User talk:Green Giant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Proposed new project → NonFreeWiki
Meta Commons Wikipedia Wikidata Wikiquotes Wikiversity Wikinews Wikisource Wikivoyage Wikibooks Wikispecies Wiktionary


2014-2015 GA Cup Wrap-Up[edit]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup - Finals/Wrap-Up
Symbol support vote.svg

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)

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter[edit]

One of several of Godot13's quality submissions during round 1

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 Australia 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 Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions) had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge, Colorado 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:

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)

just wondered on a reference to a recorded Supreme Court opinion why it quotes from a book rather than the original? Noticed this in the web page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yates_v._United_States#cite_note-3 The text is Alpheus Thomas Mason, The Supreme Court from Taft to Burger (Louisiana State University Press, 1979), 37, 162 from the link in the article In a concurring opinion Justice Hugo Black wrote:[3]

Undoubtedly we depend on the talented authors and contributors to the articles, and maybe just hadn't been noticed by someone who has the knowledge to alter it. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sellersw (talkcontribs) 05:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:(I've Just Begun) Having My Fun.jpg[edit]

⚠
Thanks for uploading File:(I've Just Begun) Having My Fun.jpg. 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) 00:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Image was temporarily removed by test edits by an anonymous IP. Green Giant (talk) 06:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Robert Borsak[edit]

i Have thousands of IPs and if you persist in continuing to block my legitimate edits i will simply write a bot to do the posting edits for me Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.174.86.88 (talk) 04:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

We have thousands of volunteers and if you persist in promoting your campaign, it is a simple task to protect the relevant page and block your bot. Your edits are not legitimate because you are not abiding by the website policies such as the one about biographies of living people. Bear in mind that this is not Facebook and certainly isn't a platform for promoting political opinions. Until and unless the campaign has reliable sources others than a Facebook page, it cannot be added to the article here. Find some sources and add the material in a neutral style. Is it so difficult for you to abide by the core policies of the website? What is your motivation in repeatedly adding the material when several other users have requested that you don't? Green Giant (talk) 06:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)