User talk:Jezhotwells/Archive 10

Thanks for uploading File:Logobig2.gif, which you've sourced to Geoff Mayo. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 17:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Logobig2.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of rock formations in the United Kingdom regarding the scope of the list and a proposal, because of your edits to Avon Gorge, a listed item. --21:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Jezhotwells. You have new messages at Talk:SimSig.
Message added 00:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Osarius Talk 00:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jezhotwells. We are working in an undergrad Theatre course at Louisiana State University and are creating four new articles on the plays we are studying. We have drafted them in our sandboxes and hope to move to live in the next week or so. We are all first-time WP contributors and are looking for someone to give us feedback on our articles. We know they are not Good-Article status, but our objective is to get solid information up so these plays have a place on WP. Would you be interested in helping? If so, I'll send you links to our four sandbox articles. Thanks! --Rburdette (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I have nominated the article May Revolution for FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/May Revolution/archive4. As you made a review of the article in the past, it would be useful if you could check it again, as it is an obscure topic outside of Argentina and previous nominatons did not atract enough reviewers. All comments are welcome. Cambalachero (talk) 02:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

We are over half way through the second round of this year's WikiCup and things are going well! Grapple X (submissions), of Pool B, is our highest overall scorer thanks to his prolific writings on television and film. In second place is Pool H's Cwmhiraeth (submissions), thanks primarily to work on biological articles, especially in marine biology and herpetology. Third place goes to Pool E's Casliber (submissions), who also writes primarily on biology (including ornithology and botany) and has already submitted two featured articles this round. Of the 63 contestants remaining, 15 (just under a quarter) have over 100 points this round. However, 25 are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly. 32 contestants, the top two from each pool and the 16 next-highest scorers, will advance to round 3.

Congratulations to Matthewedwards (submissions), whose impressive File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg became the competition's first featured picture. Also, congratulations to 12george1 (submissions), who claimed good topic points, our first contestant this year to do so, for his work on Wikipedia:Featured topics/1982 Atlantic hurricane season. This leaves featured topics and featured portals as the only sources of points not yet utilised. However, as recent statistics from Miyagawa (submissions) show, no source has yet been utilised this competition to the same extent it has been previously!

It has been observed that the backlogs at good article candidates are building up again. While the points for good article reviews will be remaining constant, any help that can be offered keeping the backlog down would be appreciated. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, 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 receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

• Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
  • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
  • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited List of theatres in Bristol, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Show of Strength and Redcliffe Hall (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

	The Citation Barnstar
	Thank you for properly sourcing the Atari article! ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the recognition. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Round 2 of this year's WikiCup is over, and so we are down to our final 32, in what could be called our quarter-finals. The two highest scorers from each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers overall, have entered round 3, while 30 participants have been eliminated. Pool B's Grapple X (submissions) remains our top scorer with over 700 points; he continues to gain high numbers of points for his good articles on The X-Files, but also Millennium and other subjects. He has also gained points for a good topic, a featured list, multiple good article reviews and several did you knows. Pool E's Casliber (submissions) was second, thanks primarily to his biology articles, with Pool H's Muboshgu (submissions) coming in third, with an impressive 46 did you knows, mostly on the subject of baseball. Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both scored over 600 points. Pools E and H proved our most successful, with each seeing 5 members qualify for round 3, while Pools C and D were the least, with each seeing only 3 reach round 3. However, it was Pool G which saw the lowest scoring, with a little under 400 points combined; Pool H, the highest scoring group, saw over triple that score.

65 points was the lowest qualifying score for round 3; significantly higher than the 11 required to enter round 2, and also higher than the 41 required to reach round 3 last year. However, in 2010, 100 points were needed to secure a place in round 3. 16 will progress to round 4. In round 3, 150 points was the 16th highest score, though, statistically, people tend to up their game a little in later rounds. Last year, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 points were needed. Guessing how many points will be required is not easy. We still have not seen any featured portals or topics this year, but, on the subject of less common content types, a small correction needs to be made to the previous newsletter: File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg, our first featured picture, was the work of both Matthewedwards (submissions) and Grandiose (submissions), the latter of whom has also gone on to score with File:Map of the Battle of Guam, 1944.svg. Bonus points also continue to roll in; this round, Ealdgyth (submissions) earned triple points for her good articles on William the Conqueror and the Middle Ages, Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both earned triple points for their work on Western Jackdaw, now a good article, Dana Boomer (submissions) earned triple points for her work on lettuce and work by Stone (submissions) to ready antimony for good article status earned him triple points. Jarry1250 (submissions) managed to expand Vitus Bering far enough for a did you know, which was also worth triple points. All of these highly important topics featured on 50 or more Wikipedias at the start of the year.

An article on the WikiCup in the Wikimedia Blog, "Improving Wikipedia with friendly competition", was posted at the end of April. This may be of interest to those who are signed up to this newsletter, as well as serving as another way to draw attention to our project. Also, we would again like to thank Jarry1250 (submissions) and Stone (submissions), for continued help behind the scenes. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it 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 receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

You may also wish to review the Times 100 articles for previous years. I feel they share the same copyright issues as the 2012 article. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

..but would you be able to tackle some of these Singapore law articles at GAN? I've done a couple, but they're pretty technically heavy and it's taken a lot of effort on my part to do them. No one else seems to care about the backlog anymore, so thought I'd try you though I haven't seen you much at GAN these days. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the Bow Back Rivers review. I think I have now fixed the issues raised. Bob1960evens (talk) 23:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Wildwood (novel) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the good article reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Intermission (AfD discussion)

I'm picking on you at random from the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Theatre. What can you write about intermissions? Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 19:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Jezhotwells for your review of Astral Weeks and I will be working to address all issues you have raised. I may have to wait to have more time in a day or two to do most of the work, but I will put time aside and finish up within the time frame. Thanks Again! Agadant (talk) 23:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi again! Checking in to let you know I've finished working on the issues of the review except for a question about the legacy in the lead. I'll be happy to do whatever additional work you think may be needed. Agadant (talk) 04:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Added the last bit to the lead tonight about the live tour and releases 40 years later - It appeared like that was something important that was missing. Hopefully I've now addressed all issues satisfactorily and will watch for further notice from you. :) Agadant (talk) 02:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your time and effort in reviewing and promoting this article! Your suggestions were just what were needed to polish it up. Whew! I've worked on it off and on for over 5 years, so tremendously excited to see it get to this milestone and promoted by one of the most outstanding, experienced Wiki reviewers - Yourself! Cheers and Thanks Again! Agadant (talk) 14:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

You're in the GA thing a lot. Can you please weigh in here? I would be bold and delist it myself… Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I have commented at the GAR page. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your review of the Clifton Antiquarian Club. Anne (talk) 02:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

NP. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Please continue / finalise the review. --FocalPoint (talk) 15:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

On 18 May 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mayor of Bristol, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Bristol was the only one of the ten cities in England and Wales to have mayoral referendums on 3 May 2012 which voted to switch to a directly elected mayor? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mayor of Bristol.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added 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.

Yngvadottir (talk) 16:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I know you've had issues over the approach taken by TeacherA (talk · contribs) previously and—after a year's absence—he's back with the same, rather erratic approach. I've started a thread at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#TeacherA and I'd be very glad to hear your thoughts on his approach. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

We're halfway through round 3 (or the quarter finals, if you prefer) and things are running smoothly. We're seeing very high scoring; as of the time of writing, the top 16 all have over 90 points. This has already proved to be more competative than this time last year- in 2011, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 was the lowest qualifying score. People have also upped their game slightly from last round, which is to be expected as we approach the end of the competition. Leading Pool A is Cwmhiraeth (submissions), whose points have mostly come from a large number of did you knows on marine biology. Pool B's leader, Grapple X (submissions), is for the first time not our highest scorer at the time of newsletter publication, but his good articles on The X-Files and Millenium keep him in second place overall. Miyagawa (submissions) leads Pool C, our quietest pool, with content in a variety of areas on a variety of topics. Pool D is led by Casliber (submissions), our current overall leader. Nearly half of Casliber's points come from his triple-scored Western Jackdaw, which is now a featured article.

This round has seen an unusually high number of featured lists, with nearly one in five remaining participants claiming one, and one user, Muboshgu (submissions), claiming two. Miyagawa's featured list, 1936 Summer Olympics medal table, was even awarded double points. By comparison, good article reviews seem to be playing a smaller part, and featured topics portals remain two content-types still unutilised in this competition. Other than that, there isn't much to say! Things are coming along smoothly. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have to agree with you. The nominator's responses and edits to the article do not inspire confidence. I've made some more comments and will leave a note for the nominator, but I fear that a fail is in the cards. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• I was going to ask you to have a look at Common eland, which was promoted to GA by this editor, and then I saw on their talk page (a litany of complaints and templates) that they have been banned from GA reviewing, which is fair. Drmies (talk) 15:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
• I see what happened there: it was re-reviewed. Still, I have some questions about GA2 that I left there. Drmies (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey Jez. Just letting you know of the upcoming GA drive in a few days. Hopefully you can join, since you're usually one of the most prolific reviewers when the going gets tough, plus the backlog is worse than ever (it's gotten me disenfranchised with reviewing). Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Jezhotwells. I was wondering if you can take a look at the Six Million Crucifixions page. Someone added a new section with a bunch of references but Orange Mike, who had responded to my Editor Request post, came back to the page and once again excised the whole section. I posted a comment on the page's Talk page, to no avail so far. Orange Mike has been cutting stuff out of this page for months now. I'd like to make this a good page, so if there are one or more references that are unacceptable to Wikipedia then let's remove them, instead of an entire section where the objectionable references are posted. Can you help in this by restoring the section someone named Kabel added minus whatever objectionable links are in there, and then hopefully we can remove the label on top of the page? I'm willing to work with Orange Mike or any other editor, but I need guidance and not indiscriminate cutting. Thanks! Esautomatix (talk) 00:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

So try talking to orange Mike. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I did. But he is neither providing constructive criticism nor doing any editing other than reflexive cutting. I am very familiar with the genre and the book the article is about, so I was happy to see somebody posting the article here. Since there was a note at the top requesting more references, I searched for some and added them to the page. He cut them because he found them to be unreliable sources even though they came from world renowned scholars with multiple published books, most of which are in Wikipedia already, by the way. I then expanded the "Critical Reception" section supported by some other references and he cut it because he felt it was too promotional. In fairness to Orange Mike, most of the references were positive, but not all of them. The truth of the matter is I was unable to find many negative reviews except by some readers on Amazon, and I didn't add those to the article as I suspect a review by an individual posted on Amazon does not meet Wikipedia's quality standards. So, the section I added didn't lack a neutral point of view; simply most of the reviews of the book happen to be positive and they should have been appropriate in a "Critical Reception" section, where they indeed were. I then gave up as I realized nothing would satisfy him. Six months later someone named Kabel posted an added section that I felt was pretty good. No one was editing the page so a few weeks later I posted an Editor Request and of all Wikipedia editors the one that jumped on it right away was Orange Mike. What did he do? He immediately cut the entire section Kabel posted claiming the references in that section pointed to blogs! I checked and sure enough, some did. They were from important people, but they just happened to be posted on blogs. Fair enough, I understand that is not an acceptable source, so I proposed to him to remove the objectionable sources. This time however he changed his explanation for cutting from saying the section had objectionable sources to saying that the section Kabel added was "a standard publisher's puff piece". I don't know what his problem may be with this page, but I very much doubt we can make any progress on it with him. That's why I was requesting someone else take a look at this. Please help. Thanks! Esautomatix (talk) 16:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Where is the content from scholarly journals? What, if anything, has been said in peer-reviewed publications dedicated to the subject matter? If the best you can find is somebody named Fred Reiss at San Diego Jewish World (notice that that is still in there, but only once now instead of twice), how are we supposed to take the section seriously? --Orange Mike | Talk 16:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what your credentials are that you can write so dismissively of Fred Reiss. At any rate, I have not found a peer-reviewed publication, but I had previously added a number of peer reviews or commentary from very well known and respected scholars, but you cut them out because you felt they were not published in certain publications or they were testimonials. In any case, as I mentioned in the Talk page of the article, there are many articles in Wikipedia that do not have references from highly visible web sites, and there are many articles that do not have any references at all. Indeed, I gave you the example of Under His Very Windows, a book in the same genre and similar topic as Six Million Crucifixions (which, by the way, is a source in the latter). The Under His Very Windows article has very little explanation, no references, no peer reviews, nothing. Yet, for some reason, you seem to hold the article for the Six Million Crucifixions book to a much higher standard. Esautomatix (talk) 19:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

In the past you have been involved in reviewing this article for GA class. I am afraid it is not up to modern standards, and begun a discussion at the page listed above. Your input would be appreciated. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jezhotwells. Would you please look over the request here. Thanks! -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Fail it then. --GoP_T^C_N 13:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jezhotwells! I know you have conducted many GA reviews in the past, including some that I've been a part of. I wondered if you might take a look at the "Eight Miles High" Good Article review here. The article has just been failed outright, which seems a tad heavy-handed to me, given the reviewer's relatively minor concerns with it. If you would like to add any appropriate comments to the discussion, please feel free. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 00:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any sign that the nomination has been failed. It is still marked as being under review. Jezhotwells (talk) 07:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The page is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swinburne_University_of_Technology so the 'we' is the university. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterABrown (talk • contribs) 01:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Suggest that you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia guidelines as linked at your talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for the lateness of this letter; our usual bot wasn't working. We are now entering round 4, our semi-finals, and have our final 16. A score of 243 was required to reach this round; significantly more than 2011's 76 points, and only a little behind 2010's 250 points. By comparison, last year, 150 points in round 4 secured a place in the final; in 2010, 430 were needed. Commiserations to Pool A's igordebraga (submissions), who scored 242 points, missing out on a place in the round by a whisker. However, congratulations to Pool B's Grapple X (submissions), whose television articles have brought him another round victory. Pool A's Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came second overall, with an impressive list of biological did you knows, good articles and featured articles. Third overall was Pool D's Muboshgu (submissions), with a long list of contibutions, mostly relating to baseball. Of course, with the points resetting every round, the playing field has been levelled. The most successful Pool was Pool D, which saw seven into the final round. Pool B saw four, C saw three and Pool A saw only the two round leaders.

A quick note about other competitions taking place on Wikipedia which may be of interest. There are 13 days remaining in the June-July GAN backlog elimination drive, but it is not too late to take part. August will also see the return of The Core Contest- a one month long competition first run in 2007. While the WikiCup awards points for audited content on any subject, The Core Contest about is raw article improvement, focussing heavily on the most important articles on Wikipedia. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 10:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

FYI, . Drmies (talk) 01:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I've been working on the GAN for Lewisville, Texas, which you placed on hold about a week ago. I've made a few changes and included quotes from the references you requested, but now that seven days has passed, nothing has happened. Is there anything I can or should be doing to expedite the process? I understand you might be busy, so no worries, but I just wanted to make sure the ball isn't in my court. Thanks. Runfellow (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

We're approaching the beginning of 2012's final round. Pool A sees Cwmhiraeth (submissions) as the leader, with 300 points being awarded for the featured article Bivalvia, and Pool B sees Grapple X (submissions) in the lead, with 10 good articles, and over 35 articles eligible for good topic points. Pool A sees Muboshgu (submissions) in second place with a number of articles relating to baseball, while Pool B's Ruby2010 (submissions) follows Grapple X, with a variety of contributions including the high-scoring, high-importance featured article on the 2010 film Pride & Prejudice. Ruby2010, like Grapple X, also claimed a number of good topic points; despite this, not a single point has been claimed for featured topics in the contest so far. The same is true for featured portals.

Currently, the eighth-place competitor (and so the lowest scorer who would reach the final round right now) has scored 332, more than double the 150 needed to reach the final round last year. In 2010, however, 430 was the lowest qualifying score. In this competition, we have generally seen scores closer to those in 2010 than those in 2011. Let's see what kind of benchmark we can set for future competitions! As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 22:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that the citation style box that you inserted on The Violet Hour page can be removed now. I am a newbie at editing, so I am not sure who is allowed to do that. Biolprof (talk) 02:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

On the subject of next year, a discussion has been opened here. Come and have your say about the competition, and how you'd like it to run in the future. This brainstorming will go on for some time before more focused discussions/polls are opened. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:16, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Smiley v karla.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, you are receiving this message because you are currently a participant of WikiProject Good articles. Since the creation of the WikiProject, over 200 user's have joined to help review good article nominations and contribute to other sections of the WikiProject. Over the years, several of these users have stopped reviewing articles and/or have become inactive with the project but are still listed as participates. In order to improve communications with other participants and get newsletters sent out faster (newsletters will begin to be sent out monthly starting in October) all participants that are no longer active with the WikiProject will be removed from the participants list.

If you are still interested in being a participant for this WikiProject, please sign your user name here and please help review some articles so we can reduce the size of the backlog. If you are no longer interested, you do not need to sign your name anywhere and your name will be removed from the participants list after the deadline. Remember that even if you are not interested at this time, you can always re-add your name to the list whenever you want. The deadline to sign your name on the page above will be November 1, 2012. Thank-you. 13:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for having to send out a second message but a user has brought to my attention that a point mentioned in the first message should be clarified. If user's don't sign on this page, they will be moved to an "Inactive Participants" list rather then be being removed from the entire WikiProject. Sorry for any confusion.--Dom497 (talk)15:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

In the Mary Carpenter article, the date 1746 in this diff can't be right. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The planning for next year's WikiCup is ongoing. Some straw polls have been opened concerning the scoring, and you can now sign up for next year's competition. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)