This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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. Sturmvogel_66 ( submissions) currently leads, with 358 points. At this stage in 2012, the leader ( 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. 12george1 ( submissions) was the first competitor to score this year, as he was last year, with a detailed good article review. Some other firsts:

• 12george1 ( submissions) was also the first to score for an article, with the good article Hurricane Gordon (2000). Again, this is a repeat of last year!
• Buggie111 ( submissions) was the first to score for a did you know, with Marquis Flowers.
• Spencer ( submissions) was the first to score for an in the news, with 2013 Houphouët-Boigny stampede.
• Status ( submissions) was the first to score for a featured list, with list of Billboard Social 50 number-one artists.
• Adam Cuerden ( submissions) was the first to score for a featured picture, with File:Thure de Thulstrup - L. Prang and Co. - Battle of Gettysburg - Restoration by Adam Cuerden.jpg.

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:

• Ed! ( submissions) was the first to score bonus points, with Portland-class cruiser, a good article.
• 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.
• 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 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) 00:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Herero and Namaqua Genocide. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 17:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Shark Island Extermination Camp. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 17:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

This is outside the religion area, but I was recalling the effort of editors to introduce revisionist/fringey views into the Ebionites article a couple of years ago, and was wondering if you had come across a clear policy or guideline that addresses those who adamantly attempt to introduce fringey material into articles? Has there been any effort toward alleviating the problem of editor-exhausting attempts to adulterate articles with every pop-theory, revisionist or other fringe viewpoint? I am not asking for your involvement in the linked RfC at all; just wondering if there is any help on the horizon, as this seems to plague religious, political, historical and similar articles and is a real drain on myself and other editors. The Ebionite problem seemed to spin off onto multiple other pages, and I gave up trying to track it. • Astynax ^talk 09:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Guns, Germs, and Steel. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 18:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I've been making some efforts to rejuvenate WikiProject Hotels, and since you're a member of the project, please feel free to contribute there if anything comes to mind. Also, please feel free to discuss matters at the project's talk page. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 08:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Juan Manuel de Rosas. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 18:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:John Calvin. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 18:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, John. I saw your comment at Juan Manuel de Rosas. It seems that you missed the point of what is under discussion there. No one is arguing that Rosas isn't notable enough to be on Wikipedia. He is. He is a key figure in the history of Argentina. What is under discussion is:

1. Should Argentine Revisionism be regarded as serious source?

The best I can do is to point you this link that will explain what are the problems in the article. Lastly: that Rosas was a dictator isn't even a matter of debate. Every single book published in English in that last 25 years regard him as such (see the link I provided). The problem is that none of those books are used as sources in the article and and mention that Rosas was a dictator was removed. -- Lecen ( talk) 19:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I obviously acknowledge that the subject is notable enough for an article, as there is already an extant article on whose talk page the discussion is taking place. What I was trying to point out was that the possibility of there being a spinout article on allegations of his being a dictator, if that theory is notable enough and has enough content for a separate article.

Regarding your statement that "every single book published in English in that last 25 years" says something, I would of course like to see a list of every single book published about the subject, which would also include the print reference sources like Encyclopedia Britannica and the like. WorldCat would probably be the place to verify exactly how many books have been published on the topic. Unfortunately, I regret to say, I think the recent statements in academic journals would probably carry more weight than books, because many books have additional, financial, factors invovled as well. I have access to Highbeam Research and Questia, and JSTOR, and can try to check myself what the academic sources say, and would suggest others do so as well, but I think that they are the best indicators for the matter of weight in the main biography article, although, like I thought I said, there may well be sufficient grounds for a separate spinout article going into greater detail on the topic. John Carter ( talk) 20:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Then you might have missed the link I provided above. One of the sources given is Encyclopedia Britannica that says: "who was governor (1835–52) of Buenos Aires with dictatorial powers." [1] And again you are missing the point: there are no historians who regard Rosas a "democratic leader". The view that he was a dictator is the prevailing view, not an alternative view. Even the Argentine Revisionists regard him a dictator, but they see his dictatorship in a positive light. I'd like to ask you, again, to take a look carefuly in the link I provided. -- Lecen ( talk) 20:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

And you clearly have yet to actually read my own comments above, or, if you have read them, have chosen to ignore them. I ask you to actually read the comments of others before actually responding to them, which you still seem to have not done. Please stop abusing my personal talk page in this manner. Regarding Britannica, like I said, if the prevailing academic sources, such as print reference sources published in recent years, support the statement, then it clearly can be used. This would include however a large number of print reference sources, including various reference works specifically devoted to Argentina, South America, the old Latin colonies and their subsequent history, and the like. And also, for what it's worth, at no point did I myself support the claim that Rosas was a democratic leader, and nothing I said could reasonably be said to indicate otherwise. If you are so committed to your own opinion that you instantly assume anyone who does not agree with you outright is somehow necessarily supporting an alternative view, then I very seriously question whether you are necessarily capable of contributing to this subject in a fair and neutral manner as per WP:POV. John Carter ( talk) 20:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I might have felt rude to you. It was not my intention. And I'm sorry if I misunderstood your opinion. Since you mentioned Britannica, I thought you hadn't read the link and I only wanted to point you its existence. That's all. I won't bother you again. -- Lecen ( talk) 20:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Marseille. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 19:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:History of Vojvodina. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 19:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Progressive utilization theory. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 19:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• St Mary's Church, Cleobury Mortimer, Peter I. Vardy, 16 January 2013

• Marion Irvine, Giants2008, 18 January 2013

• Margaret McKenna, Guerillero, 21 January 2013

• Archdiocesan Cathedral of the Holy Trinity, Epeefleche, 23 January 2013

• St Edith's Church, Eaton-under-Heywood, Peter I. Vardy, 24 January 2013

• Vester Egesborg Church, Ipigott, Rosiestep, Nvvchar, Dr. Blofeld, 25 January 2013

• Undløse Church, Ipigott, Rosiestep, Nvvchar, Dr. Blofeld, 25 January 2013

• St Martin's Church, Næstved, Ipigott, Rosiestep, Nvvchar, Dr. Blofeld, 25 January 2013

• St. Peter, Syburg, Gerda Arendt, Dr. Blofeld, 28 January 2013

• Østre Porsgrunn Church, Strachkvas, 04 February 2013

• Church of Our Saviour (Mechanicsburg, Ohio), Nyttend, 06 February 2013

• Dami Mission, Freikorp, 07 February 2013

• Mechanicsburg Baptist Church, Nyttend, 08 February 2013

• St. Michael's Catholic Church (Mechanicsburg, Ohio), Nyttend, 15 February 2013

-- Gilderien Chat| List of good deeds 00:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Buchenwald Trial. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 20:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, In the past few days, Today's Articles for Improvement has gone through many changes. We have modified the process for adding Nominations, which now uses a template/table format and requires only 3 supports for an article to be selected. There is now a Holding Area, where articles are kept for discussion before being selected for a particular date. The TAFI schedule now involves adding 10 articles weekly, chosen from a variety of topics. We now have an Accomplishments page where we will be highlighting our older TAFI articles which have now become quality articles on the Wikipedia. The Project is almost ready to hit the Main Page, where it will be occupying a section just below "Did you Know" section. Three article from the weekly batch of 7 will be displayed randomly at the main page, the format of which can be seen at the Main Page sandbox. There is also an ongoing discussion at the Main page talk over the final details before we can go forward with the Main Page. If you have any ideas to discuss with everyone else, please visit the TAFI Talk Page and join in on the ongoing discussions there. You are also invited to add new nominations, and comment and suport on the current ones at the Nominations page. You can also help by helping in the discussions at the Holding Area. Above all, please do not forget to improve our current Today's Articles for Improvement Thank you and hoping to have some productive work from you at the Project, TheOriginalSoni ( talk) 11:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC) (From the TAFI team)

Hey all.

As promised, we've built a set of improvements to the Article Feedback Tool, which can be tested through the links here. Please do take the opportunity to play around with it, let me know of any bugs, and see what you think :).

A final reminder that the Request for Comment on whether AFT5 should be turned on on Wikipedia (and how) is soon to close; for those of you who have not submitted an opinion or !voted, it can be found here.

Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 19:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ford. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 21:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Richard Dawkins. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 21:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 22:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:East–West Schism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 23:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of atheist philosophers. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 23:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)