User talk:Scorpion0422

This user may have left Wikipedia. Scorpion0422 has not edited Wikipedia since 1 March 2022. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Archives

February - December 2006 January - March 2007 April 2007 - July, 2007 August 2007 - September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January - February 2008 March - April 2008 May - June 2008 July - September 2008 October - December 2008 January - February 2009 March - April 2009 May - August 2009 September 2009 - January 2010 February - December 2010 January - December 2011 2012-2013

Stop harassing other Wikipedia users.

Stop contributing false information and I won't have to revert, asshole.

Like I said, it is clear that you are in the overwhelming minority so your opinion is invalid. Mind your own business and stop harassing other users. DaveA2424 (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I would like to let you know that I read your argument with Vjmlhds, concerning whether or not Warrior Award recipients are WWE Hall of Fame inductees, in its entirety and it is clear that you are in the overwhelming minority when it comes to your opinion that they are not inductees, but you are too bigoted to realise it. Please refrain from continuing this vendetta that you seem to have against those who have been effected by cancer. As you can see in this picture from WWE's official Twitter page, https://twitter.com/WWE/status/575097848041181184/photo/1, Connor "The Crusher" Michalek has clearly been labelled as a WWE Hall of Fame inductee. Hopefully, this should be enough to finally put a stop to your idiotic tirade, although I'm not holding my breath. DaveA2424 (talk) 23:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is completely asinine! To suggest that Warrior Award recipients aren't WWE Hall of Fame inductees is absolutely ludicrous! It contradicts the other information on the WWE Hall of Fame wiki page and, as well as that, if they were not WWE Hall of Fame inductees then why would they be included in the WWE Hall of Fame ceremony?! Also, you moaning and whining about all of this is a total waste of time because the Warrior Award recipient will be relocated to the Warrior Award section within a few days! What part of "mind your own business and stop harassing other users" didn't you understand, moron?! It's clear that we don't agree on these issues so, as I've said many times now, you go about your business and I'll go about mine. DaveA2424 (talk) 17:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your lack of intelligence is laughable! If you would actually take a moment to look at the WWE Hall of Fame wiki page, you can clearly see that the WWE Hall of Fame currently consists of 95 Individuals, 25 Group Members, 8 Celebrities and 1 Warrior Award recipient, making up 129 Total Inductees! This confirms that Warrior Award recipients are most definitely WWE Hall of Fame Inductees! 95+25+8+1=129! Are you able to get that through your thick skull or are you too idiotic to do basic maths?! Also, how many times are you going to keep bringing up Wikipedia policy as if you have some kind of authority over any other Wikipedia user? Mind your own business and stop harassing other users, you hateful parasite! DaveA2424 (talk) 14:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If they were not WWE Hall of Fame inductees, then they would not be featured on the WWE Hall of Fame wiki page in the first place. Anyone with even a shred of intelligence would realise that. You're not trying to make improvements at all. What you're trying to do is control what other users contribute and have everything your way. You need to mind your own business. Idiot. DaveA2424 (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Warrior Award recipients are most definitely WWE Hall of Fame inductees and, seeing as they are due to be inducted in 2016, that is the section that they belong in until they are inducted, at which point they will be moved to the 'Warrior Award' section. Also, I am doing all that I can to improve the WWE Hall of Fame wiki page and it is not your place to tell me how and how not to do that because, as I have stated, you have no authority over me or anyone else, for that matter. It is clear that we disagree on these issues so I feel that it is best for you to go about your business, rather than continue pretending to be the Wikipedia police, and I will go about mine. DaveA2424 (talk) 14:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Warrior Award recipients are WWE Hall of Fame inductees, and should therefore be categorised under the 'To be inducted in 2016' section until they have been inducted, at which point they will be moved to the 'Warrior Award' section. Please stop removing them from their rightful place. As for the images of Stan Hansen, I have been filling the vacant area where an image of the inductee should be. Despite your unnecessary policing, as if you have some kind of authority on Wikipedia, I will continue to do all that I can to improve the WWE Hall of Fame wiki page. DaveA2424 (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 2014 WikiCup is off to a flying start, with, at time of writing, 138 participants. The is the largest number of participants we have seen since 2010. If you are yet to join the competition, don't worry- the judges have agreed to keep the signups open for a few more days. By a wide margin, our current leader is newcomer Godot13 (submissions), whose set of 14 featured pictures, the first FPs of the competition, was worth 490 points. Here are some more noteworthy scorers:

• 12george1 (submissions) and TropicalAnalystwx13 (submissions) were the first people to score, for the good article Tropical Storm Bret (1981) and its good article review respectively. 12george1 was also the first person to score in 2012 and 2013.
• Sven Manguard (submissions) scored the first ITN points for 2014 North American polar vortex.
• WonderBoy1998 (submissions) scored points for an early good topic, finishing off Wikipedia:Featured topics/She Wolf.
• TheAustinMan (submissions) scored the first bonus points of the competition, for his work on Typhoon Vera.
• Igordebraga (submissions) has scored the highest number of bonus points for a single article, for the high-importance Jurassic Park (film).

Featured articles, featured lists, featured topics and featured portals are yet to play a part in the competition. The judges have removed a number of submissions which were deemed ineligible. Typically, we aim to see work on a project, followed by a nomination, followed by promotion, this year. We apologise for any disappointment caused by our strict enforcement this year; we're aiming to keep the competition as fair as possible.

Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may be interested to take part in The Core Contest; unlike the WikiCup, The Core Contest is not about audited content, but, like the WikiCup, it is about article improvement; specifically, The Core Contest is about contribution to some of Wikipedia's most important article. Of course, any work done for The Core Contest, if it leads to a DYK, GA or FA, can earn WikiCup points.

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. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! 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), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 19:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		The Professional Wrestling Barnstar
		Awarded by Vjmlhds on 2-14-14 for being both persistent and consistent in keeping pro wrestling articles up to snuff. Vjmlhds 21:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No hard feelings about my WWE HOF edit...I shoulda done it your way to start with. Vjmlhds (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not only does the IIHF not recognize those early members, but you are incorrect. Frank Fredrickson. -- Scorpion0422 01:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Let me explain why players like Hooley Smith are not included in the Club. When players like Smith went to the Olympics, they were just the Olympics, not a combined tournament. The pre-'30s Olympics are now retroactively recognized by the IIHF as the Worlds as well. They were given one Olympic medal, not two. So players like Smith won just two components, but now are technically considered to have three. This is likely why the IIHF doesn't recognize them, and they probably have a rule about winning all three in separate tournaments. Your section gives undue weight to a minor portion and is filled with POV and inaccuracies. -- Scorpion0422 02:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing my mistakes to light. I'll correct them shortly.

Your opinion of what the IIHF does and a buck will get me a coffee.

Wikipedia belongs to all of us. I will make a useful and verifiable contribution.

Let it go. And try to enjoy knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.217.198 (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey pal ...

What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

"Exposition"???

I'm cutting out verbiage.

You, of all people, should know better.

And it reads better too.

It's been a while! You're probably confused though, unless you already knew I was back. But I'll let you figure it out on your own :) Gloss • talk 21:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All is correct, although I'm glad the US of A lost today because it's a bit of sweet revenge for them not placing one of the best available players on their roster. I couldn't agree with the second part of what you said any more. My activity has been very similar and it's great not caring too much anymore. Gloss • talk 22:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was so much easier, those days. But you're right, things are a little more fun without it. I'll have to check out that IP situation of yours :P Gloss • talk 22:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been engaged in an edit war with another user on Triple Gold Club. If you make any further edits to the article without first discussing and reaching an agreement with the other party, you will be blocked without further warning. Nick (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciated many of your edits to the paragraph I added for the 2014 Olympics and that you tightened up the paragraph. However, I have several suggestions for you in the future (I see that you are also involved in edit warring in other sites).

1) When you start to edit a paragraph while someone is writing it, it is extremely frustrating. Everytime I submitted a section you were in the process of editing, forcing me to look at your edits and contrast them to mine plus making the edits. This adds unnecessary time to the process, and I suggest next time you wait until the individual is done making edits.

2) POV is not an issue when it is stated as a fact. When I have 4 sources to prove that this was the majority opinion of experts, that makes it noteworthy and not open for dispute. Although I appreciated, once again, that you helped me pare down the details a bit, fighting me on this point was a waste of time and unnecessary, and uncalled for. You made it into a huge deal. Of course an upset is noteworthy. If a team outscores its opponents 20-6 while looking in control of every game, they become a favorite entering the match, and there were many sources who felt that USA was a favorite. And, yes, they were also considered as one of the 4 pre-tournament favorites by most, if not all, hockey experts (USA, Canada, Sweden, Russia).

3) You told me that my 2014 paragraphs were too long. 2010 had 2 full paragraphs devoted to it. When I did the same, you cut it down. Again, this is fine, but you were incorrect in stating that I had gone off the board in the amount of space I devoted to this Olympics. The point of the paragraph is to highlight the noteworthy features - the disappointments (USA and Russia), the teams who surpassed expectations (Latvia and Slovenia), the winners, and the individual achievements. That is what I did. It is wrong to accuse me of doign otherwise, as ou have no basis. Every single sentence was referenced appropriately and none were a stretch. To respond to your comments about Czech Republic and Slovakia, they did not undeperform whatsoever, they were picked by many to make it to the QF, at best. Slovakia and Czech were actually felt to have made unusual choices for their team selections, and that is what many felt ultimately hurt them. Not nearly as big a story, which is why I excluded this.

4) Your most recent edits are baffling, and a little childish, in my opinion. Lets dissect what you did:

a) "Teemu Selänne scored 6 more points in the tournament, was named tournament MVP and also named to the tournament all-star team --> Removed the fact that he was named to the tournament all-start team, why? I am not biased, I am not even a fan of Teemu Selanne, but it is a fact. Fine, shorten it if you will but it is so trivial it is actually laughable that you would remove this.

b) boosted his modern-era Olympic career record for points to 43 (24 G, 19A) --> You changed G and A to goals and assists. Why, exactly? All this does is lengthen the sentence and is completely unnecessary. Hypocritical of someone who claims they are "cleaning" up my work

c) while setting records in the bronze medal match a both the oldest Olympic goal-scorer and Olympic hockey medal winner ever. --> you removed part of the bronze medal match, which actually makes the sentence make less sense, as it was in the bronze medal match where he set the records, not simply because he was age 43. It was his last game of the tournament. Again, really trivial and created an extra sentence. Disagree with you again.

d) 9th olympic --> ninthOlympic. Why? You added characters, and you merged the 2 words.

5) This most recent edit I will change back, and I will report you if you remove it again: "and did not trail at any point over the course of the entire tournament, outscoring its opponents 17-3 over 6 games in the process" --> This removal is ridiculous. Canada won the tournament. Bias or no bias, what I listed were accomplishments and this is your response: "You need to be careful when detailing things like that, since most summaries don't mention such thing" - 1) I was careful, 2) show me that most summaries don't mention this (that is POV and extremely subjective), 3) who cares if "most" summaries don't mention it, as my source did mention it, and it is noteworhty, and 4) It is not biased in the least. It is completely objective. Stating facts. Much like the fact that USA outscored opponents 20-6. Whoever would argue bias in the inclusion of that sentence is being foolish.

6) Furthermore, you make trivial edits over the all-caps in the title of my sources. This is ridiculous, considering that you have sourced things recently and not even written the correct date of the article or when it was accessed, clearly bigger mistakes.

7) With respect to the Backlund inclusion of the undisclosed "minor stimulant," this was released in a credible source (The Globe and Mail), and is more information than simply "undisclosed." It was fine for me to add this, while we await full details, as it provides more credible information. Your removal of this seemed quite petty.

So, in summation, your edits, while perhaps well-meaning, also seem to be edit warring, as many changes are quite petty, are over trivial information, and need to stop as they are wasting the time of those who make careful additions to the site according to the rules of wikipedia. If you have nothing better to do than to do this, then be warned that I will report you hereafter.70.73.141.146 (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC) 70.73.141.146 (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC) 70.73.141.146 (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. So then, with all that in mind, I will hope you accept the fact that the Miracle on Ice section is extremely long-winded and should not take 3 paragraphs, when there is an entire article devoted to it. That is biased substantially. I removed the 17-3 bit, but not trailing at any point in the tournament seems noteworthy.

And the substance was confirmed as pseudoephedrine, which is a "minor stimulant"70.73.141.146 (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And so ends the most competitive first round we have ever seen, with 38 points required to qualify for round 2. Last year, 19 points secured a place; before that, 11 (2012) or 8 (2011) were enough. This is both a blessing and a curse. While it shows the vigourous good health of the competition, it also means that we have already lost many worthy competitors. Our top three scorers were:

1. Godot13 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer whose high-quality scans of rare banknotes represent an unusual, interesting and valuable contribution to Wikipedia. Most of Godot's points this round have come from a large set of pictures used in Treasury Note (1890–91).
2. Adam Cuerden (submissions), a WikiCup veteran and a finalist last year, Adam is also a featured picture specialist, focusing on the restoration of historical images. This month's promotions have included a carefully restored set of artist William Russell Flint's work.
3. WikiRedactor (submissions), another WikiCup newcomer. WikiRedactor has claimed points for good article reviews and good articles relating to pop music, many of which were awarded bonus points. Articles include Sky Ferreira, Hannah Montana 2: Meet Miley Cyrus and "Wrecking Ball" (Miley Cyrus song).

Other competitors of note include:

• Hahc21 (submissions), who helped take Thirty Flights of Loving through good article candidates and featured article candidates, claiming the first first featured article of the competition.
• Prism (submissions), who claimed the first featured list of the competition with Natalia Kills discography.
• Cwmhiraeth (submissions), who takes the title of the contributor awarded the highest bonus point multiplier (resulting in the highest scoring article) of the competition so far. Her high-importance salamander, now a good article, scored 108 points.

After such a competitive first round, expect the second round to also be fiercely fought. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2, but please do not update your submission page until March (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

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. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! 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), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 00:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• 
  Featured Article Contributor Ribbon
• 
  Featured List Contributor Ribbon

I would like to give you these brand new awards, designed for editors who write/significantly contribute to Featured Articles and Lists.
Vjmlhds (talk) 20:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A quick update as we are half way through round two of this year's competition. WikiCup newcomer Godot13 (submissions) (Pool E) leads, having produced a massive set of featured pictures for Silver certificate (United States), an article also brought to featured list status. Former finalist Adam Cuerden (submissions) (Pool G) is in second, which he owes mostly to his work with historical images, including a number of images from Urania's Mirror, an article also brought to good status. 2010 champion (Pool C) is third overall, thanks to contributions relating to naval history, including the newly featured Japanese battleship Nagato. Cliftonian (submissions), who currently leads Pool A and is sixth overall, takes the title for the highest scoring individual article of the competition so far, with the top importance featured article Ian Smith.

With 26 people having already scored over 100 points, it is likely that well over 100 points will be needed to secure a place in round 3. Recent years have required 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) and 100 (2010). Remember that only 64 will progress to round 3 at the end of April. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page; if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally. 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. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! 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), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 22:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. On 14 August 2012 you added the 'Category:Athletes stripped of Olympic medals' to the articles on Swedish fencers Björn Ferm and Hans Jacobson (this category has later been renamed as 'Category:Competitors stripped of Olympic medals'). There was no reference to them having lost any Olympic medals in the text of either article, so I have removed the category. If you want to add them again, please add a source where it says they actually were stripped of any Olympic medals. Bandy boy (talk) 08:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• 
  50,000 Edit Star
  Awarded to Scorpion0422 for being a member of the 50,000 Edit Club

Vjmlhds (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Round 3 of the 2014 WikiCup has just begun; 32 competitors remain. Pool G's Adam Cuerden (submissions) was Round 2's highest scorer, with a large number of featured picture credits. In March/April, he restored star charts from Urania's Mirror, lithographs of various warships (such as SMS Gefion) and assorted other historical media. Second overall was Pool E's Godot13 (submissions), whose featured list Silver certificate (United States) contains dozens of scans of banknotes recently promoted to featured picture status. Third was Pool G's ChrisGualtieri (submissions) who has produced a large number of good articles, many, including Falkner Island, on Connecticut-related topics. Other successful participants included Cliftonian (submissions), who saw three articles (including the top-importance Ian Smith) through featured article candidacies, and Caponer (submissions), who saw three lists (including the beautifully-illustrated list of plantations in West Virginia) through featured list candidacies. High-importance good articles promoted this round include narwhal from Reid,iain james (submissions), tiger from Cwmhiraeth (submissions) and The Lion King from Igordebraga (submissions). We also saw our first featured topic points of the competition, awarded to Czar (submissions) and Red Phoenix (submissions) for their work on the Sega Genesis topic. No points have been claimed so far for good topics or featured portals.

192 was our lowest qualifying score, again showing that this WikiCup is the most competitive ever. In previous years, 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) or 100 (2010) secured a place in Round 3. Pool H was the strongest performer, with all but one of its members advancing, while only the two highest scorers in Pools G and F advanced. At the end of June, 16 users will advance into the semi-finals. 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. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! 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), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 17:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a note to let the main editors of The Simpsons Movie know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on July 26, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at present, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 26, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The Simpsons Movie is a 2007 American animated comedy film based on the television series The Simpsons. Directed by David Silverman, it stars the regular cast of Dan Castellaneta, Julie Kavner, Nancy Cartwright, Yeardley Smith, Hank Azaria, Harry Shearer, Tress MacNeille, and Pamela Hayden. It features Albert Brooks as Russ Cargill, the evil head of the Environmental Protection Agency who intends to destroy Springfield after Homer pollutes the lake. As the townspeople exile him and eventually his family abandons him, Homer works to redeem his folly by stopping Cargill's scheme. Previous attempts to create a film version of The Simpsons failed due to the lack of a script of appropriate length and production crew members. Eventually, producers and writers banded together and conceived numerous narrative concepts, one of which was selected for development. The script was re-written over a hundred times, and this creativity continued after animation had begun in 2006. The film premiered in Springfield, Vermont (theater sign pictured), which had won the right to hold it in a competition. It was a box office success, grossing over $527 million, and received critical acclaim. (Full article...)

You (and your talk-page stalkers) may also be interested to hear that there have been some changes at the TFA requests page recently. Nominators no longer need to calculate how many "points" an article has, the instructions have been simplified, and there's a new nomination system using templates based on those used for DYK suggestions. Please consider nominating another article, or commenting on an existing nomination, and leaving some feedback on your experience. Thank you. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After an extremely close race, Round 3 is over. 244 points secured a place in Round 4, which is comparable to previous years- 321 was required in 2013, while 243 points were needed in 2012. Pool C's Godot13 (submissions) was the round's highest scorer, mostly due to a 32 featured pictures, including both scans and photographs. Also from Pool C, Casliber (submissions) finished second overall, claiming three featured articles, including the high-importance Grus (constellation). Third place was Pool B's , whose contributions included featured articles Russian battleship Poltava (1894) and Russian battleship Peresvet. Pool C saw the highest number of participants advance, with six out of eight making it to the next round.

The round saw this year's first featured portal, with Sven Manguard (submissions) taking Portal:Literature to featured status. The round also saw the first good topic points, thanks to 12george1 (submissions) and the 2013 Atlantic hurricane season. This means that all content types have been claimed this year. Other contributions of note this round include a featured topic on Maya Angelou's autobiographies from Figureskatingfan (submissions), a good article on the noted Czech footballer Tomáš Rosický from Cloudz679 (submissions) and a now-featured video game screenshot, freely released due to the efforts of Sven Manguard (submissions).

The judges would like to remind participants to update submission pages promptly. This means that content can be checked, and allows those following the competition (including those participating) to keep track of scores effectively. This round has seen discussion about various aspects of the WikiCup's rules and procedures. Those interested in the competition can be assured that formal discussions about how next year's competition will work will be opened shortly, and all are welcome to voice their views then. 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. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! 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 · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 18:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seen this? Sadly, I no longer care enough to fight this sort of thing, given the seemingly prevailing views around Wikipedia these days, as exemplified by Mr. "Chris Cunningham" in that discussion. Gran² 18:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Periodic table (large version) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Periodic table (large version) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Neelix (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The final of the 2014 WikiCup begins in a few short minutes! Our eight finalists are listed below, along with their placement in Round 4:

1. Godot13 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer, finished top of Pool A and was the round's highest scorer. Godot is a featured picture specialist, claiming large numbers of points due to high-quality scans of historical documents, especially banknotes.
2. Casliber (submissions) is a WikiCup veteran, having been a finalist every year since 2010. In the semi-final, he was Pool B's highest scorer. Cas's points primarily come from articles on the natural sciences.
3. Czar (submissions) was Pool A's runner-up. Czar's points come mostly from content related to independent video games, including both articles and topics.
4. Adam Cuerden (submissions) was Pool B's runner-up. Another featured picture specialist, many of Adam's points come from the restoration of historical media. He has been a WikiCup finalist twice before.
5. Cwmhiraeth (submissions) won the WikiCup in 2012 and 2013, and enters this final as the first wildcard. She focuses on biology-related articles, and has worked on several high-importance articles.
6. 12george1 (submissions) is the second wildcard. George's points come primarily from meteorology-related articles. This year and last year, George was the first person in the competition to score.
7. Sturmvogel 66 (submissions), the third wildcard, was the 2010 champion and a finalist last year. His writes mostly on military history, especially naval history.
8. Bloom6132 (submissions), the fourth and final wildcard, has participated in previous WikiCups, but not reached any finals. Bloom's points are mostly thanks to did you knows, featured lists and good articles related to sport and national symbols.

We say goodbye to this year's semi-finalists. Matty.007 (submissions), ThaddeusB (submissions), WikiRedactor (submissions), Figureskatingfan (submissions), Yellow Evan (submissions), Prism (submissions) and Cloudz679 (submissions) have all performed well to reach this stage of the competition, and we hope they will all be joining us again next year.

There are two upcoming competitions unrelated to the WikiCup which may be of interest to those who receive this newsletter. The Stub Contest will run through September, and revolves around expanding stub articles, especially high-importance or old stubs. In addition, a proposal has been made for a new competition, the GA Cup, which the organisers plan to run next year. This competition is based on the WikiCup and aims to reduce the good article review backlog.

There is now a thread for brainstorming on how next year's WikiCup competition should work. Please come along and share your thoughts- What works? What doesn't work? What needs changing? Signups for next year's competition will be open soon; we will be in touch. If, at this stage of the competition, you are keen to help the with the WikiCup, please do what you can to participate in review processes. Our finalists will find things much easier if the backlogs at good article candidates, featured article candidates, featured picture candidates and the rest are kept at a minimum. 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 or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In one month's time, we will know our WikiCup 2014 champion. Newcomer Godot13 (submissions) has taken a strong lead with a featured list (historical coats of arms of the U.S. states from 1876) and a raft of featured pictures. Reigning champion Cwmhiraeth (submissions) is in second place with a number of high-importance biology articles, including new FA Isopoda and new GA least weasel. Casliber (submissions), who is in his fifth WikiCup final, is in third, with featured articles Pictor and Epacris impressa.

Signups for the 2015 WikiCup are open. All Wikipedians, new and experienced, are warmly invited to sign up for the competition. Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may also like to sign up for the GA Cup, a new WikiCup-inspired competition which revolves around completing good article 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 or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trenton. 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) 11:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your addition, good to see you active again!

Could we perhaps get a secondary source for that info?

Maybe one of those websites we used to use for WP:DOH quality improvement projects to WP:GA ?

— Cirt (talk) 01:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And/or if you've got it, could you listen to the DVD commentary for that particular episode and see if they say anything about this first instance of that phrase on the show? — Cirt (talk) 01:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks very much, that'd be wonderful! Please do keep me posted, — Cirt (talk) 02:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An easier quicker request first, and we can cite both: Can you get me the precise time index when she first utters the phrase for the first time, in that episode? Then I can cite that, as well. — Cirt (talk) 02:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, now I've got everything in that cite but the time in the episode it occurs, see diff. :) — Cirt (talk) 02:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks very much, I've added it to the article, diff. Most appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 16:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The 2014 WikiCup champion is Godot13 (submissions), who flew the flag of the Smithsonian Institution. This was Godot13's first WikiCup competition and, over the 10 months of the competition, he has produced (among other contributions) two featured lists and an incredible 292 featured pictures, including architectural photographs and scans of historical documents. Cwmhiraeth (submissions), 2012 and 2013 WikiCup champion, came in second, having written a large number of biology-related articles. Casliber (submissions), WikiCup finalist every year since 2010, finished in third.

A full list of our prize-winners follows:

• Godot13 (submissions) wins the prize for first place and the FP prize for 181 featured pictures in the final round.
• Cwmhiraeth (submissions) wins the prize for second place and the DYK prize for 65 did you knows in the final round.
• Casliber (submissions) wins the prize for third place and the FA prize for four featured articles in the final round.
• Czar (submissions) wins the prize for fourth place
• Sturmvogel 66 (submissions) wins a final 8 prize.
• Bloom6132 (submissions) wins a final 8 prize.
• 12george1 (submissions) wins a final 8 prize.
• ChrisGualtieri (submissions) wins the GA prize for 27 good articles in round 2 and the review prize for 28 good article reviews in round 1.
• Caponer (submissions) wins the FL prize for three featured lists in round 2.
• Sven Manguard (submissions) wins the FPo prize his work on featured portals.
• Figureskatingfan (submissions) wins the topic prize for a nine-article featured topic in round 3.
• ThaddeusB (submissions) wins the news prize for 28 in the news articles in round 3.

Congratulations to everyone who has been successful in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and a particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have participated this year. We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, and all are welcome to participate. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2014 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! 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 · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone, and may we wish you all a happy holiday season. As you will probably already know, the 2015 WikiCup begins in the new year; there is still time to sign up. We have a few important announcements concerning the future of the WikiCup.

• We would like to announce that Josh (J Milburn) and Ed (The ed17), who have been WikiCup judges since 2009 and 2010 respectively, are stepping down. This decision has been made for a number of reasons, but the main one is time. Both Josh and Ed have found that, over the previous year, they have been unable to devote the time necessary to the WikiCup, and it is not likely that they will be able to do this in the near future. Furthermore, new people at the helm can only help to invigorate the WikiCup and keep it dynamic. Josh and Ed will still be around, and will likely be participating in the Cup this following year as competitors, which is where both started out.
• In a similar vein, we hope you will all join us in welcoming Jason (Sturmvogel 66) and Christine (Figureskatingfan), who are joining Brian (Miyagawa) to form the 2015 WikiCup judging team. Jason is a WikiCup veteran, having won in 2010 and finishing in fifth this year. Christine has participated in two WikiCups, reaching the semi-finals in both, and is responsible for the GA Cup, which she now co-runs.
• The discussions/polls concerning the next competition's rules will be closed soon, and rules changes will be made clear on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring and talk pages. While it may be impossible to please everyone, the judges will make every effort to ensure that the new rules are both fair and in the best interests of the competition, which is, first and foremost, about improving Wikipedia.

If you have any questions or concerns, the judges can be reached on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, on their talk pages, or by email. We hope you will all join us in trying to make the 2015 WikiCup the most productive and enjoyable yet. You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk), The ed17 (talk), Miyagawa (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Figureskatingfan (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scorpion0422! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to ping me with {{ping|DerHexer}}. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 12:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Round one of the 2015 WikiCup has begun! So far we've had around 80 signups, which close on February 5. If you have not already signed up and want to do so, then you can add your name here. There have been changes to to several of the points scores for various categories, and the addition of Peer Reviews for the first time. These will work in the same manner as Good Article Reviews, and all of the changes are summarised here.

Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round, and one of the new changes this year is that all scores must be claimed within two weeks of an article's promotion or appearance, so don't forget to add them to your submissions pages! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs), Miyagawa (talk · contribs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs)
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Men's World Ice Hockey Championship players for Canada (1977–present), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 2014 World Ice Hockey Championships. 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) 09:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. 64 competitors made it into this round, and are now broken into eight groups of eight. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups. Round 1 saw some interesting work on some very important articles, with the round leader Freikorp (submissions) owing most of his 622 points scored to a Featured Article on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, as Godot13 (submissions) had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge, Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) led round 1 with 601 points in 2013.

In addition to Freikorp's work, some other important articles and pictures were improved during round one, here's a snapshot of a few of them:

• Cwmhiraeth (submissions) took Bumblebee, a level-4 vital article, to Good Article;
• AHeneen (submissions) worked-up the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 article, also to Good Article status;
• Rodw (submissions) developed an extremely timely article to Good Article, taking Magna Carta there some 800 years after it was first sealed;
• And last but not least, Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points) worked up a number of Featured Pictures during round 1, including the 1948 one Deutsche Mark (pictured right), receiving the maximum bonus due to the number of Wikis that the related article appears in.

You may also wish to know that The Core Contest is running through the month of March. Head there for further details - they even have actual prizes!

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. Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email)

Thanks for your assistance! Miyagawa (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiCup.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian again, as you did at User talk:Erpert, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks can easily be misinterpreted. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Thank you. Vjmlhds 03:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm requesting permission to switch the OHL userbox format from "User:Scorpion0422/User OHL-(team name)" to "User:UBX/OHL-(team name)" to be more in line with the other userboxes on Wikipedia. Since you are Scorpion0422, do I have your permission to make the move? Tom Danson (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Simpsons s11.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 01:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Simpsons s12.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 01:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of a Featured Article you nominated at WP:FAC will appear on the Main Page soon. Was there anything I left out of the summary that you'd like to see put back in? I'd appreciate it if you could you check the article one more time before its day on the Main Page. - Dank (push to talk) 23:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to add an image to the Main Page text, feel free to revert if you disagree. - Dank (push to talk) 15:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at List of WWE World Heavyweight Champions. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Vjmlhds 02:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at List of WWE World Heavyweight Champions. Stop it, and stop it now!' Your behavior is completely unacceptable. Vjmlhds 17:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

You were quick to jump on my case before...the least you can do now is tell me what you think of my idea of having the best of both worlds on the List of...articles. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was referring to the List of WWE World Heavyweight Champions argument we had a couple of weeks ago, but things have cooled down a lot since then. Vjmlhds (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)~[reply]

• 

Golden Woodpecker Award
awarded to Scorpion0422
Please accept this award as a gesture of good faith and apology. I took some non-Wiki stuff out on you a couple of weeks ago while discussing Wiki business, and I should not have done that. Won't happen again
Vjmlhds (talk) 03:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I know you invented this award, but it's only right you have one of your own.

A year ago, you were recipient no. 1187 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for today's Nancy Cartwright, the latest step in your "evil plan to turn this site into Homerpedia", mentioned above, enjoyed! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

... five years now --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

• Coemgenus (submissions) was one of several users who worked on improving Ulysses S. Grant. Remember, you do not need to work on an article on your own - as long as each person has completed significant work on the article during 2015, multiple competitors can claim the same article.
• Cwmhiraeth (submissions) took Dragonfly to Good Article for a 3x bonus - and if that wasn't enough, they also took Damselfly there as well for a 2x bonus.
• LeftAire (submissions) worked up Alexander Hamilton to Good Article for the maximum bonus. Hamilton was one of the founding fathers of the United States and is a level 4 vital article.

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) 16:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a heads up, the West Bengal provincial level election was posted 4 years ago after the ouster of the long time ruling communist party...equivalent to the ouster of long time ruling conservatives (who are also in the federal level)...120.62.24.7 (talk) 05:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Scorpion. I'm just posting to let you know that List of 2010 Winter Olympics medal winners – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for August 21. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 18:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The finals for the 2015 Wikicup has now begun! Congrats to the 8 contestants who have survived to the finals, and well done and thanks to everyone who took part in rounds 3 and 4.

In round 3, we had a three-way tie for qualification among the wildcard contestants, so we had 34 competitors. The leader was by far Casliber (submissions) in Group B, who earned 1496 points. Although 913 of these points were bonus points, he submitted 15 articles in the DYK category. Second place overall was Coemgenus (submissions) at 864 points, who although submitted just 2 FAs for 400 points, earned double that amount for those articles in bonus points. Everyone who moved forward to Round 4 earned at least 100 points.

The scores required to move onto the semifinals were impressive; the lowest scorer to move onto the finals was 407, making this year's Wikicup as competitive as it's always been. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:

1. Cas Liber (submissions), who is competing in his sixth consecutive Wikicup final, again finished the round in first place, with an impressive 1666 points in Pool B. Casliber writes about the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. A large bulk of his points this round were bonus points.
2. Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points), second place both in Pool B and overall, earned the bulk of his points with FPs, mostly depicting currency.
3. Cwmhiraeth (submissions), first in Pool A, came in third. His specialty is natural science articles; in Round 4, he mostly submitted articles about insects and botany. Five out of the six of the GAs he submitted were level-4 vital articles.
4. Harrias (submissions), second in Pool A, took fourth overall. He tends to focus on articles about cricket and military history, specifically the 1640s First English Civil War.
5. West Virginian (submissions), from Pool A, was our highest-scoring wildcard. West Virginia tends to focus on articles about the history of (what for it!) the U.S. state of West Virginia.
6. Rodw (submissions), from Pool A, likes to work on articles about British geography and places. Most of his points this round were earned from two impressive accomplishments: a GT about Scheduled monuments in Somerset and a FT about English Heritage properties in Somerset.
7. Rationalobserver (submissions), from Pool B, came in seventh overall. RO earned the majority of her points from GARs and PRs, many of which were earned in the final hours of the round.
8. Calvin999 (submissions), also from Pool B, who was competing with RO for the final two spots in the final hours, takes the race for most GARs and PRs—48.

The intense competition between RO and Calvin999 will continue into the finals. They're both eligible for the Newcomers Trophy, given for the first time in the Wikicup; whoever makes the most points will win it.

Good luck to the finalists; the judges are sure that the competition will be fierce!

Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs), Miyagawa (talk · contribs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 11:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Scorpion. I'm just posting to let you know that List of World Series champions – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for October 30. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 18:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 
  2015 Erasmus Prize
  Awarded to the Wikipedia community collectively

Vjmlhds (talk) 01:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2015 is now in the books! Congrats to our finalists and winners, and to everyone who took part in this year's competition.

This year's results were an exact replica of last year's competition. For the second year in a row, the 2015 WikiCup champion is Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points). All of his points were earned for an impressive 253 featured pictures and their associated bonus points (5060 and 1695, respectively). His entries constituted scans of currency from all over the world and scans of medallions awarded to participants of the U.S. Space program. Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came in second place; she earned by far the most bonus points (4082), for 4 featured articles, 15 good articles, and 147 DYKs, mostly about in her field of expertise, natural science. Cas Liber (submissions), a finalist every year since 2010, came in third, with 2379 points.

Our newcomer award, presented to the best-performing new competitor in the WikiCup, goes to Rationalobserver (submissions). Everyone should be very proud of the work they accomplished. We will announce our other award winners soon.

A full list of our award winners are:

• Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points) wins the prize for first place and the FP prize for 330 featured pictures in the final round.
• Cwmhiraeth (submissions) wins the prize for second place and the DYK prize for 160 did you knows in the final round (310 in all rounds).
• Cas Liber (submissions) wins the prize for third place and the FA prize for 26 featured articles in all rounds.
• West Virginian (submissions) wins the prize for fourth place
• Calvin999 (submissions) wins a final 8 prize.
• Rationalobserver (submissions) wins a final 8 prize.
• Harrias (submissions) wins a final 8 prize and the FL prize for 11 featured lists.
• Rodw (submissions) wins the most prizes: a final 8 prize, the GA prize for 41 good articles, and the topic prize for a 13-article good topic and an 8-article featured topic, both in round 3.
• ThaddeusB (submissions) wins the news prize for the most news articles in round 3.

We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, and all are welcome to participate. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2016 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.

Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · logs), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · logs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · logs) 18:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone, and we would like to wish you all a happy holiday season. As you will probably already know, the 2016 WikiCup begins in the new year; there is still time to sign up. There are some changes we'd like to announce before the competition begins.

After two years of serving as WikiCup judge, User:Miyagawa has stepped down as judge. He deserves great thanks and recognition for his dedication and hard work, and for providing necessary transition for a new group of judges in last year's Cup. Joining Christine (User:Figureskatingfan) and Jason (User:Sturmvogel 66) is Andrew (User:Godot13), a very successful WikiCup competitor and expert in Featured Pictures; he won the two previous competitions. This is a strong judging team, and we anticipate lots of enjoyment and good work coming from our 2016 competitors.

We would also like to announce one change in how this year's WikiCup will be run. In the spirit of sportsmanship, Godot13 and Cwmhiraeth have chosen to limit their participation. See here for the announcement and a complete explanation of why. They and the judges feel that it will make for a more exciting, enjoyable, and productive competition.

The discussions/polls concerning the next competition's rules will be closed soon, and rules changes will be made clear on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring and talk pages. The judges are committed to not repeating the confusion that occurred last year and to ensuring that the new rules are both fair and in the best interests of the competition, which is, first and foremost, about improving Wikipedia.

If you have any questions or concerns, the judges can be reached on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, on their talk pages, or by email. We hope you will all join us in trying to make the 2015 WikiCup the most productive and enjoyable yet. You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Figureskatingfan (talk), and Godot13 (talk).--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We are about to enter the second week of the 2016 WikiCup. The most recent player to sign up brings the current total to 101 contestants. Signups close on 5 February. If you’re interested, you can join this year's WikiCup here.

We are aware that in some areas the scoring bot’s numbers are a little bit off (i.e., overly generous) and are working to have that corrected as soon as possible.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We are about to enter the second week of the 2016 WikiCup. The most recent player to sign up brings the current total to 101 contestants. Signups close on 5 February. If you’re interested, you can join this year's WikiCup here.

We are aware that in some areas the scoring bot’s numbers are a little bit off (i.e., overly generous) and are working to have that corrected as soon as possible.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Hall of Fame reversion argument

Hi. I haven't quite figured out yet how to talk directly with other users on this site, so hopefully you'll get this message. This response is in regards to your recent reversion of the changes I made to the WWE Hall of Fame page, and why I feel they're not justified. 1. I am aware of Wikipedia's fair use image policy. However, the pics I used to represent the inductees were taken directly from their individual Wikipedia pages, not elsewhere on the web. If you click on their names, you'd see that those are the photos that are displayed on their page. 2. What does it really matter how long the page is? The vast majority of articles on this site are so long they'd take hours to read, simply because of the vast amount of information in them. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. The more information the better, especially for educational purposes. So, I was simply providing just a little bit more info for those who are interested in expanding their knowledge of wrestling history. And I was in no way cherrypicking, as you alleged. That's all. Thank you for your time. MaverickAC (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. Forty-seven competitors move into this round (a bit shy of the expected 64), and we are roughly broken into eight groups of six. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups.

Twenty-two Good Articles were submitted, including three by Cyclonebiskit (submissions), and two each by MPJ-DK (submissions), Hurricanehink (submissions), 12george1 (submissions), and Cas Liber (submissions). Twenty-one Featured Pictures were claimed, including 17 by Adam Cuerden (submissions) (the Round 1 high scorer). Thirty-one contestants saw their DYKs appear on the main page, with a commanding lead (28) by Cwmhiraeth (submissions). Twenty-nine participants conducted GA reviews with J Milburn (submissions) completing nine.

If you are concerned that your nomination 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. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Thanks to everyone for participating, and good luck to those moving into round 2. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Along with getting the year wrong in the newsletter that went out earlier this week, we did not mention (as the bot did not report) that Cas Liber (submissions) claimed the first Featured Article Persoonia terminalis of the 2016 Wikicup. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email).--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at Stephanie's WWE bio, you'll see that they list the VJM Legacy Award among her accomplishments.

You said in your edit summaries that - after a brief back and forth where you removed the award from her championships and accomplishments - you were tired of "fighting with idiots" over the legitimacy of the award.

2 issues:

1. It's WWE's award - and just like any other award (like a Slammy or HOF induction), if they say it's a thing, it's a thing
2. I KNOW you weren't calling ME an idiot (as I was one who put the VJM Legacy Award in), because I KNOW you don't want me to call you out for a personal attack now, do you?

Vjmlhds (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please, stop removing the Vincent J McMahon Awards. The project disscussed it long time ago. The definition you gave (one-night-only plot devic,) is the same for every award and title. The slammys are plot devices, most of them never mentioned again (Best Hair or Best Tatoo). The NXT End of the Year Awards, TNA Awards... GM for RAW isn't an awards, it's a kayfabe role. Also, isn't nice "I give up fighting idiots." --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Round 2 is over and 35 competitors have moved on to Round 3.

Round 2 saw three FAs (two by Cas Liber (submissions) and one by Montanabw (submissions)), four Featured Lists (with three by Calvin999 (submissions)), and 53 Good Articles (six by Worm That Turned (submissions) and five each by Hurricanehink (submissions), Cwmhiraeth (submissions), and MPJ-DK (submissions)). Eleven Featured Pictures were promoted (six by Adam Cuerden (submissions) and five by Godot13 (submissions)). One Featured Portal, Featured Topic and Good Topic were also promoted. The DYK base point total was 1,135. Cwmhiraeth (submissions) scored 265 base points, while The C of E (submissions) and MPJ-DK (submissions) each scored 150 base points. Eleven ITN were promoted and 131 Good Article Reviews were conducted with MPJ-DK (submissions) completing a staggering 61 reviews. Two contestants, Cwmhiraeth (submissions) and Cas Liber (submissions), broke the 700 point mark for Round 2.

If you are concerned that your nomination 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. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Thanks to everyone for participating, and good luck to those moving into round 2. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Treehouse of Horror.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scorpion, here's another one of your FAC nominations at TFA, I'm working on the TFA text now. - Dank (push to talk) 03:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You may be interested in participating in the African Destubathon which starts on October 15. Africa currently has over 37,000 stubs and badly needs a quality improvement editathon/contest to flesh out basic stubs. There are proposed substantial prizes to give to editors who do the most articles, and planned smaller prizes for doing to most destubs for each of the 53 African countries, so should be enjoyable! So it would be a good chance to win something for improving stubs on African sportspeople, including footballers, athletes, Olympians and Paralympians etc, particularly female ones, but also male. Even if contests aren't your thing we would be grateful if you could consider destubbing a few African articles during the drive to help the cause and help reduce the massive 37,000 + stub count, of which many are rated high importance (think Regions of countries etc). If you're interested in competing or just loosely contributing a few expanded articles on African Paralympians, Olympians and committees etc, please add your name to the Contestants/participants section. Diversity of work from a lot of people will make this that bit more special. Thanks. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The final round of the 2016 WikiCup is over. Congratulations to the 2016 WikiCup top three finalists:

• First Place - Cas Liber (submissions)
• Second Place - MPJ-DK (submissions)
• Third Place - Adam Cuerden (submissions)

In addition to recognizing the achievements of the top finishers and everyone who worked hard to make it to the final round, we also want to recognize those participants who were most productive in each of the WikiCup scoring categories:

• Featured Article – Cas Liber (actually a three-way tie with themselves for two FAs in each of R2, R3, and R5).
• Good Article – MPJ-DK had 14 GAs promoted in R3.
• Featured List – Calvin999 (submissions) produced 2 FLs in R2
• Featured Pictures – Adam Cuerden restored 18 images to FP status in R4.
• Featured Portal – SSTflyer (submissions) produced the only FPO of the Cup in R2.
• Featured Topic – Cyclonebiskit (submissions) and Calvin were each responsible for one FT in R3 and R2, respectively.
• Good Topic – MPJ-DK created a GT with 9 GAs in R5.
• Did You Know – MPJ-DK put 53 DYKs on the main page in R4.
• In The News – Dharmadhyaksha (submissions) and Muboshgu (submissions), each with 5 ITN, both in R4.
• Good Article Review – MPJ-DK completed 61 GARs in R2.

Over the course of the 2016 WikiCup the following content was added to Wikipedia (only reporting on fixed value categories): 17 Featured Articles, 183 Good Articles, 8 Featured Lists, 87 Featured Pictures, 40 In The News, and 321 Good Article Reviews. Thank you to all the competitors for your hard work and what you have done to improve Wikipedia.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We will open up a discussion for comments on process and scoring in a few days. The 2017 WikiCup is just around the corner! Many thanks from all the judges. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup Greetings, all! We would like to announce the start of the 4th GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Thus far, there have been three GA Cups, which were successful in reaching our goals of significantly reducing the traditionally long queue at GAN, so we're doing it again. Currently, there are over 400 nominations listed. We hope that we can again make an impact this time. The 4th GA Cup will begin on November 1, 2016. Four rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on February 28, 2017), but this may change based on participant numbers. We may take a break in December for the holidays, depending on the results of a poll of our participants taken shortly after the competition begins. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same, as will the scoring. Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on November 14, 2016. 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, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. We apologize for the delay in sending out this message until after the competition has started. Thank you to Krishna Chaitanya Velaga for aiding in getting this message out. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, 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) 01:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On 1 January 2017, WikiCup 2017 (the 10th Annual WikiCup) will begin. This year we are trying something a little different – monetary prizes.

For the WC2017 the prizes will be as follows (amounts are based in US$ and will be awarded in the form of an online Amazon gift certificate):

• First place – $200
• Second & Third place – $50 each
• Category prizes – $25 per category (which will be limited to FA, FL, FP, GA, and DYK for 2017). Winning a category prize does not require making it to the final round.

Note: Monetary prizes are a one-year experiment for 2017 and may or may not be continued in the future. In order to be eligible to receive any of the prizes above, the competing Wikipedia account must have a valid/active email address.

After two years as a WikiCup judge, Figureskatingfan is stepping down. We thank her for her contributions as a WikiCup judge. We are pleased to announce that our newest judge is two-time WikiCup champion Cwmhiraeth.

The judges for the 2017 WikiCup are Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email).

Signups are open now and will remain open until 5 February 2017. You can sign up here.

If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You promoted Pearl Jam discography as Featured List. The split proposal will affect its status as FL. Please join discussion. --George Ho (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Treehouse of Horror.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. czar 09:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]