User talk:Scorpion0422

Welcome to the 2012 WikiCup

Hello, and welcome to the 2012 WikiCup! The competition officially begins at the start of 2012 (UTC) after which time you may begin to claim points. Your submission page, where you must note any content for which you wish to claim points, can be found here, and formatting instructions can be found in hidden comments on the page. A bot will then update the main table, which can be seen on the WikiCup page. The full rules for what will and will not be awarded points can be found at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. There's also a section on that page listing the changes that have been made to the rules this year, so that experienced participants can get up-to-date in a few seconds. One point of which we must remind everyone; you may only claim points for content upon which you have done significant work, and which you have nominated, in 2012. For instance, articles written or good article reviews started in 2011 are not eligible for points.

This round will last until late February, and signups will remain open until the middle of February. If you know of anyone who may like to take part, please let them know about the comeptition; the more the merrier! At the end of this round, the top 64 scorers will progress to the next round, where their scores will reset, and they will be split into pools. Note that, by default, you have been added to our newsletter list; we will be in contact at the end of every month with news. You're welcome to remove yourself from this list if you do not wish to hear from us. Conversely, those interested in following the competition are more than welcome to add themselves to the list. Please direct any questions towards the judges, or on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn (talk) and The ed17 (talk) 17:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Sorry, what? Vandalism? Me? Never. Why did you say such a defamatory and libelous thing? Just because I did something wrong or incorrect, it doesn't mean it's vandalism! Explain yourself with valid criteria. I really take offense. I am not a vandal. You are really giving me an rude, negative image. TrebleSeven (talk) 12:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Update: I'm going to far. Don't take any notice of what I said. It just really upset me. TrebleSeven (talk) 12:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

But just tell me, why did you think it was vandalism? You're giving a negative aspect on the wiki, which I don't want. I was trying to help. TrebleSeven (talk) 12:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I've reported this incident to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Hopefully we can sort it out then. TrebleSeven (talk) 12:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Stupid edit? Check the track listing in the infobox, at the very bottom. And edit being complete nonsense, a stupid edit? I believe you have just made a personal attack. TrebleSeven (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you know what's the difference between a good-faith edit and a stupid one? TrebleSeven (talk) 19:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you threatening me? TrebleSeven (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

You're being ridiculous TrebleSeven. Scorpion has in no way made any threats. You really need to grow thicker skin. Theleftorium ^(talk) 20:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thicker skin. Right, and if I grow that I would be a more steady wiki editor? TrebleSeven (talk) 09:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

And to Scorpion0422, I'm glad I made you laugh. But you're not really supposed to be sending me external links, are you? Especially to YouTube. TrebleSeven (talk) 09:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I haven't clicked the link yet. If it is something rude, I will report you. TrebleSeven (talk) 09:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks like I will now. TrebleSeven (talk) 09:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

You're acting like a child. Don't make a big deal out of everything. Theleftorium ^(talk) 11:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok let's stop with the names. It's clear that one editor has a different level of sensitivity - this could be cultural, age, etc. Although this doesn't mean we should be pussyfooting around, it means to take into account that they may not have the same sense of humour as others. The basic fact of the matter is that vandalism has a clear definition; one is not permitted to create their own. TrebleSeven has been recommended to disengage from this, and to gain a thicker skin over - the first is controllable, the second is not. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

2011 review of WP:DOH

Hi! Are you gonna do one of those year-end reviews that you usually do? :) Theleftorium ^(talk) 19:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be anything fancy. Just a listing of 2010's statistics and 2011's statistics for comparison would be nice. Theleftorium ^(talk) 20:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:IIHF Championship Silver Medal.JPG

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:IIHF Championship Silver Medal.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. –Grondemar 01:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:IIHF World Championship Gold Medal.JPG

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:IIHF World Championship Gold Medal.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. –Grondemar 01:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

List of Stanley Cup champions at WP:TFL

Hey Scorpion, there are still a few comments at WP:TFL about the list, I've slated it to run to coincide with the end of the Stanley Cup this year. That means you have plenty of time (!) but it would be good if you could re-visit and make sure it's up to scratch, if you have the time. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Row and col scopes are explained at MOS:DTT. You could look at any recent featured list to see how it's implemented. If you need more help, give me a ping and I'll see what I can do. Worth getting yourself up to speed on the latest WP:ACCESS issues we deal with at WP:FLC! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

First off, happy new year! Also, the list I've compiled isn't by any means a definitive timeline, it's just a bunch of suggestions. Thirdly, expanding the TFL is a great idea, but there's a huge kerfuffle going on at WT:FAC right now which would send any request into the long grass. We'll see, but yes, two a week is the next stepping stone, maybe a Monday and a Thursday. We have the capacity, the backlog and the enthusiasm to do it! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 January newsletter

WikiCup 2012 is off to a flying start. At the time of writing, we have 112 contestants; comparable to last year, but slightly fewer than 2010. Signups will remain open for another week, after which time they will be closed for this year. Our currrent far-away leader is Grapple X (submissions), due mostly to his work on a slew of good articles about The X-Files; there remain many such articles waiting to be reviewed at good article candidates. Second place is currently held by Ruby2010 (submissions), whose points come mostly from good articles about television episodes, although good article reviews, did you knows and an article about a baroness round out the score. In third place is Jivesh boodhun (submissions), who has scored 200 points for his work on a single featured article, as well as points for work on others, mostly in the area of pop music. In all, nine users have 100 or more points. However, at the other end of the scale, there are still dozens of participants who are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly!

The 64 highest scoring participants will advance to round 2 in a month's time. There, they will be split into eight random groups of eight. The score needed to reach the next round is not at all clear; last year, 8 points guaranteed a place. The year before, 20.

A few participants and their work warrant a mention for achieving "firsts" in this competition.

• 12george1 (submissions) was the first to score, with his good article review of Illinois v. McArthur.
• 12george1 (submissions) was also the first to score points for an article, thanks to his work on Hurricane Debby (1982)- now a good article. Tropical storms have featured heavily in the Cup, and good articles currently have a relatively fast turnaround time for reviews.
• Sp33dyphil (submissions) was the first to score points for a did you know, with Russian submarine K-114 Tula. Military history is another subject which has seen a lot of Cup activity.
• Sp33dyphil (submissions) is also the first person to successfully claim bonus points. Terminator 2: Judgment Day is now a good article, and was eligible for bonus points because the subject was covered on more than 20 other Wikipedias at the start of the competition. It is fantastic to see bonus points being claimed so early!
• Speciate (submissions) was the first to score points for an In the News entry, with Paedophryne amauensis. The lead image from the article was also used on the main page for a time, and it's certainly eye-catching!
• Jivesh boodhun (submissions) was the first to score points for a featured article, and is, at the moment, the only competitor to claim for one. The article, "Halo" (Beyoncé Knowles song), was also worth double points because of its wide coverage. While this is an article that Jivesh and others have worked on for some time, it is undeniable that he has put considerable work into it this year, pushing it over the edge.

We are yet to see any featured lists, featured topics or good topics, but this is unsurprising; firstly, the nomination processes with each of these can take some time, and, secondly, it can take a considerable amount of time to work content to this level. In a similar vein, we have seen only one featured article. The requirement that content must have been worked on this year to be eligible means that we did not expect to see these at the start of the competition. No points have been claimed for featured portals or pictures, but these are not content types which are often claimed; the former has never made a big impact on the WikiCup, while the latter has not done so since 2009's competition.

A quick rules clarification before the regular notices: If you are concerned that another user is claiming points inappropriately, please contact a judge to take a look at the article. Competitors policing one another can create a bad atmosphere, and may lead to inconsistencies and mistakes. Rest assured that we, the judges, are making an effort to check submissions, but it is possible that we will miss something. On a loosely related note: If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, 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, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 February newsletter

Round 1 is already over! The 64 highest scorers have progressed to round 2. Our highest scorer was Grapple X (submissions), again thanks mostly to a swathe of good articles on The X-Files. In second place was Tigerboy1966 (submissions), thanks an impressive list of did you knows about racehorses. Both scored over 400 points. Following behind with over 300 points were Ruby2010 (submissions), Cwmhiraeth (submissions), Miyagawa (submissions) and Casliber (submissions). February also saw the competition's first featured list: List of colleges and universities in North Dakota, from Ruby2010 (submissions). At the other end of the scale, 11 points was enough to secure a place in this round, and some contestants with 10 points made it into the round on a tiebreaker. This is higher than the 8 points that were needed last year, but lower than the 20 points required the year before. The number of points required to progress to round 3 will be significantly higher.

The remaining contestants have been split into 8 pools of 8, named A through H. Round two will finish in two months time on 28 April, when the two highest scorers in each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers, will progress to round 3. The pools were entirely random, so while some pools may end up being more competitive than others, this is by chance rather than design.

The judges would like to point out two quick rules reminders. First, any content promoted during the interim period (that is, on or after 27 February) is eligible for points in round 2. Second, any content worked on significantly this year is eligible for points if promoted in this round. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which would otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)