User talk:SmileBlueJay97

This is SmileBlueJay97's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4

If I have left you a message: please answer on my talk page, else inform me. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Talkback|SmileBlueJay97}} on your talk. Please click here to leave me a new message.

Hi! This is Darren, CEO of HiQ Labs. We are building Predictive Analtyics algorithms for Human Resources. You flagged our page. We are in the process of adding content about Human Resources Algorithms. The content is also on our Linkedin page.

Please let me know what I else I can do to help keep our page active and not deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darrenmiami (talk • contribs) 18:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Darren. Your article was deleted per (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) of speedy deletion. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing.Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable. Wikipedia neither endorses organizations nor runs affiliate programs. See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability. Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so. You have a conflict of interest to the subject. All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. If you are clear with the above statements, I will help you create a draft page at Articles for creation. The draft will need to be reviewed before it goes 'live'. When you finish, you'll be able to submit it to be reviewed by volunteers (you can add a message here and I'll review it for you). After a successful review, it will be moved to the article namespace.  SmileBlueJay97  talk  08:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SmileBlueJay97,

I am create the page "The puyu hotel and spa" not for promotion and publicity.

Our sister to the Puli hotel also has the relevant page in Wikipedia.“the puli hotel and spa”.

So we want to have a objective and neutral as her introduction.

Best regards,

--RingHu (talk) 09:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey RingHu. I understand that The Puyu hotel article has been created and deleted multiple times already. Please make sure that the article is written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics also must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources. Please also help improve The Puli Hotel and Spa as it may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for geographic features. Try creating an article using Wikipedia:Article wizard. The draft will need to be reviewed before it goes 'live'. When you finish, you'll be able to submit it to be reviewed by volunteers (you can add a message here and I'll review it for you). After a successful review, it will be moved to the article namespace.  SmileBlueJay97  talk  05:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey SmileBlueJay97.I understand your means and try to write. I create an article for the first time, So I don't know how to use a lot of functions. How to add a message here? What can I do and how to do?

like this?

Puyu-Logo-LB2.jpg

The PuYu Hotel and Spa (Chinese: 璞瑜酒店; pinyin: Puyu Jiudian) is the first and only luxury “Urban Resort” hotel in Wuhan, China, officially opening on 20th November, 2013. Located between Optics Valley’s commercial district, the picturesque East Lake, the Ma’anshan National Forest Park, and Huazhong University of Science and Technology. The PuYu is managed by Urban Resort Concepts[1],a Hong Kong based luxury hotel management company, which has created a landmark destination for travellers with their inaugural property, The PuLi Hotel and Spa in Shanghai. The PuYu is a member of “The Leading Hotels of the World[2]” (LHW), a luxury hotel consortium.
The hotel logo was inspired by waves (浪花), since the city of Wuhan is famous for its lakes and rivers.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by RingHu (talk • contribs) 05:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RingHu (talk) 05:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @RingHu: Please note that Wikipedia is not a travel or tourism guide. Thanks,  Philg88 ^♦talk 05:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey RingHu. As Philg88 noted above Wikipedia is not a travel or tourism guide. Also what you have above includes material copied directly from http://travel.china.com.cn/txt/2013-10/23/content_30381668_2.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. If you still do not understand why the article is inappropriate for Wikipedia, I can write you a response in Chinese.  SmileBlueJay97  talk  06:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey SmileBlueJay97. I have understand you mentioned policy and relevant provisions. I am just confusing that, you say " you can add a message here and I'll review it for you". Please kindly tell me, Which one can I do, add a amendment in this talk page or create a new article? Sorry to have troubled you--RingHu (talk) 05:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey RingHu. This is not troublesome at all and I'm glad that I'm able to help you. Click here then press Write an article now (for new users). Follow the directions to create a new article. After you are done creating the article you can submit it for review. The submitted drafts are reviewed by volunteers. If you want me to review it for you, you can add a message here on my talk page just as Arun did above (User talk:SmileBlueJay97#Review request for eSSL Security article). Please feel free to contact me here if you have any other questions.  SmileBlueJay97  talk  06:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SmileBlueJay97,

The site was marked for review because of an error of mine. I wanted to write the article based on what is written on the website of Mockrunner, and unfortunately I saved the article too early, saving the original content of the page. Of course the bots found the original page the article was based on. I then wrote the whole text by myself to make it my own work. Did you check if the content is still counting as copied from another source? In case you did, I will definitely contest the deletion so that it will not be deleted. Underworldguardian (talk) 14:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Underworldguardian. I tagged the article for deletion but I wasn't the one that deleted it. If you want the article restored, you should go ask RHaworth and provide a valid reason in support of your position. I and the deleting admin both performed a web search with the contents of Mockrunner and found that the article appears to include material copied directly from http://mockrunner.sourceforge.net/. Since substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it has been deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.  SmileBlueJay97  talk  05:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vernon is a new and upcoming rapper with the hip hop group Migos! I think it is very important we make a page for him now because it will soon be very difficult to track his successes and failures! Im sure it will be many of both!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deante890 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No multiple independent reliable sources for a standalone musician BLP. WP:TOOSOON is also valid.  SmileBlueJay97  talk  04:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hi , i wanted to create a wiki page on 'empowering the vision project'. it is non-profit and and non-governmental organisation and has served the Tibetan community, especially the the Tibetan youth by helping them financially, through career counselling, organizing conferences and exchange programs and help the unemployed Tibetan youth to find job. i work at empowering the vision office and was told to make a wiki page of it. i made, but it got deleted. i copied some materials from our website. can u please help me to make a page of empowering the vision project? Students for a free tibet wikipage is there, and for your information, our actions and function are same. so, why can't we create a wikipage of our organisation. waiting for your reply soon.. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Topchen (talk • contribs) 06:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Topchen. Welcome to Wikipedia. The page has been deleted under criteria G11 and A7 of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. 220 of Borg gave you a pretty good suggestion. I also strongly recommend not trying to create any new articles for a while. Instead, just make small improvements to existing articles. That way, you can gradually learn how Wikipedia works. After a time, you will know enough about what sort of thing is acceptable, and you will be able to write new articles without fear of all your work being deleted. In my experience, editors who start in this gentle way, making small changes to begin with, have a very much better chance of having a successful time here than those who try to write articles right from the start. Try creating an article using ‪Wikipedia:Article wizard‬ the next time. Using Articles for Creation instead of creating a new article directly may grant more leeway with respect to various rules/policies/guidelines/best practices.  SmileBlueJay97  talk  10:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(blush) --220 of ^Borg 10:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know why the page was not appropriate. I am leaning to use wikipedai. Please u can email at appsvalle at gmail I would really appreciate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Appsvalle (talk • contribs) 11:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done  SmileBlueJay97  talk  08:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SmileBlueJay97

This label is one of the official partners of FiXT Music, also It's going to be full armored music licensing company. And important to notice, that a lot of new releases on the way to people and one of them including collaboration work with such famos person as 1.8.7 So we need this page to have a possibility to show to our listeners our achievements and have a regular data base with all the info about our label.

Best regards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Destroid111 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. The article also fails WP:ORG. Please see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on company notability.  SmileBlueJay97  talk  10:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SmileBlueJay97!

I would like to clarify the information about deletion the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Sladkovskiy. What should I do to let the page stay on the website? This article is only the translation of the following one: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9,_%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D1%80_%D0%92%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87 I have already changed the article from the first variant. It is the official biography, that is situated on our official website. http://en.tatarstan-symphony.com/sladkovskiy/

Please, help me to finish the creation of the page. it is really important for our orchestra to have this. I would greatly appreciate your answer. Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ildargso (talk • contribs) 13:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ildargso. There are some things that I want to point out to you.

• Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources.
• For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

• You have a conflict of interest to the subject. All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations.
• You should try to make contributions to Wikipedia. You may be blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia if your account appears to be mainly intended for publicity and/or promotional purposes. There are many Wikiprojects covering different areas of interest here. At the individual projects you will generally find a list of things that needs to be done.
• Alexander Sladkovskiy has been protected from creation until March 5th, 2015. If you want the article to be unsalted, you should go ask RHaworth and provide a valid reason in support of your position.
• I saw your comment on Talk:Alexander Sladkovskiy. You can go to Wikipedia:Article wizard and request an article be written on the topic. You can also try creating an article using Wikipedia:Article wizard (after you request unprotection). The draft will need to be reviewed before it goes 'live'. When you finish, you'll be able to submit it to be reviewed by volunteers (you can add a message here and I'll review it for you). After a successful review, it will be moved to the article namespace.

Feel free to contact me here if you have any other questions. Best,  SmileBlueJay97  talk  09:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I protected Alexander Sladkovskiy with the comment author is clueless which, I admit, steps over the bounds of civility. But even here you have confirmed my view: you use the wrong format to link to the articles in question - the russian link should be Сладковский, Александр Витальевич. In Alexander Sladkovskiy, you allowed your first attempt to sit around for a week with a {{prod}} tag when you should have been adding references. With your next attempt, you do the totally pointless thing of adding {{db-copyvio-notice}} to the article itself - twice! Having had it deleted as a copyvio, you simply repost it!

You claim it is a translation of the Russian, so why does SmileBlueJay think it is a copyvio?

The guy is probably notable so my advice is find help. Try WikiProject Russia or ru:talk:Сладковский, Александр Витальевич. You could even try Natkabrown (talk · contribs) - she is a native Russian speaker. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. First of all, I am sorry for the inconvenience caused, I wasn't really aware about talk pages in Wiki. I have searched the certain topic very well, that's why I had been editing it.

Firstly, the following two sentences I had added: "However, the investigation by the authorities will clarify whether the violence claimed by the woman was used or not in their fight. While Kim is on a World Tour performing concerts, he is to be summoned for questioning soon" are taken from the following source: http://m.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20140825000705

Secondly, the second paragraph which I had edited like this: "On September 2, 2014, Kim says he had a light physical fight with his ex-girlfriend on one occasion but he strongly denies having abused her neither once nor repeatedly. The police remarks to the media, "To substantiate Kim Hyun Joong's assault allegation, everything is vague. There is no evidence except A's statement to prove who assaulted A and that was Kim Hyun Joong. Kim Hyun Joong says it was a light physical fight that happened while they argued about breakup issue." About the rib fracture, Kim Hyun Joong speculates it was from horse playing around (wresting games/ playing/ joking) and he says that he did not know about it honestly. Kim Hyun Joong's statement reflects the statement released by his agency, which stated that there was a physical fight between the two of them once, and that the repeated assault is not true. However, as reported before, his girlfriend claimed that there were several instances of him physically abusing her over the course of two months. Because the statements of the two sides were totally different from each other, the police will be calling in both sides for further questions." is taken from the two following sources: http://m.star.mt.co.kr/view.html?no=2014090302480639255 http://m.news.naver.com/read.nhn?mode=LSD&mid=sec&sid1=106&oid=108&aid=0002334801

Stavgr (talk) 21:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SmileBlueJay97!

I have absolutely no idea of what is unreviewing something but I trust you did well, thanks! Good Day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TymeToTry (talk • contribs) 18:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind this message, wrong page :)

Hi SmileBlueJay97; regarding your message on Janpersonn's talk page, I thought you'd like to know I've opened an SPI here because I think Janperson/Junperson/Janpersonn are linked to Rauzaruku (talk). Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you for notifying. Your explanation is very thorough, I don't think there's anything else for me to add. SmileBlueJay97  talk  06:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries; I would have kept quiet about my suspicions if the user hadn't sock-hopped when I asked him about his accounts. Doubtless he'll abandon the latest account or "forget his password" again. These accounts aren't troublesome content-wise but it could be a good hand/bad hand editor that we aren't aware of. Any way I'll let the SPI run its course and see what happens. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you're using the old ugly unmaintained AFCH script (state of which isn't your fault), please take a look at this discussion and the question (poll) raised below it. --Gryllida (talk) 10:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Gryllida. Thanks for this message. I honestly didn't even know about the new script until you messaged me. I have added my support to the poll and updated my common.js page with the new script. Cheers,  SmileBlueJay97  talk  10:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't blaming you. I understand. And thanks. :-) --Gryllida (talk) 10:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A tip. A11 is for things that could well be real but are very obviously not notable (or even significant), like the new word created by Polly Flookempusher last Thursday (which is known to all of three people already...). G3 is for things like Broganism, which are obvious attempts to mislead (or at least to make Wikipedia look silly if not deleted quickly). A11 assumes good faith, G3 assumes evil (or probably downright silly) intent. Peridon (talk) 15:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Peridon. Thank you for the tip. I marked the article as A11 because another user previously told me that tagging G3 is "needless biting of new user." I understand now and will make sure to tag the articles for G3 instead in the future.  SmileBlueJay97  talk  15:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A11 was brought in because there were things that didn't fit 'hoax' - that is, things probably in good faith (or at least, possibly in good faith). Drinking games (usually reinventing beer pong), neologisms that well never get beyond the lesson in which they were created - they're what A11 is for. With G3, it's a real attempt to mislead - and it has to be obvious enough for the most ardent inclusionist to have no objection. Be careful, though. Bobble-head doll syndrome looked very like a hoax at first to some. With a real hoax, you shouldn't need to worry about biting. The author will either start editing properly (one or two do), or is no loss to the encyclopaedia. And if they suddenly produce a sheaf of excellent references (or even two ordinary references...), you can always gracefully apologise and help them fit them in. Things that aren't quite so obvious should go to AfD where they will be torn apart by the wolves, or shown to be correct but not notable, or rescued. All good fun. Peridon (talk) 17:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for taking the time to explain this and I love your good humor.  SmileBlueJay97  talk  18:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on, SmileBlueJay97, we are at a Wikipedia:Meetup/Portland/Feminist and Queer Art edit-a-thon & you have tagged the article that a newbie just started. Please consider removing your tag for a day until she can catch up. Peaceray (talk) 20:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the tag per your request. Nothing came up when I did a general google search with her name.  SmileBlueJay97  talk  20:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr. SmileBlueJay97,

When I logged in to my Wikipedia account, I noticed that some content was removed from a celebrity page that i created. There was a table showing upcoming projects. Is it against Wikipedia policy to include future projects? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igenuz (talk • contribs) 06:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Thanks,  SmileBlueJay97  talk  22:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey did you see the new "Irene Bae" page? I left a response on the creator's page, but do you know the policy of applying our merge consensus on to similar pages? Asdklf; (talk) 15:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would just redirect the page back to Red Velvet (band). This fits under criteria G4. (Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion) of speedy deletion. Link him/her to WP:RECREATE and explain that although it is not forbidden to recreate a previously deleted article, Irene's notability status hasn't changed yet. I would also link him/her to the Irene's AFD so he/she will be able to learn the reason behind the deletion and the consensus on the issue. Cheers,  SmileBlueJay97  talk  23:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello~ The Seventeen Wikipedia page has been marked as written from a fan's point of view. I was wondering if you new what needed to be removed/changed in order for that to be taken off? Also, I'm working on a different thing for Seventeen, in which I'm writing a full history of the group. Would it be against a copyright policy for me to take the history I write for that project and also put it on the Seventeen Wikipedia page? I was thinking it would be fine because I'm the writer of the history that would be added, but I'm not sure.--Allegedlyinsane (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Allegedlyinsane~ Since you wrote the history yourself, it would not be a copyright. I marked the page as written from a fan's point of view and overly detailed. Please avoid including information that is trivial and of importance only to a small population of fans. The "As Main Artist", "Like Seventeen Show" and "Music Show appearances" sections should all be removed. Pre-debut vocal practice videos are not notable and should not be counted as discography. Being backup dancers for another group is not notable and should not be included in a Wikipedia either. Please note that Wikipedia is not a fansite. Thank you,  SmileBlueJay97  talk  17:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on thar... If this history has been published online or in print anywhere, it's not OK to import it here. Things can be licensed, but you then lose control of the subsequent use as Wikipedia is licensed for free use by anyone anywhere. If your history is not yet published, you can use it here - but the same applies. It becomes available for anyone to republish. And if you did then publish it (as you would be entitled to do, you would have to acknowledge Wikipedia as the source. Sounds silly? Avoiding legal problems. Copyright is a bit of a minefield, and we have trouble sometimes establishing where stuff came from. Or, very importantly, when. Did it start here, get copied by A, recopied by B (who didn't acknowledge Wikipedia), and then thought to be a copyvio here? Or did B write it, C copy it into Wikipedia, and A copy it from Wikipedia? See what I mean? Peridon (talk) 11:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look at Kwari River and see the changes I made, especially capitalization. Towns and rivers in India are not easy, because the creators are not good at capitalization and grammar. --DThomsen8 (talk) 17:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dthomsen8. Thank you for reviewing my copyedit. I saw the changes you made but didn't see you capitalize anything. I may have missed something but what exactly did you capitalize?  SmileBlueJay97  talk  01:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

river and sheopur became River and Sheopur. I also did several changes which are not strictly copyediting, such as the coordinates. Use the history tab to see changes over time.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see the change now. Thank you again for reviewing my copyedit. I will make sure to look for these things in the future.  SmileBlueJay97  talk  01:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not an A11, sorry. It's a book that does exist - Amazon's selling it. I've declined, and prodded it instead as self-published and non-notable. Keep A11 for things invented by students etc. Anything like a book (even an e-book) is either real or a hoax. A11 is ideas, words and games. Real to the inventor (or so it's claimed), but not to more than about five or so mates. Peridon (talk) 11:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a comment above at Seventeen wiki... Peridon (talk) 11:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the wrong tag. The book seemed to be self-published and probably non-notable at first glance so I didn't bother to do a search before tagging the page. I was actually going to tag the page as G2 at first but that would have been wrong as well. I'll be more careful in tagging pages in the future, thank you for the notice.  SmileBlueJay97  talk  12:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can recognise a lot of the self-publishing outfits like AuthorHouse, lulu dot com, Xlibris, PublishAmerica and offshoots, CreateSpace, etc, but BookBaby was a new one on me. CreateSpace seems to be the commonest one we get now. Used to be lulu (the website name is blacklisted here so I put dot in). Always suspect any publisher you don't recognise, and whose website you can't find. It's probably the author him/herself using one of the outfits I've mentioned, but trying to hide it. If you get nearly zero hits for the 'publisher' with a minus for the title or author, it's a disguised self-publish 99.9% certain. Peridon (talk) 13:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I want to let you know I removed your G3 on Baghwar because it appears to be a serious article. —teb728 t c 08:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for notifying. Nothing came up when I did a general search with "Baghwar", "Baghwar Mahli" or "Baghwar tiger". It seemed to be an attempt to mislead (or at least to make Wikipedia look silly if not deleted quickly).  SmileBlueJay97  talk  08:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for what links to Baghwar and found it in List of gotras. It seemed to fit the contents. —teb728 t c 08:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The page creator, Surajm007 (talk · contribs), added it to the list minutes before he/she created Baghwar.  SmileBlueJay97  talk  09:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

Not sure why my contributions for Chances Maple Ridge and Chances Chilliwack were eligible for speedy deletion? The information I provided was purely fact-based, with no "puffery". Can you please explain? Thanks!:oD

Lemminggrass (talk) 16:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)Lemminggrass[reply]

I have added references and many different credible sites that he does exist. How can I remove the tag you had put on it and flagged for deletion?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbsnim4 (talk • contribs) 05:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mbsnim4. Thanks for adding references to the article. You may remove the BLP PROD from the page. I noticed that the use of external links in the article may not follow Wikipedia's policy and that there is insufficient inline citations. The page also needs some copy editing.  SmileBlueJay97  talk  05:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you have reverted this edit: diff. But I think it is in line with the 2nd note: Number of articles of 5,000 words or more. An article of 10K+ words counts as 2, of 15K+ as 3, and so on. Could you please check? Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra^T 01:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey AmritasyaPutra. I have reverted my edit again. Thank you for pointing it out.  SmileBlueJay97  talk  02:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please Help Me To Complete My Article on " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Doves_BD " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Age0948 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ae0948, please see the discussion on your talk page. The Black Doves BD has been deleted 4 times per (A7:Article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject) of speedy deletion.  SmileBlueJay97  talk  14:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reply. I am new in here. And also very weak in English. So, Can you make this article for me please. I copied all the items which I used for my article. Just do that thing which can make my article reasonable. Please, help me. I hope you will reply soon. And sorry for my bad English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Age0948 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		Leaderboard Award: Total articles—3rd Place
		This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to SmileBlueJay97 for copyediting 13 articles during the GOCE September 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations! Miniapolis 15:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		Leaderboard Award: 5K articles—4th Place
		This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to SmileBlueJay97 for copyediting two 5,000-plus-word articles during the GOCE September 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations! Miniapolis 15:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		Leaderboard Award: Longest article—3rd Place
		This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to SmileBlueJay97 for copyediting a 12,077-word article during the GOCE September 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations! Miniapolis 15:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Thanks for copyediting a total of 24,084 words during the Guild of Copy Editors September drive! All the best, Miniapolis 15:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you so much for patiently explaining to me my mistakes and helping me with things I don't understand. Glorious.sophisticated (talk) 02:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome!  SmileBlueJay97  talk  02:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SmileBlueJay97, the thing about the SM stock is that, having that detail in the article does not make Red Velvet a better band musically by any chance. In other words, it's pretty irrelevant and unimportant. They are still a rookie band and does not have a lot of accomplishments yet. I'm trying to cut down all the unnecessary details.--TerryAlex (talk) 12:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything included in a page about musicians and bands has to be music related. Endorsements, filmography, philanthropy etc. can all be included and are relevant and sometimes very important. Being new does not necessarily mean they are not accomplished singers. Quoting Red Velvet's wiki page "Happiness" made its way up to the number one spot on Genie's real-time music chart, and also top 10 on of various other charts as well. Internationally, it debuted at No. 3 in Singapore and Taiwan, No.4 in Malaysia, No.5 in Thailand and No.9 in Hong Kong. The song was the second most viewed K-pop video worldwide in August 2014. These are accomplishments that some older bands that have debuted years earlier may never be able to achieve. You also need to realize that even though the group debuted this year, members like Seulgi had been a trainee for 7 years. I would say the thing about raising the companies stock price is relevant to Red Velvet. Cheers,  SmileBlueJay97  talk  05:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those things in the "quote" are important and need to be kept; hence, that is why I trimmed out all the other details while keeping those intact. Not saying that they haven't accomplished anything, but they still don't have a lot of accomplishments yet. Looking from a long-term perspective, the "stock price" is still pretty irrelevant.--TerryAlex (talk) 21:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you could do some CE on the article. I already wrote a request on WP:GOCE. Thanks.--Carlojoseph14 (talk) 18:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ej1128lib and Priker928 are employees of the Martin County Library System and are creating this page linked to Martin County, Florida we will adhere to the requirements of Wikipedia to create a page that is informational not merely promotional and will include references. As we are novices to Wikipedia please refrain from deleting this page while we are continuing to edit. Thank you for your consideration — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ej1128lib (talk • contribs) 17:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		The Modest Barnstar
		Hi SmileBlueJay97, thank you for copy editing 2,313 words in 1 article during the Guild of Copy Editors’ October Blitz. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WWW.fb.com/sunilbairagi2728 WWW.twitter.com/sunilbairagi2728 sunilbairagi2728@gmail.com sunilbairagi2728@outlook.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunilbairagi2728 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelmina Will has given you some caramel and a candy apple! Caramel and candy-coated apples are fun Halloween treats, and promote WikiLove on Halloween. Hopefully these have made your Halloween (and the proceeding days) much sweeter. Happy Halloween! '"On Psych, A USA Network TV series Episode 8, The Tao of Gus, Season 6, Shawn refers to pumpkins as "Halloween Apples" because he thinks all round fruits are a type of apple. If Trick-or-treaters come your way, add {{subst:Halloween apples}} to their talkpage with a spoooooky message!

Cheers! "We could read for-EVER; reading round the wiki!" (talk) 17:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you removed my entry for Jeremy Griffith. Can you please elaborate on the reason for removing the entry? What I wanted to do is indicate that a critique of Griffith's work has appeared in the public domain and briefly summarise the nature of that critique. I do not understand how that contravenes any of the wiki protocols? There is no expression of opinion or argument presented - if so that was not the intention. I would like to re-enter what I have written. How do you propose I do it in a manner which satifies wiki protocols? The 'fact' I am discussing is the existence of a critque in the public domain - this being a critical review in one of Australia's major Newspapers, 'The Sydney Morning Herald'. As this is a significant critique of specefic problems in Griffith's work it should be mentioned on this wiki page for the benefit of the public... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Divinecomedy666 (talk • contribs) 08:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Smile Blue - this is a footnote to my previous message about your removal of my Jeremy Griffith post. I have read the relevant wiki protocols you mentioned and see why you removed it now. I do have a specfic interest in this topic so that may leave me open to the charge of bias. However I have tried to counter this by merely refering to reliable sources in the public domain and to obstain from the expression of opinion. This is really my only venture into wiki - and I was unaware a sole interest user is considered unawarranted or unreliable. However can not a person with an interest in a very specifc topic make a contribution? Surely they may be more informed about it than a more general editor and therefore offer expertise/knowledge others lack? I want to undo your changes with your approval - and have the entry refined/critiqued by others to ensure objectivity and impartiality. I think I can contribute to this as I am aware of other pieces that have been written. However very little (none to my knowledge) detailed critical analysis of Griffith's work has been produced by individuals with academic expertise in anthropology and paleoanthropology. The critique in the SMH is the first and only exmaple of such critique. The majority of other documents in the public domain are published by Griffith himself and/or his supporters and they therefore lack the impartiality of a dispassionate independent analysis. Also I should add my previous entires on this topic and the fact that I undid a previous editors changes earlier this year was due to inexperience and a lack of understanding of how wiki worked. I did not understand why someone could just come along and delete everything I had written. Now I am aware of the correct procedures. I hope we can negotiate a means of putting my entry back up in a manner that does not contravene wiki protocolsDivinecomedy666 (talk) 15:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		The Working Wikifier's Barnstar
		For scoring 6th place on the leaderboard during the October 2014 Wikification Drive, SmileBlueJay97, you are hereby awarded the Working Wikifier's Barnstar! Congratulations!!!

Cheers!!! If I had to guess... (talk) 08:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi friend how r u? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunilbairagi2728 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sunilbairagi2728. I've been on and off wiki a lot these few days due to school work. How are you?  SmileBlueJay97  talk  02:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SmileBlueJay97. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey my friend, hope all is cool with you. When you have a spare moment I'd be really grateful if you could apply your superb formatting skills to my user page. It's starting to look like something the 小猫 dragged in. 祝好,  Philg88 ^♦talk 22:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing my friend. I'll work on it this afternoon. Do you have anything specific to request?  SmileBlueJay97  talk  03:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, other than maybe the userboxen should all stack down the left hand side. Cheers,  Philg88 ^♦talk 08:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tried stacking the userboxes to the left and moved the Centralized discussion and RfA to the right. I also wanted to move the bullet points to the right underneath the RfA but somehow its not working... Tell me if its okay/if you liked it better before the change/what else you'd want to change etc. :)  SmileBlueJay97  talk  15:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant userboxen down the right hand side, must get my brain serviced. Welcome text should then display to the left of the userboxen stack as far up as possible so people can see it without scrolling. Cheers,  Philg88 ^♦talk 17:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I placed the userboxen down the right side and placed the RfA report and centralized discussion side by side down below (think it looks a little better than top bottom). Cheers,  SmileBlueJay97  talk  01:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Thank you, that was exactly what I had in mind. Cheers,  Philg88 ^♦talk 07:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I took the liberty of moving your article SmileBlueJay97/Sandbox 5 to User:SmileBlueJay97/Sandbox 5, since I'm fairly certain that's where you meant to put it. --Richard Yin (talk) 15:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Thank you for catching this careless mistake. (:  SmileBlueJay97  talk  15:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the title says, Nasty Nasty Wikipedia entry has been nominated for deletion, using dubious criteria "We all know EVERY release in Korea charts, whether it sells one copy or a million, so technically passes Wikipedia's notability requirements, but we have to use common sense." Ian nnnnnn (talk) 22:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The Greater Working Wikifier's Barnstar
		For scoring 4th place on the leaderboard during the December 2014 Wikification drive, you are hereby awarded the Greater Working Wikifier's Barnstar. Congratulations!

		The Iron Wikification Barnstar
		For wikifying 12 articles, you are also awarded the Iron Wikification barnstar. Keep up the good work!!!

Cheers! Fellow editors, we are like keys in a cod... Oh, don't say that doesn't make sense! (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for all the "thanks" on my edits to the Kim Hyun Joong page. I don't know if you've noticed, but the user Zhifff continues to edit in biased information that isn't supported by reliable sources (they misrepresent the prosecutor office's statement for one, and also cite "evidence" that was compiled by Kim Hyun Joong fansites), even after you reverted their edit once. I have just reverted their most recent edit, but I'm wondering if there's something we can do about this in the future, or else it will just turn into an edit war.Noialrone (talk) 03:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a level 1 warning to Zhifff's talk page. If she/he continues, then add another warning. The person may be blocked after the fourth/final warning is given.  SmileBlueJay97  talk  06:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

<y changes is from creible new source and the translation is consistent with the actual court ruling. your source is actually known as gossip korean website that is biased by bad news translation. Thank you!! The final ruling is unintentional harm and minor offense. http://xin.msn.com/en-sg/entertainment/story/kim-hyun-joong-fined-for-hitting-ex/ar-AA8nBRf

Hello SmileBlueJay97,

I put up a page yesterday that was not very encyclopedic in its entry. And it was deleted which I felt like was reasonable. However, I went back and edited the page to be nothing but the facts about DiameterJ, a free plugin for ImageJ, and it was deleted again. The reason that was given was because it was a clear promotion. However, my article did not promote the software in any way. It merely stated what the application was, what it worked with, and what it did. There was no discussion of why it was good or bad, or anything promotional about the entry. Further, the citations linked to sites and publications that confirmed the information in the article. So, I guess my question is, if this is considered promotional, how could I word this to be considered not promotional?

Thank you for your time and help!

Nathan Hotaling (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Nathan. Sorry for the late reply. I haven't been active lately due to personal reasons. It looks like you have already gotten a response from other users on your talk page. If you have further questions, please feel free to ask me here. Cheers,  SmileBlueJay97  talk  03:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup - Finals/Wrap-Up The inaugural GA Cup is now over! The competition officially ended Thursday. Congrats to everyone who participated, and especially to our finalists. The winner of the 2014/2015 GA Cup is Jaguar! He earned an impressive 615 points, despite only being a wildcard in the Round 4. The key to Jaguar's success seemed to be reviewing lots of articles as well as reviewer the oldest nominations; he reviewed 39 nominations in this round. Overall, the key to everyone's success was reviewing articles that had been in the queue for at least three months, which was true throughout the competition. In second place was Wizardman, with 241 points, and following close behind in third place was Good888, with 211 points. Congrats! Although there were a couple of bumps along the way, the judges have thoroughly enjoyed managing this competition. We hope that the participants had fun as well. The GA Cup was a resounding success, and that's due to all of you. The judges sincerely thank each and every participant, and for the editors who were willing to subject their articles to this process. We learned a lot. For example, we learned that even with meticulous planning, it's impossible to anticipate every problem. We learned that the scoring system we set up wasn't always the most effective. The enthusiasm and motivation of Wikipedians is awesome, and we enjoyed watching what was sometimes fierce competition. We look forward to the second GA Cup later this year. We reached many of our goals. See here for GA Cup statistics. We made a big difference, especially in shortening the length of time articles spend in the queue, and in reducing the backlog. Overall, 578 nominations were reviewed throughout the competition and a total of 8,184 points were awarded. Everyone involved should be very proud of what we've accomplished through the GA Cup. Stay tuned for more information about our next competition. There will be some much-needed changes made in the scoring system next time. We appreciate your feedback, and commit to seriously consider it. If you haven't already, please fill out the feedback form here. If you're interested in being a judge in our second GA Cup, please let one of our judges know or click on the tab found in the feedback form. Again, thanks to all and congratulations to our winners! Cheers from Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:17, 28 February 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]

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) 05:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chocolate-Easter-Bunny.jpg

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup Greetings, all! We would like to announce the start of the 2nd GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Our inaugural competition, which ran from October 2014 to April 2015, was such a resounding success that we'd like to do it again. Currently, there are over 500 GANs ready to be reviewed; competitors in the previous GA Cup reviewed about 570 GAs, so we can again make a huge impact in helping editors improve articles in Wikipedia and decrease the traditionally long queue at GAN. The 2nd GA Cup will begin on July 1, 2015. As last time, five rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on November 28, 2015), but this may change based on participant numbers. The judges learned a lot during the 1st GA Cup which exposed weaknesses in its system. Using both the feedback from last year's participants and the weaknesses discovered, we've revised the scoring system to make it more fair. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same. We also are introducing three new judges: 3family6, Jaguar and MrWooHoo. So in total, there will be six judges. We hope this will allow the competition to run more smoothly. Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on July 15, 2015. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now! If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the judges. Cheers from 3family6, Dom497, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar and MrWooHoo, and TheQ Editor.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors June 2015 News May drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 38 people who signed up, 29 copyedited at least one article, and we got within 50 articles of our all-time low in the backlog. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Coordinator elections: Nominations are open through June 15 for GOCE coordinators, with voting from June 16–30. Self-nominations are welcome and encouraged. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Jonesey95, Biblioworm and Philg88. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Winner 1st Japan Tour 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/Winner 1st Japan Tour 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. Random86 (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - Round 2 Greetings, GA Cup competitors! Wednesday saw the end of Round 1. The Rambling Man, who was eliminated during the first round in our last competition, earned an impressive 513 points, reviewed twice as many articles (26) as any other competitor. It was a tight race for second for first-time competitors BenLinus1214 and Tomandjerry211, who finished second and third with 243 and 224 points, respectively. Close behind was Wugapodes, who earned 205 points. The change in our points system had an impact on scoring. It was easier to earn higher points, although the key to success didn't change from last time, which was choosing articles with older nomination dates. For example, most of the articles The Rambling Man reviewed were worth 18 points in the nomination date category, and he benefited from it. BenLinus1214 reviewed the longest article, A Simple Plan (at 26,536 characters, or 4,477 words), the 1994 film starring Bill Paxton, Billy Bob Thornton, and Bridget Fonda and directed by Sam Raimi, and earned all possible 5 points in that category. After feedback from our participants, the judges slightly changed the rule about review length this time out. Shorter reviews are now allowed, as long as reviewers give nominators an opportunity to address their feedback. Shorter reviews are subject to the judges' discretion; the judges will continue their diligence as we continue the competition. Despite having fewer contestants at the beginning of Round 1 than last time, 132 articles were reviewed, far more than the 117 articles that were reviewed in Round 1 of the inaugural GA Cup. All of us involved should be very proud of what we've accomplished thus far. The judges are certain that Round 2 will be just as successful. 16 contestants have moved onto Round 2 and have been randomly placed in 4 groups of 4, with the top 2 in each pool progressing to Round 3, as well as the top participant ("9th place") of all remaining competitors. Round 2 has already begun and will end on August 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 2 and the pools can be found here. Good luck and remember to have fun! Cheers from Dom497, Figureskatingfan, 3family6 and Jaguar, and MrWooHoo. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors August 2015 Newsletter July drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 24 people who signed up, 17 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. August blitz: The one-week April blitz, targeting biographical articles that have been tagged for copy editing for over a year, will run from August 16–22. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the article list on the blitz page. Sign up here! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators, Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, KieranTribe, Miniapolis, and Pax85. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

sent by Jonesey95 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:43, 15 August 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]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - Round 3 Greetings, all! We hope that everyone had a nice summer. Saturday saw the end of Round 2. Things went relatively smoothly this month. The top 2 from 4 pools, plus the top participant (the wildcard, or "9th place") of all remaining competitors, moved onto Round 3. We had one withdrawal early in Round 2, so he was replaced by the next-highest scorer from Round 1. Round 2's highest scorer was Pool D's Tomandjerry211, who earned an impressive 366 points; he also reviewed the most articles (19). Close behind was Zwerg Nase, also in Pool D, at 297 points and 16 articles. The wildcard slot went to Good888. Congrats to all! Round 3 will have 9 competitors in 3 pools. The key to moving forward was reviewing articles with the longest nomination dates, as it has been in every round up to now. For example, 2 competitors only needed to review 2 articles each to win in their pools, and each article were either from the pink nomination box (20 points) or had languished in the queue for over 5 months (18 points). The GA Cup continues to be a success in many ways, even with fewer competitors this time. For some reason, the competitors in the 2015 GA Cup have reviewed fewer articles in Round 2, which has made the judges scratch their head in confusion. We've speculated many reasons for that: the summer months and vacations, our competitors are saving their strength for the final rounds, or they all live in the Pacific Northwest and the heavy wildfire smoke has affected their thinking. Whatever the reason, Round 2 competitors reviewed almost 100 articles, which is a significant impact in the task of reviewing articles for GA status. We've considered that the lower participation this competition is due to timing, so we intend to discuss the best time frame for future GA Cups. For Round 3, participants have been placed randomly in 3 pools of 3 contestants each; the top editor in each pool will progress, as well as the top 2 of all remaining users. Round 3 will start on September 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on September 28 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 3 and the pools can be found here. Good luck to the remaining contestants, and have fun! Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6 and Jaguar, and MrWooHoo. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

Delivered on behalf of WikiProject Good articles by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the article on stub pages; specifically the portion on creating and improving them. You suggested the article for deletion because " it doesn't appear to contain any encyclopedic content", but I am having difficulty in discerning exactly what you mean by this. The stub article you asked me to review states:

"The key is to provide adequate context—articles with little or no context usually end up being speedily deleted. Your initial research may be done either through books or reliable websites. You may also contribute knowledge acquired from other sources, but it is useful to conduct some research beforehand to ensure that your facts are accurate and unbiased. Use your own words: directly copying other sources without giving them credit is plagiarism, and may in some cases be a violation of copyright.

Begin by defining or describing your topic. Avoid fallacies of definition. Write clearly and informatively. State, for example, what a person is famous for, where a place is located and what it is known for, or the basic details of an event and when it happened.

Next, try to expand upon this basic definition. Internally link relevant words, so that users unfamiliar with the subject can understand what you have written. Avoid linking words needlessly; instead, consider which words may require further definition for a casual reader to understand the article.

Lastly, a critical step: add sources for the information you have put into the stub; see citing sources for information on how to do so in Wikipedia."

As far as I can tell the article does all these things and is very similar to other historical biographical articles I have written. Could you perhaps provide a specific critique / suggestion or two? Calexanderroth (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - Round 4 GA Cup competitors and observers: Happy Fall! Get ready, we're about to move into the finals of the second-ever GA Cup! Monday saw the end of Round 3. Out of the 8 contestants in the semi-finals, 5 have moved to the finals. The semi-finals were competitive. Our semi-finalists reviewed a total of 61 articles, or a grand total of 1,151 points. If you were to lump the top winners from each of the three pools together, it'd be a close horse race; they were within 35 points of each other, which can only mean that the finals will be an exciting race. Tomandjerry211, our top scorer in Round 2, again earned the most points in the semi-finals, with 288 points and 16 articles reviewed. Johanna came in second overall, with 251 points and 13 articles reviewed; Sturmvogel 66 came in third overall, with 221 points and 16 articles. Rounding out our wildcard slots are Zwerg Nase and The Rambling Man. These contestants were very strategic in how they reviewed articles. Like every other round in the history of the GA Cup, success depended upon reviewing oldest-nominated articles. For example, Johanna reviewed 5 articles that were worth the highest possible points. Congrats to all our finalists, and good luck! Stay tuned to this space for more information about the 2nd GA Cup, including overall statistics and how this competition has affected Wikipedia. We regret to inform you that Dom497, one of our original judges and co-creator of the GA Cup, has stepped down as a judge. Dom, a longtime member of WP:WikiProject Good articles, is responsible for the look of the GA Cup and has been instrumental in its upkeep. We wish him the best as he starts his university education, and are certain that he'll make an impact there as he has in Wikipedia. The finals started on October 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and will end on Ocober 29 at 23:59:59 UTC with a winner being crowned. Information about the Final can be found here. Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6 and Jaguar, and MrWooHoo. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

Guild of Copy Editors October 2015 Newsletter September drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 25 editors who signed up, 18 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. October blitz: The one-week October blitz, targeting requests, has just concluded. Of the nine editors who signed up, seven copyedited at least one request; check your talk page for your barnstar! The month-long November drive, focusing on our oldest backlog articles (June, July, and August 2014) and the October requests, is just around the corner. Hope to see you there! Thanks again for your support; together, we can improve the encyclopedia! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, KieranTribe, Miniapolis and Pax85. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - Finals/Wrap-Up The second-ever GA Cup is now over! The competition officially ended Thursday. Congrats to everyone who participated, and especially to our finalists. The winner of the 2nd GA Cup is Zwerg Nase! He earned 408 points, over 100 points more than he earned in all previous rounds. He tied with our second-place winner, Sturmvogel 66 with 367 points, in number of articles reviewed (24), and they earned almost the same points for reviewing articles that were in the queue the longest (Zwerg with 322, Sturmvogel with 326). Basically, they tied in points, but what made the different for Zwerg was the advantage he had in reviewing longer articles. It seems that the rule change of earning more realistic points for longer articles made a difference. All of our contestants should be proud of the work they were able to accomplish through the GA Cup. Congrats to these worthy opponents! Our third and fourth place winners, Johanna and Tomandjerry211, also ran a close race, with 167 points and 147 points respectfully. We had one withdrawal; we found it interesting that competitors dropped out in Round 2 and 3 as well. One of the original judges and co-creator of this competition, User:Dom497 stepped down as judge during Round 3; as stated previously, we will miss his input and wish him the best. The judges were pleased with our results, even though fewer users competed this time compared to our inaugural competition. We recognize that this might be due to holding the competition during the summer months. We intend on looking more closely when we should conduct this contest, as well as other aspects of the GA Cup. We've set up a feedback page for everyone's input about how we should conduct the contest and what rule changes should be made. If you have any ideas about how we can improve things, please visit it and give us your input. Again, thanks to all and congratulations to our winners! Please stay tuned for the start of GA Cup #3. Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar and MrWooHoo.

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) 17:01, 24 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) 06:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors 2015 End of Year Report Our 2015 End of Year Report is now ready for review. Highlights: Summary of Drives, Blitzes, and the Requests page; New record lows in the article backlog and on the Requests page; Coordinator election results; Membership news; Changes around the Guild's pages; Plans for 2016. – Your project coordinators: Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Baffle gab1978. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by Jonesey95 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:41, 6 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) 18:04, 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) 18:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup Greetings, all! We would like to announce the start of the 3rd GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Thus far, there have been two GA Cups; both 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 500 nominations listed and about 450 articles waiting to be reviewed. We hope that we can again make an impact this time. The 3rd GA Cup will begin on March 1, 2016. Four rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on July 31, 2016), but this may change based on participant numbers. There will be slight changes to the scoring system, based upon feedback we've received in the months since GA Cup #2. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same. We're also looking to spice up the competition a bit by running parallel competitions. Finally, there's a possibility of assisting a WikiProject Good Articles backlog drive in the last three weeks of February, before our competition. Please stay tuned for more information as we get it. Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on February 20, 2015. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now! If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the judges. Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar and MrWooHoo. 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) 02:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]