![]() | 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 judges are expected to keep the participants both within the letter and spirit of the rules.
At the moment, the rules seem to be getting bent left and right.
I have made every attempt to participate ethically, take only such credits as I feel I deserve, and expected other participants to hold themselves to similar rules.
Requests to claim points from May in the final round (accepted until I, having noticed the start of the discussion, but not the approval, made a fuss here), done behind other contestant's backs; multiple passes over large sets of articles to add categories individually, and other such things are not in the spirit of the rules.
I can accept that there may be a few more tenuous connections. However, it now appears the judges are encouraging attempts to try claiming things under whatever grounds you might want. I myself, after discussing what I thought was a fair retribution for work (3 out of 9 FSes in a set I did massive documentation work on) have been told to take all 9.
I'm having extreme doubts about the cup, and would like assurance from the judges they intend to scrutinise all contributions - including mine - ask questions, and make decisions, not by the letter of the rules, but the spirit.
Otherwise, I would ask to be withdrawn. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 210 FCs served 17:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Due to the fact that Theleftorium removed items from his submission page that he did not significantly work on, he has dropped to only 4 points below Durova. He offered his spot to Durova, to which it seems she accepted. However, after talking with Garden, we agree it's not very fair to eliminate Theleftorium due to a 4 point difference! We're going to allow both Durova and Theleftorium compete in the final part of the round. Good luck to all! iMatthew talk at 19:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I'm here tyo ask permission to create the Winter WikiCup a WikiCup created for the winter. It'll have the same rules as the WikiCup, but will operate on November 23 through January 15 (or October 21 through December 25). The reason I'm asking for permission is to help those who want to do the WikiCup all year and to know I can create it with the judges agreeing on it. So what do you think? Please respond ASAP. Secret Saturdays ( talk) 00:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Some of the fungal DYKs I've written are being sequestered for use on Oct 31st. Just letting everyone know, I plan to take "early credit" for these, once they have been approved. Sasata ( talk) 16:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Both were fairly easy documentation tasks, little more. My inclination is not to claim them, but I might rescind on this if everyone else is claiming similar. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 213 FCs served 04:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey guys. In light of Garden and THO's absences, and the likelyhood that THO will not return to judging next year, the three of us have agreed on User:J Milburn as our newest judge. J has agreed to join our team, so make him feel welcome; and just know that if you need help with something, and the rest of us aren't around, he can help you. :) iMatthew talk at 19:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I thought we ought to have a newsletter. There was a half-completed one I discovered (didn't have jumps finished, etc),which was never released. I've finished it up below. The judges may feel free to copy-paste this into Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/33 (replacing the half-finished one, and have it distributed.
It's as accurate as I could make it, which, given the number of apologies we've had over mistakes in the newsletter, is probably as good as the judges could do. =P Shoemaker's Holiday Over 213 FCs served 20:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The WikiCup Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
When the WikiCup began I made a commitment not to claim points for any images I nominated unless I had actually edited them. Shoemaker's Holiday made the same commitment also. It is possible to gain nominator credits for "freebies": FP quality images from other websites that require no other effort than upload, captioning, and nomination. If Shoemaker and I had done that we would be several thousand points ahead of everyone else, but the Cup wouldn't have been very sporting.
There could be reasonable exceptions such as translation for a text FP nomination. If anyone wants to try here's a newspaper cover from the Mexican revolution. [1]
Today I was going through historic archives and located a two sided campaign button from the US Presidential campaign of 1860. It was the sort of thing that could have been restored, but in relation to the text at a photography article it was better not to.
Similar questions have arisen before, and I haven't wanted to cause strife by pointing any fingers, but it appears that one editor who had points subtracted for "freebie" FPs before is again nominating and claiming point credit for that type of material. Am I mistaken? And can we have a clear statement on this please?
I am perfectly willing to not claim credit for the Lincoln and Hamlin campaign button; it was something that turned up in passing during a search for other content. But we deserve a level playing field. On the whole, it would be better if the Cup finals were decided upon something other than one's vigor at archive-delving and the patience of uninvolved FP reviewers. Durova 322 19:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi guys, Garden and THO have notified me that they're really busy IRL and have become increasingly inactive. Being that I have a life as well, things are going a lot slower (newsletter for example) than usual. It's likely I'm going to ask someone to step in and help out while the other two judges are away. Cheers, iMatthew talk at 21:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
We're at AN/I. Don't worry, it's not a bad thing, and this is by no means "canvassing" (there really isn't anything to canvass). Opinions welcome. GARDEN 21:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to throw out an idea... How about we declare this competition a 5-way tie, with Wikipedia as the ultimate winner? I can see several advantages:
Am I missing anything? Sasata ( talk) 18:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi guys. To make sure this final part of the round is completely fair, I went looking through all of your submissions. I've compiled individual lists of the items I found on your pages that I'm not sure of why you deserve credit for them. Below my lists, please explain why you deserve credit for them. Note that nomination somebody else's work, even if it passes, is not an acceptable reason
So like I said, it would be very helpful if you guys could give an explanation as to why I shouldn't remove these items from your submission pages. I'm sorry I did this, but I want to keep this completely fair, especially in the last round. iMatthew talk at 18:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, are these newsletter refs to a top 5: "In this round of the WikiCup, the bottom three contestants of the top eight were eliminated on September 30th, while the top five are continuing for an additional month. On October 31, a winner will be announced.
Top 5" Room for a late late wild card?
Ϣere SpielChequers 20:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I propose that we could add "Upload Pictures" as a way to earn points but have that points low (such as 1-2.5) and that pictures from our sister projects won't be allowed. Please respond ASAP. Secret Saturdays ( talk) 21:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Another Cup finalist has challenged my illustration restorations, so posting proactively regarding a project currently underway. Awedewit, who is writing a doctoral dissertation on children's literature, is planning to use three of my restorations for a class she is teaching. Wikipedia currently has no featured picture of Randolph Caldecott's work, so I am restoring this image as a courtesy to her. When completed this will run at FPC, but if the judges object to awarding Cup credit for this that's okay. Durova 331 02:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I propose that we should creat a limit to how much members will sign up. It's clear that we have more participants than before, so we should limit it between 165-200. Secret Saturdays ( talk) 02:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi everyone. Due to the large amount of competitors we have next year, we're looking for at least one, if not two more judges for the WikiCup. As I've mentioned, Thehelpfulone will not be returning next year, and we've hired J Milburn to take his spot for the remainder of this year as well as next year. But, we still would like to expand our team to four. Anybody that's interested in helping out next year by judging can leave a message here or on my talk page. Regards, iMatthew talk at 18:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm intersted in being a judge but I want to participate, so how about when I drop out, I can judge. Secret Saturdays ( talk) 18:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll help as well, if needed. I'm fairly likely to withdraw my name from next year's participation list anyway. – Juliancolton | Talk 20:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
... of FP points cometh... it is unstoppable. A early congratulations from me on your Wikicup victory Durova (although it was Wikipedia who was the real winner, dontcha think?). I am now returning to "regular" editing, and look forward to next year's cup, and Durova's retirement :) Sasata ( talk) 03:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Just to remind you all, the round ends tonight at 0:00 (UTC). You may not submit any content after that time, even though the bot doesn't update until an hour later. iMatthew talk at 19:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
The 2009 WikiCup is now over! As soon as the bot makes it's next update, you'll see a new announcement. Awards and the final newsletter will be given out tomorrow, so get ready! Congratulations to all! iMatthew talk at 00:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations to Durova, 2009 WikiCup Queen! :) iMatthew talk at 00:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Literature beat Mushrooms, Storms, Roads, Wrestling, Simpsons, etc etc etc. Woooooooo! Ottava Rima ( talk) 01:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
In Durova's honor, we're retiring the Mexico flag. The Mexico flag will never again be used by another WikiCup contestant. Congratulations again Durova! iMatthew talk at 01:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I am currently working to improve the dermatology-related content on wikipedia, and thought maybe those of you who are looking to score points in the next session of WikiCup could help yourselves and the dermatology task force at the same time. Currently, we at WP:DERM are working on the Bolognia push 2009, and there are still a lot of stubs to be made. Perhaps some of you would consider helping us with this effort, edits which I am sure could count towards your WikiCup standings? Just an idea I thought I would through out there. --- kilbad ( talk) 20:27, 3 November 2009 (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 judges are expected to keep the participants both within the letter and spirit of the rules.
At the moment, the rules seem to be getting bent left and right.
I have made every attempt to participate ethically, take only such credits as I feel I deserve, and expected other participants to hold themselves to similar rules.
Requests to claim points from May in the final round (accepted until I, having noticed the start of the discussion, but not the approval, made a fuss here), done behind other contestant's backs; multiple passes over large sets of articles to add categories individually, and other such things are not in the spirit of the rules.
I can accept that there may be a few more tenuous connections. However, it now appears the judges are encouraging attempts to try claiming things under whatever grounds you might want. I myself, after discussing what I thought was a fair retribution for work (3 out of 9 FSes in a set I did massive documentation work on) have been told to take all 9.
I'm having extreme doubts about the cup, and would like assurance from the judges they intend to scrutinise all contributions - including mine - ask questions, and make decisions, not by the letter of the rules, but the spirit.
Otherwise, I would ask to be withdrawn. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 210 FCs served 17:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Due to the fact that Theleftorium removed items from his submission page that he did not significantly work on, he has dropped to only 4 points below Durova. He offered his spot to Durova, to which it seems she accepted. However, after talking with Garden, we agree it's not very fair to eliminate Theleftorium due to a 4 point difference! We're going to allow both Durova and Theleftorium compete in the final part of the round. Good luck to all! iMatthew talk at 19:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I'm here tyo ask permission to create the Winter WikiCup a WikiCup created for the winter. It'll have the same rules as the WikiCup, but will operate on November 23 through January 15 (or October 21 through December 25). The reason I'm asking for permission is to help those who want to do the WikiCup all year and to know I can create it with the judges agreeing on it. So what do you think? Please respond ASAP. Secret Saturdays ( talk) 00:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Some of the fungal DYKs I've written are being sequestered for use on Oct 31st. Just letting everyone know, I plan to take "early credit" for these, once they have been approved. Sasata ( talk) 16:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Both were fairly easy documentation tasks, little more. My inclination is not to claim them, but I might rescind on this if everyone else is claiming similar. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 213 FCs served 04:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey guys. In light of Garden and THO's absences, and the likelyhood that THO will not return to judging next year, the three of us have agreed on User:J Milburn as our newest judge. J has agreed to join our team, so make him feel welcome; and just know that if you need help with something, and the rest of us aren't around, he can help you. :) iMatthew talk at 19:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I thought we ought to have a newsletter. There was a half-completed one I discovered (didn't have jumps finished, etc),which was never released. I've finished it up below. The judges may feel free to copy-paste this into Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/33 (replacing the half-finished one, and have it distributed.
It's as accurate as I could make it, which, given the number of apologies we've had over mistakes in the newsletter, is probably as good as the judges could do. =P Shoemaker's Holiday Over 213 FCs served 20:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The WikiCup Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
When the WikiCup began I made a commitment not to claim points for any images I nominated unless I had actually edited them. Shoemaker's Holiday made the same commitment also. It is possible to gain nominator credits for "freebies": FP quality images from other websites that require no other effort than upload, captioning, and nomination. If Shoemaker and I had done that we would be several thousand points ahead of everyone else, but the Cup wouldn't have been very sporting.
There could be reasonable exceptions such as translation for a text FP nomination. If anyone wants to try here's a newspaper cover from the Mexican revolution. [1]
Today I was going through historic archives and located a two sided campaign button from the US Presidential campaign of 1860. It was the sort of thing that could have been restored, but in relation to the text at a photography article it was better not to.
Similar questions have arisen before, and I haven't wanted to cause strife by pointing any fingers, but it appears that one editor who had points subtracted for "freebie" FPs before is again nominating and claiming point credit for that type of material. Am I mistaken? And can we have a clear statement on this please?
I am perfectly willing to not claim credit for the Lincoln and Hamlin campaign button; it was something that turned up in passing during a search for other content. But we deserve a level playing field. On the whole, it would be better if the Cup finals were decided upon something other than one's vigor at archive-delving and the patience of uninvolved FP reviewers. Durova 322 19:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi guys, Garden and THO have notified me that they're really busy IRL and have become increasingly inactive. Being that I have a life as well, things are going a lot slower (newsletter for example) than usual. It's likely I'm going to ask someone to step in and help out while the other two judges are away. Cheers, iMatthew talk at 21:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
We're at AN/I. Don't worry, it's not a bad thing, and this is by no means "canvassing" (there really isn't anything to canvass). Opinions welcome. GARDEN 21:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to throw out an idea... How about we declare this competition a 5-way tie, with Wikipedia as the ultimate winner? I can see several advantages:
Am I missing anything? Sasata ( talk) 18:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi guys. To make sure this final part of the round is completely fair, I went looking through all of your submissions. I've compiled individual lists of the items I found on your pages that I'm not sure of why you deserve credit for them. Below my lists, please explain why you deserve credit for them. Note that nomination somebody else's work, even if it passes, is not an acceptable reason
So like I said, it would be very helpful if you guys could give an explanation as to why I shouldn't remove these items from your submission pages. I'm sorry I did this, but I want to keep this completely fair, especially in the last round. iMatthew talk at 18:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, are these newsletter refs to a top 5: "In this round of the WikiCup, the bottom three contestants of the top eight were eliminated on September 30th, while the top five are continuing for an additional month. On October 31, a winner will be announced.
Top 5" Room for a late late wild card?
Ϣere SpielChequers 20:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I propose that we could add "Upload Pictures" as a way to earn points but have that points low (such as 1-2.5) and that pictures from our sister projects won't be allowed. Please respond ASAP. Secret Saturdays ( talk) 21:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Another Cup finalist has challenged my illustration restorations, so posting proactively regarding a project currently underway. Awedewit, who is writing a doctoral dissertation on children's literature, is planning to use three of my restorations for a class she is teaching. Wikipedia currently has no featured picture of Randolph Caldecott's work, so I am restoring this image as a courtesy to her. When completed this will run at FPC, but if the judges object to awarding Cup credit for this that's okay. Durova 331 02:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I propose that we should creat a limit to how much members will sign up. It's clear that we have more participants than before, so we should limit it between 165-200. Secret Saturdays ( talk) 02:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi everyone. Due to the large amount of competitors we have next year, we're looking for at least one, if not two more judges for the WikiCup. As I've mentioned, Thehelpfulone will not be returning next year, and we've hired J Milburn to take his spot for the remainder of this year as well as next year. But, we still would like to expand our team to four. Anybody that's interested in helping out next year by judging can leave a message here or on my talk page. Regards, iMatthew talk at 18:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm intersted in being a judge but I want to participate, so how about when I drop out, I can judge. Secret Saturdays ( talk) 18:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll help as well, if needed. I'm fairly likely to withdraw my name from next year's participation list anyway. – Juliancolton | Talk 20:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
... of FP points cometh... it is unstoppable. A early congratulations from me on your Wikicup victory Durova (although it was Wikipedia who was the real winner, dontcha think?). I am now returning to "regular" editing, and look forward to next year's cup, and Durova's retirement :) Sasata ( talk) 03:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Just to remind you all, the round ends tonight at 0:00 (UTC). You may not submit any content after that time, even though the bot doesn't update until an hour later. iMatthew talk at 19:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
The 2009 WikiCup is now over! As soon as the bot makes it's next update, you'll see a new announcement. Awards and the final newsletter will be given out tomorrow, so get ready! Congratulations to all! iMatthew talk at 00:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations to Durova, 2009 WikiCup Queen! :) iMatthew talk at 00:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Literature beat Mushrooms, Storms, Roads, Wrestling, Simpsons, etc etc etc. Woooooooo! Ottava Rima ( talk) 01:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
In Durova's honor, we're retiring the Mexico flag. The Mexico flag will never again be used by another WikiCup contestant. Congratulations again Durova! iMatthew talk at 01:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I am currently working to improve the dermatology-related content on wikipedia, and thought maybe those of you who are looking to score points in the next session of WikiCup could help yourselves and the dermatology task force at the same time. Currently, we at WP:DERM are working on the Bolognia push 2009, and there are still a lot of stubs to be made. Perhaps some of you would consider helping us with this effort, edits which I am sure could count towards your WikiCup standings? Just an idea I thought I would through out there. --- kilbad ( talk) 20:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)