- 1 WikiCup 2014 January newsletter
- 2 Barnstar 4 U
- 3 "The Forgotten First"
- 4 Hey there
- 5 Edit Warring - Final Warning
- 6 Edit Warring on Ice Hockey at Olympic Games
- 7 WikiCup 2014 February newsletter
- 8 Featured Article and List Contributor Ribbons
- 9 WikiCup 2014 March newsletter
- 10 Unsourced category
- 11 Award 4 U
- 12 WikiCup 2014 April newsletter
- 13 Main Page appearance: The Simpsons Movie
- 14 WikiCup 2014 June newsletter
- 15 Seen this?
The 2014 WikiCup is off to a flying start, with, at time of writing, 138 participants. The is the largest number of participants we have seen since 2010. If you are yet to join the competition, don't worry- the judges have agreed to keep the signups open for a few more days. By a wide margin, our current leader is newcomer Godot13 (submissions), whose set of 14 featured pictures, the first FPs of the competition, was worth 490 points. Here are some more noteworthy scorers:
- 12george1 (submissions) and TropicalAnalystwx13 (submissions) were the first people to score, for the good article Tropical Storm Bret (1981) and its good article review respectively. 12george1 was also the first person to score in 2012 and 2013.
- Sven Manguard (submissions) scored the first ITN points for 2014 North American polar vortex.
- WonderBoy1998 (submissions) scored points for an early good topic, finishing off Wikipedia:Featured topics/She Wolf.
- TheAustinMan (submissions) scored the first bonus points of the competition, for his work on Typhoon Vera.
- Igordebraga (submissions) has scored the highest number of bonus points for a single article, for the high-importance Jurassic Park (film).
Featured articles, featured lists, featured topics and featured portals are yet to play a part in the competition. The judges have removed a number of submissions which were deemed ineligible. Typically, we aim to see work on a project, followed by a nomination, followed by promotion, this year. We apologise for any disappointment caused by our strict enforcement this year; we're aiming to keep the competition as fair as possible.
Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may be interested to take part in The Core Contest; unlike the WikiCup, The Core Contest is not about audited content, but, like the WikiCup, it is about article improvement; specifically, The Core Contest is about contribution to some of Wikipedia's most important article. Of course, any work done for The Core Contest, if it leads to a DYK, GA or FA, can earn WikiCup points.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 19:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Barnstar 4 U
|The Professional Wrestling Barnstar|
|Awarded by Vjmlhds on 2-14-14 for being both persistent and consistent in keeping pro wrestling articles up to snuff. Vjmlhds 21:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)|
"The Forgotten First"
Not only does the IIHF not recognize those early members, but you are incorrect. Frank Fredrickson. -- Scorpion0422 01:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Let me explain why players like Hooley Smith are not included in the Club. When players like Smith went to the Olympics, they were just the Olympics, not a combined tournament. The pre-'30s Olympics are now retroactively recognized by the IIHF as the Worlds as well. They were given one Olympic medal, not two. So players like Smith won just two components, but now are technically considered to have three. This is likely why the IIHF doesn't recognize them, and they probably have a rule about winning all three in separate tournaments. Your section gives undue weight to a minor portion and is filled with POV and inaccuracies. -- Scorpion0422 02:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing my mistakes to light. I'll correct them shortly.
Your opinion of what the IIHF does and a buck will get me a coffee.
Wikipedia belongs to all of us. I will make a useful and verifiable contribution.
Hey pal ...
What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
I'm cutting out verbiage.
You, of all people, should know better.
And it reads better too.
- All is correct, although I'm glad the US of A lost today because it's a bit of sweet revenge for them not placing one of the best available players on their roster. I couldn't agree with the second part of what you said any more. My activity has been very similar and it's great not caring too much anymore. Gloss • talk 22:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Edit Warring - Final Warning
You have been engaged in an edit war with another user on Triple Gold Club. If you make any further edits to the article without first discussing and reaching an agreement with the other party, you will be blocked without further warning. Nick (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Edit Warring on Ice Hockey at Olympic Games
I appreciated many of your edits to the paragraph I added for the 2014 Olympics and that you tightened up the paragraph. However, I have several suggestions for you in the future (I see that you are also involved in edit warring in other sites).
1) When you start to edit a paragraph while someone is writing it, it is extremely frustrating. Everytime I submitted a section you were in the process of editing, forcing me to look at your edits and contrast them to mine plus making the edits. This adds unnecessary time to the process, and I suggest next time you wait until the individual is done making edits.
2) POV is not an issue when it is stated as a fact. When I have 4 sources to prove that this was the majority opinion of experts, that makes it noteworthy and not open for dispute. Although I appreciated, once again, that you helped me pare down the details a bit, fighting me on this point was a waste of time and unnecessary, and uncalled for. You made it into a huge deal. Of course an upset is noteworthy. If a team outscores its opponents 20-6 while looking in control of every game, they become a favorite entering the match, and there were many sources who felt that USA was a favorite. And, yes, they were also considered as one of the 4 pre-tournament favorites by most, if not all, hockey experts (USA, Canada, Sweden, Russia).
3) You told me that my 2014 paragraphs were too long. 2010 had 2 full paragraphs devoted to it. When I did the same, you cut it down. Again, this is fine, but you were incorrect in stating that I had gone off the board in the amount of space I devoted to this Olympics. The point of the paragraph is to highlight the noteworthy features - the disappointments (USA and Russia), the teams who surpassed expectations (Latvia and Slovenia), the winners, and the individual achievements. That is what I did. It is wrong to accuse me of doign otherwise, as ou have no basis. Every single sentence was referenced appropriately and none were a stretch. To respond to your comments about Czech Republic and Slovakia, they did not undeperform whatsoever, they were picked by many to make it to the QF, at best. Slovakia and Czech were actually felt to have made unusual choices for their team selections, and that is what many felt ultimately hurt them. Not nearly as big a story, which is why I excluded this.
4) Your most recent edits are baffling, and a little childish, in my opinion. Lets dissect what you did:
a) "Teemu Selänne scored 6 more points in the tournament, was named tournament MVP and also named to the tournament all-star team --> Removed the fact that he was named to the tournament all-start team, why? I am not biased, I am not even a fan of Teemu Selanne, but it is a fact. Fine, shorten it if you will but it is so trivial it is actually laughable that you would remove this.
b) boosted his modern-era Olympic career record for points to 43 (24 G, 19A) --> You changed G and A to goals and assists. Why, exactly? All this does is lengthen the sentence and is completely unnecessary. Hypocritical of someone who claims they are "cleaning" up my work
c) while setting records in the bronze medal match a both the oldest Olympic goal-scorer and Olympic hockey medal winner ever. --> you removed part of the bronze medal match, which actually makes the sentence make less sense, as it was in the bronze medal match where he set the records, not simply because he was age 43. It was his last game of the tournament. Again, really trivial and created an extra sentence. Disagree with you again.
d) 9th olympic --> ninthOlympic. Why? You added characters, and you merged the 2 words.
5) This most recent edit I will change back, and I will report you if you remove it again: "and did not trail at any point over the course of the entire tournament, outscoring its opponents 17-3 over 6 games in the process" --> This removal is ridiculous. Canada won the tournament. Bias or no bias, what I listed were accomplishments and this is your response: "You need to be careful when detailing things like that, since most summaries don't mention such thing" - 1) I was careful, 2) show me that most summaries don't mention this (that is POV and extremely subjective), 3) who cares if "most" summaries don't mention it, as my source did mention it, and it is noteworhty, and 4) It is not biased in the least. It is completely objective. Stating facts. Much like the fact that USA outscored opponents 20-6. Whoever would argue bias in the inclusion of that sentence is being foolish.
6) Furthermore, you make trivial edits over the all-caps in the title of my sources. This is ridiculous, considering that you have sourced things recently and not even written the correct date of the article or when it was accessed, clearly bigger mistakes.
7) With respect to the Backlund inclusion of the undisclosed "minor stimulant," this was released in a credible source (The Globe and Mail), and is more information than simply "undisclosed." It was fine for me to add this, while we await full details, as it provides more credible information. Your removal of this seemed quite petty.
So, in summation, your edits, while perhaps well-meaning, also seem to be edit warring, as many changes are quite petty, are over trivial information, and need to stop as they are wasting the time of those who make careful additions to the site according to the rules of wikipedia. If you have nothing better to do than to do this, then be warned that I will report you hereafter.188.8.131.52 (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC) 184.108.40.206 (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC) 220.127.116.11 (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. So then, with all that in mind, I will hope you accept the fact that the Miracle on Ice section is extremely long-winded and should not take 3 paragraphs, when there is an entire article devoted to it. That is biased substantially. I removed the 17-3 bit, but not trailing at any point in the tournament seems noteworthy.
And so ends the most competitive first round we have ever seen, with 38 points required to qualify for round 2. Last year, 19 points secured a place; before that, 11 (2012) or 8 (2011) were enough. This is both a blessing and a curse. While it shows the vigourous good health of the competition, it also means that we have already lost many worthy competitors. Our top three scorers were:
- Godot13 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer whose high-quality scans of rare banknotes represent an unusual, interesting and valuable contribution to Wikipedia. Most of Godot's points this round have come from a large set of pictures used in Treasury Note (1890–91).
- Adam Cuerden (submissions), a WikiCup veteran and a finalist last year, Adam is also a featured picture specialist, focusing on the restoration of historical images. This month's promotions have included a carefully restored set of artist William Russell Flint's work.
- WikiRedactor (submissions), another WikiCup newcomer. WikiRedactor has claimed points for good article reviews and good articles relating to pop music, many of which were awarded bonus points. Articles include Sky Ferreira, Hannah Montana 2: Meet Miley Cyrus and "Wrecking Ball" (Miley Cyrus song).
Other competitors of note include:
- Hahc21 (submissions), who helped take Thirty Flights of Loving through good article candidates and featured article candidates, claiming the first first featured article of the competition.
- Prism (submissions), who claimed the first featured list of the competition with Natalia Kills discography.
- Cwmhiraeth (submissions), who takes the title of the contributor awarded the highest bonus point multiplier (resulting in the highest scoring article) of the competition so far. Her high-importance salamander, now a good article, scored 108 points.
After such a competitive first round, expect the second round to also be fiercely fought. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2, but please do not update your submission page until March (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 00:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Featured Article and List Contributor Ribbons
A quick update as we are half way through round two of this year's competition. WikiCup newcomer Godot13 (submissions) (Pool E) leads, having produced a massive set of featured pictures for Silver certificate (United States), an article also brought to featured list status. Former finalist Adam Cuerden (submissions) (Pool G) is in second, which he owes mostly to his work with historical images, including a number of images from Urania's Mirror, an article also brought to good status. 2010 champion (Pool C) is third overall, thanks to contributions relating to naval history, including the newly featured Japanese battleship Nagato. Cliftonian (submissions), who currently leads Pool A and is sixth overall, takes the title for the highest scoring individual article of the competition so far, with the top importance featured article Ian Smith.
With 26 people having already scored over 100 points, it is likely that well over 100 points will be needed to secure a place in round 3. Recent years have required 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) and 100 (2010). Remember that only 64 will progress to round 3 at the end of April. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page; if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 22:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi. On 14 August 2012 you added the 'Category:Athletes stripped of Olympic medals' to the articles on Swedish fencers Björn Ferm and Hans Jacobson (this category has later been renamed as 'Category:Competitors stripped of Olympic medals'). There was no reference to them having lost any Olympic medals in the text of either article, so I have removed the category. If you want to add them again, please add a source where it says they actually were stripped of any Olympic medals. Bandy boy (talk) 08:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Award 4 U
50,000 Edit Star
Awarded to Scorpion0422 for being a member of the 50,000 Edit Club
Round 3 of the 2014 WikiCup has just begun; 32 competitors remain. Pool G's Adam Cuerden (submissions) was Round 2's highest scorer, with a large number of featured picture credits. In March/April, he restored star charts from Urania's Mirror, lithographs of various warships (such as SMS Gefion) and assorted other historical media. Second overall was Pool E's Godot13 (submissions), whose featured list Silver certificate (United States) contains dozens of scans of banknotes recently promoted to featured picture status. Third was Pool G's ChrisGualtieri (submissions) who has produced a large number of good articles, many, including Falkner Island, on Connecticut-related topics. Other successful participants included Cliftonian (submissions), who saw three articles (including the top-importance Ian Smith) through featured article candidacies, and Caponer (submissions), who saw three lists (including the beautifully-illustrated list of plantations in West Virginia) through featured list candidacies. High-importance good articles promoted this round include narwhal from Reid,iain james (submissions), tiger from Cwmhiraeth (submissions) and The Lion King from Igordebraga (submissions). We also saw our first featured topic points of the competition, awarded to Czar (submissions) and Red Phoenix (submissions) for their work on the Sega Genesis topic. No points have been claimed so far for good topics or featured portals.
192 was our lowest qualifying score, again showing that this WikiCup is the most competitive ever. In previous years, 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) or 100 (2010) secured a place in Round 3. Pool H was the strongest performer, with all but one of its members advancing, while only the two highest scorers in Pools G and F advanced. At the end of June, 16 users will advance into the semi-finals. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 17:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Main Page appearance: The Simpsons Movie
This is a note to let the main editors of The Simpsons Movie know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on July 26, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at present, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 26, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:
The Simpsons Movie is a 2007 American animated comedy film based on the television series The Simpsons. Directed by David Silverman, it stars the regular cast of Dan Castellaneta, Julie Kavner, Nancy Cartwright, Yeardley Smith, Hank Azaria, Harry Shearer, Tress MacNeille, and Pamela Hayden. It features Albert Brooks as Russ Cargill, the evil head of the Environmental Protection Agency who intends to destroy Springfield after Homer pollutes the lake. As the townspeople exile him and eventually his family abandons him, Homer works to redeem his folly by stopping Cargill's scheme. Previous attempts to create a film version of The Simpsons failed due to the lack of a script of appropriate length and production crew members. Eventually, producers and writers banded together and conceived numerous narrative concepts, one of which was selected for development. The script was re-written over a hundred times, and this creativity continued after animation had begun in 2006. The film premiered in Springfield, Vermont (theater sign pictured), which had won the right to hold it in a competition. It was a box office success, grossing over $527 million, and received critical acclaim. (Full article...)
You (and your talk-page stalkers) may also be interested to hear that there have been some changes at the TFA requests page recently. Nominators no longer need to calculate how many "points" an article has, the instructions have been simplified, and there's a new nomination system using templates based on those used for DYK suggestions. Please consider nominating another article, or commenting on an existing nomination, and leaving some feedback on your experience. Thank you. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
After an extremely close race, Round 3 is over. 244 points secured a place in Round 4, which is comparable to previous years- 321 was required in 2013, while 243 points were needed in 2012. Pool C's Godot13 (submissions) was the round's highest scorer, mostly due to a 32 featured pictures, including both scans and photographs. Also from Pool C, Casliber (submissions) finished second overall, claiming three featured articles, including the high-importance Grus (constellation). Third place was Pool B's , whose contributions included featured articles Russian battleship Poltava (1894) and Russian battleship Peresvet. Pool C saw the highest number of participants advance, with six out of eight making it to the next round.
The round saw this year's first featured portal, with Sven Manguard (submissions) taking Portal:Literature to featured status. The round also saw the first good topic points, thanks to 12george1 (submissions) and the 2013 Atlantic hurricane season. This means that all content types have been claimed this year. Other contributions of note this round include a featured topic on Maya Angelou's autobiographies from Figureskatingfan (submissions), a good article on the noted Czech footballer Tomáš Rosický from Cloudz679 (submissions) and a now-featured video game screenshot, freely released due to the efforts of Sven Manguard (submissions).
The judges would like to remind participants to update submission pages promptly. This means that content can be checked, and allows those following the competition (including those participating) to keep track of scores effectively. This round has seen discussion about various aspects of the WikiCup's rules and procedures. Those interested in the competition can be assured that formal discussions about how next year's competition will work will be opened shortly, and all are welcome to voice their views then. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 18:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Seen this? Sadly, I no longer care enough to fight this sort of thing, given the seemingly prevailing views around Wikipedia these days, as exemplified by Mr. "Chris Cunningham" in that discussion. Gran2 18:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)