User talk:SkyFlubbler

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome![edit]

Some cookies to welcome you! Face-smile.svg

Welcome to Wikipedia, SkyFlubbler! Thank you for your contributions. I am Quenhitran and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 08:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh! Thank you so much! I am already in Wiki a year ago under a different username. But it's very nice to welcome me. Also, in real life I really love cookies. :-) SkyFlubbler (talk) 01:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry[edit]

My reverting your edits on IC 1101 was accidental (a software bug), your revisions were very useful! I hope you don't mind and keep contributing to our project! ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 08:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Some baklava for you![edit]

Baklava - Turkish special, 80-ply.JPEG List of largest known cosmic structures looks great! Moonchïld9 (talk) 07:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh my gosh, man, you surprised me! Well, thanks! SkyFlubbler (talk) 07:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure![edit]

TWA guide left bottom.png
Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 05:44, Thursday, March 5, 2015 (UTC)

Get Help
About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge


Hercules–Corona Borealis Great Wall[edit]

FYI, I was using an semi-automated tool to clean the errors in {{citation needed}} templates, and didn't actually 'see' the rendered page. Your revert of me was correct, and I didn't intend to 'bite you' with my response....TBH I assumed you were one of the people who broke some of the 400-odd pages I was fixing, and it wasn't until I changed it back that I saw it was causing a 'parsing error'. I think in this particular case the broken display is due to a bug in the infobox, as the same things usually renders correctly. Placing the <nowiki> around the text in the reason field, as I did in my next edit, unbroke the template and causes the "reason" to show up in a tooltip when you hover over the 'citation needed', which is the correct behavior. Reventtalk 01:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

What are you mean I am one of the 400 people you're saying? FYI, it was only a month when I'm here in Wikipedia. Plus I don't even know you. Are you saying that my revert to your edit was vandalism in the article I've created?!
It was OK to me for you to inform me about my edit. But telling me that I'm one of the 400 you're speaking is what makes me mad. You can edit it freely, I appreciate it, but telling me I was a page-breaker is not very nice. You don't have any evidence that I was one of them. What you said is not good. SkyFlubbler (talk) 01:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Invitation: WikiProject Autism[edit]

Greetings! You are hereby invited to WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of autism, Asperger syndrome, and autistic culture on Wikipedia. As the project emphasizes contribution from autistic editors, it is especially interested in you, who have chosen to list yourself at Category:Wikipedians with autism. Muffinator (talk) 20:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Unblock request: September 6, 2014[edit]

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

SkyFlubbler (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

Okay, okay, okay. First of all, the blocked IP 173.255.140.0/24 is actually my computer. I am the only one who uses it. I never use my computer in Wiki without logging in as SkyFlubbler. As you can see on my contributions list, I've never did it. In fact, I've done many things, like revising several astronomy articles. The edit is actually done by 173.255.140.96 which is not me. How is it that I am blocked without even warned at? It is impossible that I did that edit, since I don't even know that talk page. Plus, it is biology, which is not my interest.

Materialscientist, I am not angry and I have no hard feelings. I know you as one of the greatest admin of the Wikipedia. But please, I am an innocent person. I am not doing any vandalism. In fact, I am with you and all the other people who are trying to make Wikipedia even better. God knows that, so please, because I am affected. I am currently watching seven articles from vandalism.

May you understand me.

Decline reason:

This account isn't blocked, and you continue to edit on other IPs, so I don't see any reason to take any action here. --jpgordon::==( o ) 22:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

Why are you editing from a webhost? Furthermore, if you say you're in control of 173.255.140.0/24, why do later say that an IP within that range isn't you? Elockid (Talk) 01:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm new here in Wiki so I don't understand it. But when I tried to do an edit it appears that my IP has been blocked even though I logged in. So I could not make an edit. I know you can block an IP but once a user logged in to that IP, it is not under that IP block because it is a registered user. You can do that. IP's always change, so it may be not me. Maybe someone hacked my IP.
You may block an IP to prevent unregistered users from vandalizing. But once someone logged in, it must be not under that IP block. That is what I want. I assure you, the one who created that edit was not me. I never knew that article or talk page. SkyFlubbler (talk) 03:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Some IPs are blocked with the option to disallow even logged in users from editing. In your case, it's because it's a Webhost. Though Materialscientist blocked it as an open proxy, webhosts are very similar. Due to the policy on open proxies, they are hardblocked (this affects both logged in and anonymous users for those IPs) as soon as they are identified. Do you have the proxy settings enabled? Elockid (Talk) 03:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
No, I don't know how. SkyFlubbler (talk) 03:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Try here. Also see if you have any VPNs running (these tend to connect to webhosts). Elockid (Talk) 03:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
This does look like a VPN - you state you are in the Philippines, but http://whois.domaintools.com/173.255.140.0 shows the IP address is in Utah, USA. Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, how does that happen? I guessed someone hacked the IP address, or IPs just change over time. SkyFlubbler (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Referencing[edit]

Hello, please remember to reference your additions to articles. UY Scuti and IC 1101 in particular have major new claims, which should have references attached. Can you add the sources you used to compile the new information? -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 12:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Moving pages[edit]

In future, can you follow the procedures outlined at WP:RM? Move requests are supposed to remain open for one week, and a neutral third party is supposed to evaluate the move request. (Though with no opposition (or complete opposition), I suppose an involved editor can easily perform the trivial evaluation of which outcome was favored) If you close early, you must provide a proper rationale why the evaluation period was ended early, with a widely accepted precedent to back it up.

I noticed that your move separated the talk page from the article page. Thus the move required administrator intervention, so I've requested that to reattach the talk page to the subject page. -- 70.51.201.202 (talk) 04:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Affected block from an unknown user[edit]

Approve icon.svg
This user's request to have autoblock on his/her IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.
SkyFlubbler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
127.0.0.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · edit filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Okay, it is not so funny. For the second time I was blocked unjustly. [[User:Bryancyriel|Bryancyriel]] has nothing to do with me. How is it I am affected? If you blocked someone, block his name because if you block an IP range, others are affected. And I can't wait three days before I make an edit again. Please, answer me, because I am innocent.".


Accept reason:

Autoblock lifted. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


Affected block from an unknown user 2[edit]

Approve icon.svg
This user's request to have autoblock on his/her IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.
SkyFlubbler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
127.0.0.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · edit filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

For the third time again. Why I am always being affected? Please unblock the IP again because I am affected. Afterwards I can talk to that guy because I am also a Filipino and knows his language.


Accept reason:

Autoblock has been lifted again. Unfortunately, you are editing from the same location(s) as that other disruptive user, so their actions are the cause of your grief. Steps have been taken to prevent them from continuing to create more accounts. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


I am innocent but judged[edit]

Why? I don't understand! I was blocked due to a user whom I don't even know! It is not fair! This website is my life, and now I was not allowed to use it because of the irresponsibility of others. Please! You know I don't need to have a template just to express my thoughts.

For admins, trust me. I am with you all, and I respect you all. Please hear my call!

Para kay Mamaluigi2 kung makita mo man:

Kuya, alam kong masarap sa pakiramdam na gumawa ng masama. Pero pakiusap, may nadadamay sa ginagawa mo. Marangal ang Wikipedia. Ako, tapat ako para gawin yung trabaho ko. Kaya naman huwag ka na mandamay. Subukan mo kaya gawin rin yung ginagawa ko. Mas masarap sa pakiramdam kasi nagbabahagi ka ng kaalaman sa mundo nang walang sinasaktan. Ako, malaki kontribusyon ko sa mundo. Kaya kuya, sana maintindihan mo. Kasi wala akong ginagawang masama eh may damay ako dito eh. O huwag ka na lang sumali dito kasi isa ka na sa mga masasama. Huwag ka na lang manggulo kasi sisirain mo lang yung website na to. Nagmamakaawa ako, tumigil kana!

For the blocking admin, DoRD, you can see my situation. I am not editing Wiki for a week due to this foolish user. Please do something!

SkyFlubbler (talk) 11:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Please see my explanation above, and sorry for your troubles. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
It's okay. It's not your fault. SkyFlubbler (talk) 09:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Request to SkyFlubber to review a new astronomy mini-article[edit]

Hi! Please tell me what you think of Structural Components of the Universe. Drbillellis 23:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drbillellis (talkcontribs)

Thanks for the accurate and helpful comments. Having searched Wikipedia for months for info about different celestial objects, I am surprised I never saw the article "Earth's location in the universe." Would it be helpful for me to add some redirects to that page? I notice that Virgo Supercluster is included, although it is now considered an obsolete term, superseded by Laniakea Supercluster. Bill Ellis Drbillellis 11:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drbillellis (talkcontribs)

List of largest known stars[edit]

You seem to have made a number of typos in your recent edit to List of largest known stars. I corrected three obvious ones, please check again to make sure I didn't miss any and that the ones I corrected are accurate. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Someone jumbled the entire text. Anyway, thanks. SkyFlubbler (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Markarian 177[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Markarian 177 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. No significant coverage in studies, not visible to the naked eye, not in a catalogue of note to amateurs, and not discovered before 1850.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reviews of astronomy articles[edit]

Just wanted to say thank you for the various comments you've made to try to improve astronomy articles. It's good to have someone looking things over! - Parejkoj (talk) 05:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey[edit]

Sorry for not responding for a very long time, this is a very delayed response. Yes, I make star comparison videos :D And it does require alot of "sacrificing" because the information will always become outdated, since there are things that are always being changed; life changes. Sure, we can be friends :) I should put the +/- on my size comparison videos. But I decided not to, since I always take the average. I see what you mean by the "rank parts". I do liek that idea ^-^ but usually I fit 3 - 5 stars per picture. I see what you also mean by UY Scuti and NML Cygni having the same "rank". But radius matters :P Thanks for going on my talk page (and seeing my video). Accepted friend request. ..ItsPaide.. 01:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

greetings[edit]

Invitation[edit]

Ilc 9yr moll4096.png You've been invited to be part of WikiProject Cosmology

Hello. Your contributions to Wikipedia have been analyzed carefully and you're among the few chosen to have a first access to a new project. I hope you can contribute to it by expanding the main page and later start editing the articles in its scope. Make sure to check out the Talk page for more information! Cheers

Tetra quark (talk) 19:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 launch newsletter[edit]

Trophy.png

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for January 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hercules A, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Radio source. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Cosmology - task[edit]

I decided to drop you a message to make sure you check out the first task of the cosmology project: Help improve the Universe. Please feel free to remove this message after you read it :) Tetra quark (talk) 03:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

A new message[edit]

Stand by for fireworks :) Demoting R136a1 from the most luminous star is going to bring a lot of ... errm ... attention. Anyway, I've had to undo that edit, at least for now. Although the luminosity given is appropriate, neither of the references given contain that value so it can't really stand as it is. I've edited the detail article, as you probably saw, and reference three in that article is where the value 7,400,000 comes from, as a log luminosity value of 6.87. I'd be comfortable just dropping those references since there is a complete Wikipedia page for the star, but do what you think is best.

Looking forward to a new edit, it would be extremely unfortunate if BAT99-116 were to be listed as the most luminous star. Because it isn't. The luminosity value for BAT 99-116 is wrong, partly because it is the luminosity of at least two stars, and partly because the model used to derive it is not appropriate for binary systems. The authors of the paper acknowledge this. The same applies to WR25, now in third place, and if you look at the paper in detail it gives a luminosity of 100,000,000 for BAT99-42 which is also accepted by the authors to be invalid.

I've been wondering what to do about this since I made the updates to R136a1, but I'm still not sure what it best. Simply removing all double stars is one possibility, even though some of the known and suspected binaries have luminosity values that are at least approximately accurate. Another approach is to massage the pages for such stars so that a more appropriate luminosity value is shown. For example, WR25 currently shows 6,300,000 which is almost certainly wildly high, but an earlier derivation by a more appropriate method gave 1,500,000. Except that value is based on obsolete data and so it isn't really great either. Any good ideas? Lithopsian (talk) 11:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with everything you say. There are various theoretical reasons to doubt a star 8.7 million times as bright as the sun (although we should be cautious when making assumptions about the "Eddington Limit", since it is far from a fixed limit, and the behaviour of stars at or near any supposed limit is not well understood), but for now there are no indications whatsoever that it is anything except a single star so we have to go with it. 7.4 million is a more believable number, but there is still the chance that it will be found at some stage to be an accidental alignment of two indistinguishable stars, or some such. The known binaries are a different matter. They're known and we need to reflect that appropriately. It is unfortunate that a paper was published giving what is known to be inaccurate values for the luminosities of these stars, perhaps even more unfortunate that those values are baldly copied about on Wikipedia and elsewhere. I don't know the best way to represent all this in the context of the most luminous stars list, but I'd really like to avoid any really terrible misrepresentations like just plain having the wrong star at the top of the list. Lithopsian (talk) 13:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I saw an article (It was a reference on some page, either R136a1,or HD 269810) where it said that BAT99-116's bolometric magnitude was -11.9.I am. furhan. (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)i am. furhan.

I've expanded the BAT99-116 article. Since the Hainich luminosity is known to be unreasonable, I've used the luminosity given by Crowther and shown in the Tarantula survey census, which is a more sensible estimate of the actual luminosity of the primary in the binary. I've also made some updates to the most luminous starts list to match that and other R136 stars that I've edited recently. Lithopsian (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


NGC 4889[edit]

You added a lot of information to the page (it's safe to not call it a stub anymore, for sure) but left it with 2 very large errors. I fixed the reference error, but not Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "". at the top. Please correct, or revert your last edit. Thanks.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkcontribsdgaf)  04:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Please fix this error.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkcontribsdgaf)  15:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Laniakea Supercluster[edit]

Now that I think about it, do you think we should use the absolute magnitude instead of the apparent one? Still, if we're using the apparent magnitude, it's retarded to call our own galaxy the brightest one. Yea, we're in it. No shit, sherlock.

Also, my version of the article was better. I said "besides our own galaxy". I added more information. Now the readers will know the two brightest members,not just the obvious one Tetra quark (talk) 14:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Why not include both the brightest absolute magnitude and apparent magnitude members?   ~ Tom.Reding (talkcontribsdgaf)  15:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Curse those mobile devices[edit]

Hi SkyFlubbler, I really couldn't make out what you meant in this edit, or who you were replying to. Personally I find it almost impossible to do any editing of wikitext on a mobile device, and consider it a wonder that you even managed this. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Writers Barnstar Hires.png The Writer's Barnstar
Hello there SkyFlubbler; You have been awarded the writer's barnstar for your edits. Hope you like it. I am. furhan. (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
From my perspective, this barnstar is far overdue. I am. furhan. (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Your respectful request...[edit]

Regarding your request.[1] No I am not angry with User:Tetra quark, but his bad behaviour is now wearing very thin at the moment. TQ continues to basically ignore even the simplest of Wikipedia rules, and has seemingly broken the WP:3RR rule now five times. His return will be his very last chance, and this was not stated or caused by me, but as stated by an Admin. As for the rudeness and abuse, this is not the first time I've seen this kind of bad behaviour from this user, to me nor towards others. The disrespect he showed to three other users, and on Admin – well if he comes back he'll have to do some swift talking…

Every time I have tried to guide TQ, he has plainly ignored any advice, and claims to not have bothered read it, replies with hostility, or hides my posts in his "Bin" or just deletes it. I would like to edit cosmology and astronomy articles too, but have recently lost nearly all interest because of the many disruptions, especially the indiscriminate carte blanch use of WP:AWB, and the now endless arguments on style. (Worst he now seems to may have posted a pornographic image in the Commons, which if true, is clearly an unforgivable act.)

Why should I (we) even bother anymore? We'll see. Arianewiki1 (talk) 22:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I was waiting to see what happens when Tetra Quark came of a block to see if his ways are changed. AWB access is removed and I did not grant it again. Hopefully Tetra Quark will listen to what others have to say and respond appropriately. I will not be making a block as I have participated in a discussion about indefinite block. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gioiello (galaxy cluster) (February 19)[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sam Sailor was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved. -- Sam Sing! 14:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


Teahouse logo
Hello! SkyFlubbler, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! -- Sam Sing! 14:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk pages and civility guidelines[edit]

Hi,

A comment about a few of your comments regarding User:Tetra quark. TQ's removal of warnings from his/her own talk page is explicitly allowed by WP:OWNTALK and is in fact an acknowledgement that TQ has read the warning. (It's probably not advisable since it makes it appear that TQ's trying to hide the warnings even though the warnings are easily visible in the history anyway, but warnings are intended for the recipient of the warning not as some sort of record of mistakes for other editors to read.) Also, incivility is no more or less unacceptable because it is directed at an administrator. Administrators are just regular editors who happen to have a few extra permissions through a community review process; they're not supervisors or bosses or teachers or anything like that (WP:NOBIGDEAL). —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 14:56, 19 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)