesn't make AA pennants into NL pennants. I'm very aware of this. That fact was what I was trying to clarify through my edits to the page. The way that the facts were displayed before I edited them was misleading. The way that the page is worded simply states, both in the cumulative chart and the opening paragraphs, that the Los Angeles Dodgers have won 22 "pennants," that the St. Louis Cardinals have won 21 "pennants," and that the Cincinnati Reds have won 10 "pennants." No mention of the American Association is made anywhere on the page, thereby implying, by virtue of the fact that the title of the page is "List of NL Pennant winners," that the Dodgers have won 22 NL Pennants, the Cardinals 21 NL Pennants, and the Reds 10 NL Pennants, and that is incorrect. The Dodgers, Cardinals, and Reds have only won 21, 17, and 9 NL Pennants respectively; it even states this on their respective Wikipedia pages. For the facts to be correct on this page, either my edits about the American Association need to go back in, or the numbers in the opening paragraphs and cumulative chart need to be changed to 21, 17, and 9 (and their playoff appearances accordingly) for those three teams. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaca6614 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good question, I'm not sure myself. I presume that anyone on the 40-man roster would get a ring, and if that's the case they should be included. If there's a way to find out who does and doesn't get a ring I would go by that. WizardmanOperation Big Bear18:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, i looked around and didn't see them. I would just go ahead and put them in since they were second half/September call-ups; if they were cup of coffees in April/May I'd be more reluctant. WizardmanOperation Big Bear03:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On July 27, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 500 home run club, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
The Signpost's "Features and admins" page now includes a "Choice of the week" for featured articles, featured lists and featured pictures. Each week, The Signpost invites a different delegate, reviewer or nominator from each process to select what they think is the best, or their favourite, item, and to give their reasons. These reasons can be technical (e.g., related to the Criteria) or subjective, or both.
Would you be willing to do this with featured lists for next week’s edition? If you agree, promotions from Monday 26 July to Saturday 31 July will be eligible (only six days this week because the publication deadline has come forward). They will be listed here by Saturday UTC, and we would need your text by Sunday UTC. Examples from previous weeks are accessible by clicking on "← PREVIOUS Features and admins" at the bottom. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On September 24, 2009, I believe, we agreed to get a GT out of season three of 30 Rock, and July 29, 2010, we accomplished it, so congrats my good man. ;) Also, I write to you cause I'm working on "Into the Crevasse" and after I'm done I'll let you know so that you can nominate it, cause you're the main contributor and cause you a DYK? out of it, so. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)22:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why didn't you add all the articles? I'm kinda baffled by that. It put me ahead, but I'm in second place, let's see how this plays out. I know you'll advance to the next round. Awesome, I'll be done soon, I just gotta expand a couple of the reviews, and it'll be set. :) It's alright, I know you're hard at working on other lists, it's understandable, gotta get the other work done before starting a project, I've been there. ;) -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)15:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I'm done with "Into the Crevasse", I did double checks and stuff to be sure everything is in place. You be sure that everything makes sense particularly the Production section about the whole porn bit. The reviews for this episode was tough, so I'm telling you now I did the best I could. Alright, only four articles remain; "Season 4", "Khonani", "Argus", and "The Moms". -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)18:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You do not own the 2009 World Series article. You refuse to compromise on whether media speculation about AJ Burnett's performance belongs in the article or not and you furthermore refuse to allow facts pointing the contrary to be posted in the article. You do no own this article. If you wish for a certain perspective to remain in the article than it's only reasonable that the opposing viewpoint when properly cited by fact, also be included —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjrover (talk • contribs) 20:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing from the above even gets into the validity of the part of the article that is in question, but simply poor WP etiquette - falsely labeling edits you don't agree with as vandalism and a complete refusal to compromise on any point whatsoever. If you are so intent on the argument of Burnett's effectiveness on short rest remaining in the article than both perspectives must be included or the entire portion should be nixed. Thanks. Tjrover (talk) 20:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)tjrover[reply]
Actually what that shows is a very small sample of data, which is quite meaningless. I actually don't care about the argument, what I do care about is adding pointy edits like "contrary to the facts" and putting unformatted citations into an already evaluated good article. I'd be perfectly happy to see that excellent source used "However, Burnett had pitched effectively on short rest up to this point, going X-Y with a Z.ZZ ERA" or whatever.[formatting ref] Staxringoldtalkcontribs20:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
you are more than welcome to edit and format that bit as you see fit, obviously - since this is a wiki after all. but continuously deleting the material is uncalled for. just because something may not be formatted properly does not make it 'vandalism'. you have a barnstar for this article which is great and your work is appreciated but that also does not mean you own this article and have final say over what can be included or not. the additions in question may be a 'small sample of data' but it's at least based on real metrics vice the speculation of one person in the media who the average baseball fan wouldn't even know.Tjrover (talk) 20:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WikiCup 2010 July newsletter
We are half-way through our penultimate round, and nothing is yet certain. Pool A, currently led by Sasata (submissions) has ended up the more competitive, with three contestants (Sasata (submissions), Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions)) scoring over 500 points already. Pool B is led by Casliber (submissions), who has also scored well over 500. The top two from each pool, as well as the next four highest scorers regardless of pool, will make it through to our final eight. As ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.
Planning has begun for the 2011 WikiCup, with open discussions concerning scoring and flags for next year's competition. Contributions to those discussions would be appreciated, especially concerning the flags, as next year's signups cannot begin until the flag issue has been resolved. Signups will hopefully open at some point in this round, with discussion about possible changing in the scoring/process opening some time afterwards.
Earlier this round, we said goodbye to Hunter Kahn (submissions), who has bowed out to spend more time on the book he is authoring with his wife. We wish him all the best. In other news, the start of this round also saw some WikiCup awards sent out by Suomi Finland 2009 (submissions). We appreciate his enthusiasm, and contestants are of course welcome to award each other prizes as they see fit, but rest assured that we will be sending out "official" awards at the end of the competition. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed1722:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
_in_camouflage_coat,_1918_edit.jpg){kind=link}
