![]() | This page 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. |
The article
John Paciorek you nominated as a
good article has been placed on hold
. The article is close to meeting the
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See
Talk:John Paciorek for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Seattle --
Seattle (
talk)
08:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello Books & Bytes subscribers. There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called Citoid. It is designed to "auto-fill" references using a URL or DOI. We would really appreciate you testing whether TWL partners' references work in Citoid. Sharing your results will help the developers fix bugs and improve the system. If you have a few minutes, please visit the testing page for simple instructions on how to try this new tool. Regards, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello Wizardman,
You are receiving this message because you have a one-year subscription to Newspapers.com through the Wikipedia Library. This is a brief update, to remind you about that access:
Finally, we would greatly appreciate it if you filled out this short survey. Your input will help us to facilitate this particular partnership, and to discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.
Thank you,
Wikipedia Library Newspapers.com account coordinator HazelAB ( talk) 12:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The Running Man Barnstar | |
Hey Wizardman, just a quick barnstar to say thanks for the many reviews of Boat Race articles you've conducted over the past year. As of this morning, I completed my (initial) goal of ensuing that every Boat Race had, not only its own article, but one that was either of GA or FA status: we now have 158 GAs and 3 FAs that we can all be proud of! It doesn't stop here, for me at least, I'm going to keep up with improving the quality of the GAs and look for more FA opportunities. Plus, there's the small matter of 70 Women's Boat Race articles to get up and running! But thanks again, I couldn't have done it without your help. The Rambling Man ( talk) 15:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC) |
| Hello, Wizardman. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Oliver Kuhn at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Mini apolis 19:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC) |
Hello, I noticed you critically reviewed the use of images in "Peru national football team" shortly before it obtained FA-status. At this moment its Belgian counterpart is awaiting GA review. In my opinion, the article is GA-worthy, likely even FA according to the criteria. Any suggestion of yours could contribute towards FA, so I invite you to take a look. Regards, Kareldorado ( talk) 15:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
The article
John Paciorek you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:John Paciorek for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can
nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Eurodyne --
Eurodyne (
talk)
19:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
The second round one has all wrapped up, and round three has now begun! Congratulations to the 34 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our second round. Leading the way overall was
Cas Liber (
submissions) in Group B with a total of 777 points for a variety of contributions including Good Articles on
Corona Borealis and
Microscopium - both of which received the maximum bonus.
Special credit must be given to a number of high importance articles improved during the second round.
The points varied across groups, with the lowest score required to gain automatic qualification was 68 in Group A - meanwhile the second place score in Group H was 404, which would have been high enough to win all but one of the other Groups! As well as the top two of each group automatically going through to the third round, a minimum score of 55 was required for a wildcard competitor to go through. We had a three-way tie at 55 points and all three have qualified for the next round, in the spirit of fairness. The third round ends on June 28, with the top two in each group progressing automatically while the remaining 16 highest scorers across all four groups go through as wildcards. Good luck to all competitors for the third round! Figureskatingfan ( talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa ( talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 ( talk · contribs · email) 16:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 11, March-April 2015
by
The Interior (
talk ·
contribs),
Ocaasi (
talk ·
contribs),
Sadads (
talk ·
contribs),
Nikkimaria (
talk ·
contribs)
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Dear Wizardman,
I would like to apologize for not having participated in the reviewing process of the article I nominated for GA category. I was absent during that period due to personal and professional reasons, and only now I was able to return to Wikipedia.
I deeply thank your insights on the article. I will have them in consideration while I continue to develop and improve it. I hope sometime soon it will be ready for another review.
Best regards,
SOAD KoRn ( talk) 02:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Might want to also delete Fabio Martinez and Fabio Martínez Mesa.-- Yankees10 17:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Please check out my additions to the above linked discussion and the article in question. (Please answer here, if necessary, I'll watchlist it.) Kraxler ( talk) 13:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
![]() Greetings, all! We would like to announce the start of the 2nd GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Our inaugural competition, which ran from October 2014 to April 2015, was such a resounding success that we'd like to do it again. Currently, there are over 500 GANs ready to be reviewed; competitors in the previous GA Cup reviewed about 570 GAs, so we can again make a huge impact in helping editors improve articles in Wikipedia and decrease the traditionally long queue at GAN. The 2nd GA Cup will begin on July 1, 2015. As last time, five rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on November 28, 2015), but this may change based on participant numbers. The judges learned a lot during the 1st GA Cup which exposed weaknesses in its system. Using both the feedback from last year's participants and the weaknesses discovered, we've revised the scoring system to make it more fair. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same. We also are introducing three new judges: 3family6, Jaguar and MrWooHoo. So in total, there will be six judges. We hope this will allow the competition to run more smoothly. Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on July 15, 2015. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now! If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the judges. Cheers from 3family6, Dom497, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar and MrWooHoo, and TheQ Editor. |
-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Good evening Wizardman, you deleted Template:WPMLB without WP:RFD. Any reason for doing so? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 02:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
For your holding us to proper GA standards, in the delisting of the Badugi game article. Cheers. Le Prof 71.201.62.200 ( talk) 19:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC) |
The Wikipedia Library is expanding, and we need your help! With only a couple of hours per week, you can make a big difference in helping editors get access to reliable sources and other resources. Sign up for one of the following roles:
Delivered on behalf of The Wikipedia Library by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
![]() Welcome to the GA Cup! In less than 72 hours, the competition will begin! Before you all start reviewing nominations and reassessments we want to make sure you understand the following:
Also, rather than creating a long list on what to remember, make sure you have read the "Scoring", "Submissions", and "FAQ" pages. Now some of you are probably wondering how on earth the rounds will work. The rounds will work in a similar fashion as the previous competition, with the exception of the first round. Round 1 will have everyone compete in one big pool. Depending on the final number of participants after sign-ups close, a to-be-determined number of participants will move on (highest scorers will move on) to Round 2. We guarantee that the top 15 will move on (this number may change), so make sure you aim for those top positions! Moving on to Round 2, participants will be split into pools. The pools will be determined by a computer program that places participants by random. More details regarding Round 2 will be sent out at the end of Round 1. It is important to note that the GA Cup will run on UTC time, so make sure you know what time that is for where you live! On that note, the GA Cup will start on July 1 at 0:00:01 UTC; Round 1 will end on July 29 at 23:59:59 UTC; Round 2 will commence on August 1 at 0:00:01 UTC. All reviews must be started after or on the start time of the round. If you qualify for Round 2 but do not complete a review before the end of Round 1, the review can be carried over to Round 2; however that review will not count for Round 1. Prior to the start of the the second round, participants who qualify to move on will be notified. Finally, if you know anyone else that might be interesting in participating, let them know! Sign-ups close on July 15 so there is still plenty of time to join in on the action! If you have any further questions, contact one of the judges or leave a message here. After sign-ups close, check the Pools page as we will post the exact number of participants that will move on to the next round. Because this number will be determined past the halfway mark of Round 1, we encourage you to aim to be in the top 15 as the top 15 at the end of the round are guaranteed to move on. Cheers from 3family6, Dom497, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar and MrWooHoo. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to
our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
|
-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion about implementing some kind of standards for administrative and bureaucrat activity levels; and activity requirements for bureaucrats have been explored several times in the past. I've prepared a draft addition to Wikipedia:Bureaucrats that would require at least one bureaucratic action every five years to retain the bureaucrat permission.
In the past, I've been hesitant of such proposals but I believe that if the bureaucrat group as a whole is seen to be actively engaged, the community may be more willing to grant additional tasks to the position.
Please let me know your thoughts. I'm not sure if this actually applies to any of us, but if you have not acted as a bureaucrat in over five years, you might consider requesting removal of the permission or otherwise signalling that you intend to return to bureaucrat activity. – xeno talk 14:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 8, No. 2 — 2nd Quarter, 2015
Previous issue |
Index |
Next issue
Project At a Glance
As of Q2
2015, the project has:
|
|
Content
|
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm running a Wikipedia editathon next week, and was hoping to be given account creator permission to register new users at the event. Please help me with this process, thank you Jjfloyd ( talk) 20:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Wizardman, it's been a while since I've reached out, but you were very helpful last year in reviewing and moving live a new draft I was proposing for Tucker Eskew's article. I'm hoping you might be able to help with a current project of mine, seeking to update and improve the article for Aubrey McClendon. Similar to Eskew, I'm working as a paid consultant to Mr. McClendon and will not make any edits to the live article myself, instead offering a new draft for review. Two editors ( User:Wilipino and User:Bruin2) have already reviewed the draft, finding it to be an improvement on the current article version. After some discussion with Bruin2 and edits by both of us to my proposed draft—unfortunately Wilipino has not been online since his initial favorable response—I believe the draft is ready to go. Bruin2 wasn't sure how best to take the draft live, and I think what he had in mind is a histmerge. Knowing you've helped move my drafts into live article space before, including a histmerge on my behalf for Gary Loveman, I thought to ask you.
If you're able to help, my draft is here and the original request on the Talk page is here. Let me know if you have any feedback or if you're able to move the draft live in place of the existing version. Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon ( Talk · COI) 16:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Wizardman. I know you're very busy, so sorry for bugging you, but if you could give feedback on whether you believe the CCI for User:Epeefleche should be expanded to include recent edits in light of concerns expressed at User_talk:Epeefleche#Ongoing_close_paraphrasing_concerns, it would be appreciated. I do not know if these issues are widespread; I've seen plenty of valid paraphrase in his work, but did verify that the concerns have some merit, unfortunately. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
A bureaucrat chat has been opened by Maxim at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rich Farmbrough 2/Bureaucrat discussion.
Wikipedia:Bureaucrat discussion suggests notifying bureaucrats on their talk page as well as BN, hence this courtesy note. – xeno talk 16:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!
With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:
Send on behalf of
The Wikipedia Library using
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I would welcome input from other bureaucrats in relation to the outcome of this RfA.
Many thanks,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) for
WJBscribe
(talk)
11:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I have nominated the Tyrone Garland article for featured article review. It may not be long enough, but I am ready to make whatever changes you say are necessary. If you are interested in reviewing it, please initiate the nomination. TempleM ( talk) 15:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 12, May-June 2015
by
The Interior (
talk ·
contribs),
Ocaasi (
talk ·
contribs),
Sadads (
talk ·
contribs),
Nikkimaria (
talk ·
contribs)
The Interior 15:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
![]() | Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Rfaith09 is now complete. Thank you for your assistance in the evaluation of this CCI. |
-- Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
Just giving you a cold one in recognition of your work here. Always appreciated. GamerPro64 01:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC) |
I stumbled upon the RfD discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 September 27#Abbeville, LA μSA while creating an article, and noticed that you deleted Moultrie, GA µSA without a deletion rationale after the discussion closed as "Keep". Could you explain why this page was deleted? If the rationale was "implausible redirect", I'd like to request that you restore the page, given that there was consensus at the linked RfD discussion to keep the page despite those concerns. Thanks for taking a look, and sorry for bringing up an admin action from 2013. It just struck me as odd. ~ Rob Talk 02:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The Editor's Barnstar |
Thank you for approving to add name of Jasveer Jatia in April 11 page of wikipedia jasveerjatia ( talk) 15:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC) |
Dear User,
Tunisian Arabic has been nominated for Wikipedia GA Status. However, no one has reviewed it. So, please review it soon.
Yours Sincerely,
-- Csisc ( talk) 16:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place regarding a proposal to create a community and bureaucrat based desysoping committee. The proposal would modify the position of bureaucrat. Your input is encouraged. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators/RfC for BARC - a community desysoping process. Thank you, -- Hammersoft ( talk) 19:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
![]() Greetings, GA Cup competitors! Wednesday saw the end of Round 1. The Rambling Man, who was eliminated during the first round in our last competition, earned an impressive 513 points, reviewed twice as many articles (26) as any other competitor. It was a tight race for second for first-time competitors BenLinus1214 and Tomandjerry211, who finished second and third with 243 and 224 points, respectively. Close behind was Wugapodes, who earned 205 points. The change in our points system had an impact on scoring. It was easier to earn higher points, although the key to success didn't change from last time, which was choosing articles with older nomination dates. For example, most of the articles The Rambling Man reviewed were worth 18 points in the nomination date category, and he benefited from it. BenLinus1214 reviewed the longest article, A Simple Plan (at 26,536 characters, or 4,477 words), the 1994 film starring Bill Paxton, Billy Bob Thornton, and Bridget Fonda and directed by Sam Raimi, and earned all possible 5 points in that category. After feedback from our participants, the judges slightly changed the rule about review length this time out. Shorter reviews are now allowed, as long as reviewers give nominators an opportunity to address their feedback. Shorter reviews are subject to the judges' discretion; the judges will continue their diligence as we continue the competition. Despite having fewer contestants at the beginning of Round 1 than last time, 132 articles were reviewed, far more than the 117 articles that were reviewed in Round 1 of the inaugural GA Cup. All of us involved should be very proud of what we've accomplished thus far. The judges are certain that Round 2 will be just as successful. 16 contestants have moved onto Round 2 and have been randomly placed in 4 groups of 4, with the top 2 in each pool progressing to Round 3, as well as the top participant ("9th place") of all remaining competitors. Round 2 has already begun and will end on August 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 2 and the pools can be found here. Good luck and remember to have fun! Cheers from Dom497, Figureskatingfan, 3family6 and Jaguar, and MrWooHoo. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to
our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
|
-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 03:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
The article
John Paciorek you nominated as a
good article has been placed on hold
. The article is close to meeting the
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See
Talk:John Paciorek for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Seattle --
Seattle (
talk)
08:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello Books & Bytes subscribers. There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called Citoid. It is designed to "auto-fill" references using a URL or DOI. We would really appreciate you testing whether TWL partners' references work in Citoid. Sharing your results will help the developers fix bugs and improve the system. If you have a few minutes, please visit the testing page for simple instructions on how to try this new tool. Regards, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello Wizardman,
You are receiving this message because you have a one-year subscription to Newspapers.com through the Wikipedia Library. This is a brief update, to remind you about that access:
Finally, we would greatly appreciate it if you filled out this short survey. Your input will help us to facilitate this particular partnership, and to discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.
Thank you,
Wikipedia Library Newspapers.com account coordinator HazelAB ( talk) 12:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The Running Man Barnstar | |
Hey Wizardman, just a quick barnstar to say thanks for the many reviews of Boat Race articles you've conducted over the past year. As of this morning, I completed my (initial) goal of ensuing that every Boat Race had, not only its own article, but one that was either of GA or FA status: we now have 158 GAs and 3 FAs that we can all be proud of! It doesn't stop here, for me at least, I'm going to keep up with improving the quality of the GAs and look for more FA opportunities. Plus, there's the small matter of 70 Women's Boat Race articles to get up and running! But thanks again, I couldn't have done it without your help. The Rambling Man ( talk) 15:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC) |
| Hello, Wizardman. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Oliver Kuhn at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Mini apolis 19:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC) |
Hello, I noticed you critically reviewed the use of images in "Peru national football team" shortly before it obtained FA-status. At this moment its Belgian counterpart is awaiting GA review. In my opinion, the article is GA-worthy, likely even FA according to the criteria. Any suggestion of yours could contribute towards FA, so I invite you to take a look. Regards, Kareldorado ( talk) 15:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
The article
John Paciorek you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:John Paciorek for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can
nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Eurodyne --
Eurodyne (
talk)
19:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
The second round one has all wrapped up, and round three has now begun! Congratulations to the 34 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our second round. Leading the way overall was
Cas Liber (
submissions) in Group B with a total of 777 points for a variety of contributions including Good Articles on
Corona Borealis and
Microscopium - both of which received the maximum bonus.
Special credit must be given to a number of high importance articles improved during the second round.
The points varied across groups, with the lowest score required to gain automatic qualification was 68 in Group A - meanwhile the second place score in Group H was 404, which would have been high enough to win all but one of the other Groups! As well as the top two of each group automatically going through to the third round, a minimum score of 55 was required for a wildcard competitor to go through. We had a three-way tie at 55 points and all three have qualified for the next round, in the spirit of fairness. The third round ends on June 28, with the top two in each group progressing automatically while the remaining 16 highest scorers across all four groups go through as wildcards. Good luck to all competitors for the third round! Figureskatingfan ( talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa ( talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 ( talk · contribs · email) 16:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 11, March-April 2015
by
The Interior (
talk ·
contribs),
Ocaasi (
talk ·
contribs),
Sadads (
talk ·
contribs),
Nikkimaria (
talk ·
contribs)
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Dear Wizardman,
I would like to apologize for not having participated in the reviewing process of the article I nominated for GA category. I was absent during that period due to personal and professional reasons, and only now I was able to return to Wikipedia.
I deeply thank your insights on the article. I will have them in consideration while I continue to develop and improve it. I hope sometime soon it will be ready for another review.
Best regards,
SOAD KoRn ( talk) 02:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Might want to also delete Fabio Martinez and Fabio Martínez Mesa.-- Yankees10 17:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Please check out my additions to the above linked discussion and the article in question. (Please answer here, if necessary, I'll watchlist it.) Kraxler ( talk) 13:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
![]() Greetings, all! We would like to announce the start of the 2nd GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Our inaugural competition, which ran from October 2014 to April 2015, was such a resounding success that we'd like to do it again. Currently, there are over 500 GANs ready to be reviewed; competitors in the previous GA Cup reviewed about 570 GAs, so we can again make a huge impact in helping editors improve articles in Wikipedia and decrease the traditionally long queue at GAN. The 2nd GA Cup will begin on July 1, 2015. As last time, five rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on November 28, 2015), but this may change based on participant numbers. The judges learned a lot during the 1st GA Cup which exposed weaknesses in its system. Using both the feedback from last year's participants and the weaknesses discovered, we've revised the scoring system to make it more fair. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same. We also are introducing three new judges: 3family6, Jaguar and MrWooHoo. So in total, there will be six judges. We hope this will allow the competition to run more smoothly. Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on July 15, 2015. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now! If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the judges. Cheers from 3family6, Dom497, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar and MrWooHoo, and TheQ Editor. |
-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Good evening Wizardman, you deleted Template:WPMLB without WP:RFD. Any reason for doing so? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 02:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
For your holding us to proper GA standards, in the delisting of the Badugi game article. Cheers. Le Prof 71.201.62.200 ( talk) 19:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC) |
The Wikipedia Library is expanding, and we need your help! With only a couple of hours per week, you can make a big difference in helping editors get access to reliable sources and other resources. Sign up for one of the following roles:
Delivered on behalf of The Wikipedia Library by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
![]() Welcome to the GA Cup! In less than 72 hours, the competition will begin! Before you all start reviewing nominations and reassessments we want to make sure you understand the following:
Also, rather than creating a long list on what to remember, make sure you have read the "Scoring", "Submissions", and "FAQ" pages. Now some of you are probably wondering how on earth the rounds will work. The rounds will work in a similar fashion as the previous competition, with the exception of the first round. Round 1 will have everyone compete in one big pool. Depending on the final number of participants after sign-ups close, a to-be-determined number of participants will move on (highest scorers will move on) to Round 2. We guarantee that the top 15 will move on (this number may change), so make sure you aim for those top positions! Moving on to Round 2, participants will be split into pools. The pools will be determined by a computer program that places participants by random. More details regarding Round 2 will be sent out at the end of Round 1. It is important to note that the GA Cup will run on UTC time, so make sure you know what time that is for where you live! On that note, the GA Cup will start on July 1 at 0:00:01 UTC; Round 1 will end on July 29 at 23:59:59 UTC; Round 2 will commence on August 1 at 0:00:01 UTC. All reviews must be started after or on the start time of the round. If you qualify for Round 2 but do not complete a review before the end of Round 1, the review can be carried over to Round 2; however that review will not count for Round 1. Prior to the start of the the second round, participants who qualify to move on will be notified. Finally, if you know anyone else that might be interesting in participating, let them know! Sign-ups close on July 15 so there is still plenty of time to join in on the action! If you have any further questions, contact one of the judges or leave a message here. After sign-ups close, check the Pools page as we will post the exact number of participants that will move on to the next round. Because this number will be determined past the halfway mark of Round 1, we encourage you to aim to be in the top 15 as the top 15 at the end of the round are guaranteed to move on. Cheers from 3family6, Dom497, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar and MrWooHoo. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to
our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
|
-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion about implementing some kind of standards for administrative and bureaucrat activity levels; and activity requirements for bureaucrats have been explored several times in the past. I've prepared a draft addition to Wikipedia:Bureaucrats that would require at least one bureaucratic action every five years to retain the bureaucrat permission.
In the past, I've been hesitant of such proposals but I believe that if the bureaucrat group as a whole is seen to be actively engaged, the community may be more willing to grant additional tasks to the position.
Please let me know your thoughts. I'm not sure if this actually applies to any of us, but if you have not acted as a bureaucrat in over five years, you might consider requesting removal of the permission or otherwise signalling that you intend to return to bureaucrat activity. – xeno talk 14:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 8, No. 2 — 2nd Quarter, 2015
Previous issue |
Index |
Next issue
Project At a Glance
As of Q2
2015, the project has:
|
|
Content
|
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm running a Wikipedia editathon next week, and was hoping to be given account creator permission to register new users at the event. Please help me with this process, thank you Jjfloyd ( talk) 20:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Wizardman, it's been a while since I've reached out, but you were very helpful last year in reviewing and moving live a new draft I was proposing for Tucker Eskew's article. I'm hoping you might be able to help with a current project of mine, seeking to update and improve the article for Aubrey McClendon. Similar to Eskew, I'm working as a paid consultant to Mr. McClendon and will not make any edits to the live article myself, instead offering a new draft for review. Two editors ( User:Wilipino and User:Bruin2) have already reviewed the draft, finding it to be an improvement on the current article version. After some discussion with Bruin2 and edits by both of us to my proposed draft—unfortunately Wilipino has not been online since his initial favorable response—I believe the draft is ready to go. Bruin2 wasn't sure how best to take the draft live, and I think what he had in mind is a histmerge. Knowing you've helped move my drafts into live article space before, including a histmerge on my behalf for Gary Loveman, I thought to ask you.
If you're able to help, my draft is here and the original request on the Talk page is here. Let me know if you have any feedback or if you're able to move the draft live in place of the existing version. Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon ( Talk · COI) 16:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Wizardman. I know you're very busy, so sorry for bugging you, but if you could give feedback on whether you believe the CCI for User:Epeefleche should be expanded to include recent edits in light of concerns expressed at User_talk:Epeefleche#Ongoing_close_paraphrasing_concerns, it would be appreciated. I do not know if these issues are widespread; I've seen plenty of valid paraphrase in his work, but did verify that the concerns have some merit, unfortunately. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
A bureaucrat chat has been opened by Maxim at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rich Farmbrough 2/Bureaucrat discussion.
Wikipedia:Bureaucrat discussion suggests notifying bureaucrats on their talk page as well as BN, hence this courtesy note. – xeno talk 16:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!
With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:
Send on behalf of
The Wikipedia Library using
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I would welcome input from other bureaucrats in relation to the outcome of this RfA.
Many thanks,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) for
WJBscribe
(talk)
11:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I have nominated the Tyrone Garland article for featured article review. It may not be long enough, but I am ready to make whatever changes you say are necessary. If you are interested in reviewing it, please initiate the nomination. TempleM ( talk) 15:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 12, May-June 2015
by
The Interior (
talk ·
contribs),
Ocaasi (
talk ·
contribs),
Sadads (
talk ·
contribs),
Nikkimaria (
talk ·
contribs)
The Interior 15:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
![]() | Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Rfaith09 is now complete. Thank you for your assistance in the evaluation of this CCI. |
-- Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
Just giving you a cold one in recognition of your work here. Always appreciated. GamerPro64 01:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC) |
I stumbled upon the RfD discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 September 27#Abbeville, LA μSA while creating an article, and noticed that you deleted Moultrie, GA µSA without a deletion rationale after the discussion closed as "Keep". Could you explain why this page was deleted? If the rationale was "implausible redirect", I'd like to request that you restore the page, given that there was consensus at the linked RfD discussion to keep the page despite those concerns. Thanks for taking a look, and sorry for bringing up an admin action from 2013. It just struck me as odd. ~ Rob Talk 02:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The Editor's Barnstar |
Thank you for approving to add name of Jasveer Jatia in April 11 page of wikipedia jasveerjatia ( talk) 15:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC) |
Dear User,
Tunisian Arabic has been nominated for Wikipedia GA Status. However, no one has reviewed it. So, please review it soon.
Yours Sincerely,
-- Csisc ( talk) 16:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place regarding a proposal to create a community and bureaucrat based desysoping committee. The proposal would modify the position of bureaucrat. Your input is encouraged. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators/RfC for BARC - a community desysoping process. Thank you, -- Hammersoft ( talk) 19:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
![]() Greetings, GA Cup competitors! Wednesday saw the end of Round 1. The Rambling Man, who was eliminated during the first round in our last competition, earned an impressive 513 points, reviewed twice as many articles (26) as any other competitor. It was a tight race for second for first-time competitors BenLinus1214 and Tomandjerry211, who finished second and third with 243 and 224 points, respectively. Close behind was Wugapodes, who earned 205 points. The change in our points system had an impact on scoring. It was easier to earn higher points, although the key to success didn't change from last time, which was choosing articles with older nomination dates. For example, most of the articles The Rambling Man reviewed were worth 18 points in the nomination date category, and he benefited from it. BenLinus1214 reviewed the longest article, A Simple Plan (at 26,536 characters, or 4,477 words), the 1994 film starring Bill Paxton, Billy Bob Thornton, and Bridget Fonda and directed by Sam Raimi, and earned all possible 5 points in that category. After feedback from our participants, the judges slightly changed the rule about review length this time out. Shorter reviews are now allowed, as long as reviewers give nominators an opportunity to address their feedback. Shorter reviews are subject to the judges' discretion; the judges will continue their diligence as we continue the competition. Despite having fewer contestants at the beginning of Round 1 than last time, 132 articles were reviewed, far more than the 117 articles that were reviewed in Round 1 of the inaugural GA Cup. All of us involved should be very proud of what we've accomplished thus far. The judges are certain that Round 2 will be just as successful. 16 contestants have moved onto Round 2 and have been randomly placed in 4 groups of 4, with the top 2 in each pool progressing to Round 3, as well as the top participant ("9th place") of all remaining competitors. Round 2 has already begun and will end on August 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 2 and the pools can be found here. Good luck and remember to have fun! Cheers from Dom497, Figureskatingfan, 3family6 and Jaguar, and MrWooHoo. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to
our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
|
-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 03:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)