User talk:Markworthen

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

Mankind Project[edit]

I have reverted some of the edits you made, where you removed material from the Mankind Project article. I have preserved some of the edits which I believe improved the article. It would be good if, rather than blanking the (long-standing, sourced) material again, you would join me at Talk:Mankind Project#Blanking for discussion. Whistling42 (talk) 10:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for not discussing my changes first; I should have done that. As you probably can tell, I'm a rookie at editing. After reading your message I realized that I need to study the Wikipedia editing guidelines and policies more thoroughly. I am doing that now.
Regarding the ManKind Project, I will respond on the Talk page you specified. All the Best, Markworthen (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


25 March 2009 ManKind Project Edits[edit]

I have read everything on the Talk:The_ManKind_Project page; thought very carefully about the edits I made today; and, at the same time, I am very open to feedback or suggestions on the edits I made. Thanks - Markworthen (talk) 00:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The Bisexuality article[edit]

I am humbly (or inhumbly, whichever works) requesting for you to return to the Bisexuality article to take another gander. The very first sourced reference is no longer accessible. Perhaps you could provide a secondary reference that backs up the claim. Also check out the discussion page, as to why I think that there might be some better quotations out there sometwhere. I have been unable to find anything, the closest thing I have found is a 1960's book on sexuality in children, that mentions an ineffable sexual curiosity between adolescent males being attracted to both genders, but it hardly qualifies for the lead sentence in the article. Thank you. -- Wolfpeaceful —Preceding undated comment added 20:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC).

Board of Veterans' Appeals[edit]

I went ahead and created this, having had a draft in the works for years. Please feel free to expand and improve. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the heads up. I agree that it deserves an entry. I will take a look at it ASAP. :) Mark D Worthen PsyD 19:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Medicolegal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Your helpful DSM-5 edits.[edit]

Hello Markworthen; Your name on the DSM-5 edit page indicated you might have the actual manual available. On the Schizophrenia Talk page, there is a list of DSM-5 transition edits identified for upgrade from DMS-4 residual edits still on the old version of the Page being currently displayed. This is one of the few FA psychology pages and can use a little help or comment. Things have been slowed down in making the DSM-5 transition edits there since not all the editors at that wikipage actually have the DSM-5 in hand. Could you glance at this? BillMoyers (talk) 16:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Markworthen; With appreciation for your edits there after my note. I have posted my direct support for your edits there. Looks like a "go ahead" situation. The sole opposing editor has since admitted on my Talk page to not knowing the difference between a registered nurse in psychiatry and a medical doctor after posting an erroneous 3RR message on my Talk page as that user also put one on your Talk page below. That same user has also posted a boycott on the purchase of a DSM-5 on the Talk:Schiz page which you may want to look at. On the Talk:Schiz page I have also posted a new subsection on "Quality Control" which might be of interest for you to leave a short drop-in comment. BillMoyers (talk) 00:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Schizophrenia[edit]

Please review WP:OWN#Featured articles, WP:WIAFA, WP:MEDMOS, WP:CITEVAR and WP:LEAD and familiarize yourself with the article talk page before editing a featured article. You are dropping text from old sources, using a different citation format, into the lead of an article without discussing your edits and without developing text based on the most recent, highest quality reviews in the body of the article first. Please slow down and familiarize yourself with the FA standards before continuing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

While you were writing this critique, I was taking out the 2004 source (because I too was bothered by its age), and replacing it with a 2013 reference. I stand corrected about the different citation format. I see what you're saying about the proper order, i.e., change body text, then revise intro text. I think the changes I made more accurately reflect current knowledge regarding schizophrenia treatment, but I'll also follow the guidelines you have pointed out to me.
If I'm understanding you correctly, our posts crossed in the night as you were changing some of your older citations to a newer one? At any rate, yes, body first, then lead. Are you familiar with WP:MEDRS and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches which helps explain how to make sure a PubMed-indexed article is a review? Also, if you plug a PMID into the Boghog citation filler template, then switch it from cite journal to vcite journal, you'll get a citation template consistent with the article style. FAs must maintain a consistent citation style, so plopping in a cite pmid won't do it. If you have DSM5 and are willing to help with the much needed and long overdue update, that would be spectacular, but please be aware that the editor who asked for your help is new and isn't likely familiar with the FA standards (Casliber, who edits that article, is, as are several other medical editors)-- we'd love to have your help, but let's take it slow so we get it right, OK? Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia wrote: If I'm understanding you correctly, our posts crossed in the night as you were changing some of your older citations to a newer one?

- Exactly!

SandyGeorgia wrote: Are you familiar with ... how to make sure a PubMed-indexed article is a review?

I'm not familiar with the articles--thank you for the heads up. I do know how to differentiate a review from a meta-analysis from an original empirical study, etc.

SandyGeorgia wrote: FAs must maintain a consistent citation style, so plopping in a cite pmid won't do it.

- Citation style consistency makes good sense. Now I know to always check the citation style so I don't march blithely on thinking everyone uses APA6...

SandyGeorgia wrote: we'd love to have your help, but let's take it slow so we get it right, OK?

- Absolutely. I have no problem at all with taking a measured, careful approach. If you knew me, you would know that's my style anyway. In fact, my colleagues accuse me of being "too obsessive-compulsive" or say things like "you always have to have everything like 99.9% correct--relax and make a mistake now and then!" I suspect that asynchronous written communication was the culprit this evening. It's so easy for us to misinterpret what someone has written in an email. It's even worse when two people are simultaneously editing the same document! I can see how my edits came across as haphazard and rushed. Mark D Worthen PsyD 03:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia wrote: FAs must maintain a consistent citation style, so plopping in a cite pmid won't do it.

- I wasn't going to say anything, but I feel compelled to defend my strict adherence to civility, decency, and proper decorum here. To wit: I never "plop" a citation in an article. Tossing a citation in, or even slapping on a juicy reference, perhaps--although only rarely mind you--but to plop?! No, no, my fair lady, never! Mark D Worthen PsyD 03:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
LOL-- thanks for the good humor :) :) I was quite worried that the article's featured status was going to be sunk by newbie editors, on top of actually being quite perturbed for months that no one with a copy of DSM5 has done the updates that are now well overdue! It's a good thing I first expressed my frustration on someone with a good sense of perspective and humor. Now I shall in good humor change that ugly 3RR heading so it won't go into your archives, and then ... off to bed! My apologies for jumping on you so, and best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
No worries at all. I learned a lot in our exchange and I'll be a better editor as a result. Btw, I read your resignation explanation as FA director, which was very informative. I have seen the problem regarding students editing articles willy nilly and was perplexed as to why they seemed to have been recruited by Wikimedia. And I am very impressed with your substantial, high-quality contributions to Wikipedia--and I have only an inkling of your work here. I hope you sleep well. I am headed for slumber myself. :o) Mark D Worthen PsyD 03:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Awwwww .. I still find it so encouraging when someone I've not met before understands the frustration over student editing, so I'm glad to hear your reaction. Hey, Mark, now that I know you're a nice guy ... who might have a copy of DSM5 ... you'd better watch out, 'cuz boy oh boy have I got work for you! G'night, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello![edit]

Again, please review the Featured article standards and WP:OWN#Featured articles. You are edit warring faulty text into schizophrenia. Please engage the talk page, and familiarize yourself with WP:3RR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

We were both editing at the same time. I was not trying to engage in an edit war. Another editor asked me to look at this page--I was making a good faith effort to help. I am surprised at your censorious tone. Mark D Worthen PsyD 02:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, I was surprised that you continued to reinstate text as I was removing it and starting talk page discussions explaining the problems. A (new) editor asked you to help with the DSM5 updates (something I've been begging for for months); you weren't updating to DSM5, you were plopping text in to the lead that is not developed in the body of the article and is not well cited, and other text based on extremely old sources. When you persisted, it seemed I was going to need to be more forceful to get your attention; I apologize for the "censorious tone", and hope we can keep the article on track. Updates to Featured articles should be done with consideration for maintaining the highest quality and most recent sources, a high prose standard, adherence to WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS, in addition to all of the other requirements of WP:WIAFA, or it will end up defeatured as a result of the update. I appreciate that this new editor went out and drummed up some people who will finally help (I don't have a copy of DSM5), but as he is new, he isn't likely aware of the FA standards either ... so ... could everyone slow down and review the standards? If you're not familiar with the citation style used in the article, we can review that on article talk. Also, if a bit of text needs five sources, it's not likely compliant with MEDRS. Text in a medical FA should be sourced only to the most recent, highest quality secondary reviews. Yes, Schizophrenia is outdated and should have been addressed months ago, when DSM5 was published-- but let's proceed in a way that won't end up with the article defeatured. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory[edit]

I've commented on your proposed revision at Talk:Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Biogeographist (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to conduct peer review[edit]

Hi, Markworthen. My posts on WTMED and WTPSYCH about this peer review have gone unanswered. I see you originally responded to my query regarding section headings in Psych articles.

I am wondering if you would be interested in giving some feedback on olfactory reference syndrome prior to GAN? Failing this, would you be interested in directing me to someone who might be interested in this task? Many thanks, Lesion (talk) 00:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you kindly for having a look at the article. Lesion (talk) 12:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on changes to the AfC mailing list[edit]

Hello Markworthen! There is a discussion that your input is requested on! I look forward to your comments, thoughts, opinions, criticisms, and questions!

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.

This message was composed and sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 18:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for creation March 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive[edit]

AFC-Logo.svg

Hello Markworthen:

WikiProject AFC is holding a month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from March 1, 2014 to March 31, 2014.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 900 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script has been released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks.
Posted by Northamerica1000 (talk) on 02:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation

Bisexuality[edit]

Please avoid marking your change as WP:MINOR when performing significant edits as you did to Bisexuality. "Minor" is usually reserved for edits unlikely to be contested such as typo fixing.
I would caution against going to WP:DISPUTE RESOLUTION without discussion on talK:Bisexuality. Note that the Pansexuality issue has been discussed at length on talk:Bisexuality. You should address these previous discussions with any arguments for removal of that section from Bisexuality. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Jim1138, I think Markworthen and I have settled this, which is indicated by the discussion he and I had at the Pansexuality article. Flyer22 (talk) 21:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Flyer22 is correct, and I appreciate the time she took to explain the important background information. But I do appreciate your feedback Jim1138, as what you advise makes sense and will help me become a better editor. --Mark D Worthen PsyD 10:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Psychological Injury and Law (Journal)[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Psychological Injury and Law (Journal), a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Psychological Injury and Law (Journal) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Psychological Injury and Law (Journal) during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Mark D Worthen PsyD 17:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

It has been a great week - first I qualified as a Novice Editor, and now you have given me my first Barnstar! I am still bumbling about trying to learn and improve, and your encouragement really does make a difference. As we say here in Oz, your blood is worth bottling!

Time to celebrate...
Fireworks!

--Gronk Oz (talk) 14:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

You are most welcome. And believe me, I can definitely relate to 'bumbling'! I have received many a 'lesson' just in the last 24 hours as I commit one newbie error after another, chanting "humility is a virtue, humility is a virtue" to myself all the while. Btw, I love that saying, "your blood is worth bottling!" I shall use it soon amongst some friends, and when they look puzzled, I will return their gaze with a condescending "What? You've never heard that well-known Aussie expression?" look. ;^] - Mark D Worthen PsyD 14:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Welcome[edit]

Notification of a June AfC BackLog Drive[edit]

AFC-Logo.svg

Hello Markworthen:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from June 1, 2014 to June 30, 2014.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 900 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

The AfC helper script can assist you in tallying your edits automatically. To view a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. Sent on behalf of (tJosve05a (c) by {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) using the MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election[edit]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews[edit]

Hello Markworthen. 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).

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

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open![edit]

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open![edit]

Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election[edit]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States[edit]

The article Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States you nominated as a good article has failed Symbol oppose vote.svg; see Talk:Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. — Cirt (talk) 17:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Re: Image request protocol & etiquette[edit]

WP teahouse logo 3.png
Hello, Markworthen. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived. Message added by -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject historian and newcomer of the year awards now open![edit]

On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

2016 GA Cup-Round 1[edit]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Round 1
Symbol support vote.svg

Greetings, all.

The 3rd Annual GA Cup has officially begun, and you can start reviewing your articles/reassessments now! However, sign-ups will not close til March 15th if anybody (who wishes to sign up) has not signed up yet. We currently have 1 group of 33 contestants in Round 1, and we will have 16 Wikipedians left in Round 2. Please be sure to review this information and the FAQ if you haven't already,

If you have any questions, please ask us here where all of the judges (including our newest one, Zwerg Nase!) will be answering any questions you may have. You can also feel free to ask us on our talk pages/send an email to us (information is here).

Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, 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) 03:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

2016 GA Cup-Round 2[edit]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Round 1
Symbol support vote.svg

Greetings, GA Cup competitors!

Wednesday saw the end of Round 1. Sainsf took out Round 1 with an amazing score of 765. In second place, MPJ-DK earned an astounding 742 points, and in third place, FunkMonk received 610 points.

In Round 1, 206 reviews were completed, more than any other year! At the beginning of March, there were 595 outstanding nominations in the GAN queue; by the end of Round 1, there were 490. We continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success, and for your part in helping other editors improve articles. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in Round 2 so we can lower the backlog as much as possible.

To qualify for the second round, you needed to make it into the top 16 of participants. Users were placed in 4 random pools of 4. To qualify for Round 3, the top 2 in each pool will progress, and there will also be one wildcard. This means that the participant who comes in 9th place (all pools combined) will also move on. Round 2 will start on April 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on April 28 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 2 and the pools can be found here

Also, remember that a major rule change will go into effect starting on April 1, which marks the beginning of Round Two. Round 1 had an issue brought up in the rules, which we are correcting with this clarification. We believe that this change will make the competition more inherently fair. The new rule is: All reviews must give the nominator (or anyone else willing to improve the article) time to address the issues at hand, even if the article would qualify for what is usually called a "quick fail" in GA terms. To avoid further confusion, we have updated the scoring page, replacing the term "quick fail" with the term "fail without granting time for improvements". We expect all reviewers to put a review on hold for seven days in cases such as these as well, in order to apply the same standards to every competitor. The judges will strictly enforce this new rule.

Good luck and have fun!

Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase.

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) 02:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

2016 GA Cup-Round 3[edit]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Round 3
Symbol support vote.svg

Hello, GA Cup competitors!

Thursday saw the end of Round 2. Sainsf once again took out Round 2 with an amazing score of 996 (a higher score then he received in Round 1!). In second place, MPJ-DK earned an astounding 541 points, and in third place, Carbrera received 419 points.

In Round 2, 142 reviews were completed! At the beginning of April, there were 486 outstanding nominations in the GAN queue; by the end of Round 1, there were 384. Another demonstrable way in which this competition has made a difference is in the length of time articles languish in the queue. At the beginning of this GA Cup, the longest wait was over 9 months [1]; at the end of Round 2, the longest wait had decreased significantly, to a little over 5 months.[2] It's clear that we continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success, and for your part in helping other editors improve articles. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in Round 3 so we can keep lowering the backlog as much as possible.

To qualify for the third round, contestants had to earn the two highest scores in each of the four pools in Round 2; plus, one wildcard. We had an unusual occurrence happen in Round 2: because only one contestant submitted reviews in one pool, we selected the contestant with the next highest score to move forward to Round 3. (There will be a rule change for future competitions in case something like this happens again.) For Round 3, users were placed in 3 random pools of 3. To qualify for the Final of the 3rd Annual GA Cup, the top user in each pool will progress, and there will also be one wildcard. This means that the participant who comes in 4th place (all pools combined) will also move on. Round 3 will start on May 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on May 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 3 and the pools can be found here.

Good luck and have fun!

Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase.

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) 02:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

GA Cup-Round 3 Clarification[edit]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Round 3
Symbol support vote.svg

Hello, GA Cup competitors!

It has been brought to our attention that we made a mistake in the last newsletter. In the last newsletter, we said that the "4th place" overall would make the Final along with the top user from each pool. However, the users who will advance will be the top user from each pool along with "4th and 5th place" overall.

We apologize for any inconvenience or confusion that we caused.

Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase.

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) 01:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 GA Cup-Finals[edit]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Round 3
Symbol support vote.svg

Hello, GA Cup competitors!

Tuesday saw the end of Round 3. Sainsf, for the third time, won with a sizable 487 points and a shocking 29 articles reviewed. In second, MPJ-DK had 168 points and 7 reviewed articles. In second place, MPJ-DK earned 168 points with just 7 articles, and in third place, Carbrera received 137 points with just 9 articles. Our two wildcard slots went to J Milburn with 122 points and Sturmvogel 66 with 101 points.

In Round 3, 65 reviews were completed! At the beginning of the GA Cup, there were 595 outstanding nominations in the GAN queue; by the end of Round 3, there were 394. Another demonstrable way in which this competition has made a difference is in the length of time articles languish in the queue. At the beginning of the GA Cup, the longest wait was over 9 months [3]; at the end of Round 3, the longest wait had decreased significantly, to a little over 5 months [4]—nothing before 2016. It's clear that we continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success, and for your part in helping other editors improve articles. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in the Finals for the GA Cup so that are successes continue.

To qualify for the Finals, contestants had to earn the highest scores in each of the three pools in Round 3; plus, as well as the top 2 of all remaining users in all of the pools. For the Finals, users were placed in one pool of the remaining five users. To win the GA Cup, you must have the most points. The Finals started on June 1 at 0:00:01 UTC' and end on June 30 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about the Finals and the pools can be found here. A clarification: in order for the points to count, you must mark your reviews as completed; it's not up to the judges to ensure that all reviews are completed by the end of a round.

We wish all the contestants the best of luck!

Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase.

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) 00:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 GA Cup-Wrap Up[edit]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Final/Wrap-Up
Symbol support vote.svg

Hello to our truly awesome GA Cup competitors!

Thursday, June 30 saw the end of the 2016 GA Cup. It was a huge success. In the final, our five competitors reviewed an astonishing 207 articles, the most in any GA Cup final thus far. We continue to reach our goals and make a substantial impact in how quickly articles are reviewed for GA status. On March 1, the start of this competition, the article longest in the queue had languished there since June 26, 2015 [5]; in the July 1, 2016 list, the average wait length is just four months [6]. It's clear that we continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for their enthusiasm, and for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success. Remember that most articles can't even be considered for FA status unless it's been passed to GA first, so our efforts have created hundreds of potentials FAs. That is, as they say, a big deal.

The final this time represented a real horse race between our 1st and 2nd place winners. First-time competitor (who had won all previous rounds) Sainsf earned an impressive 1456 points with 91 articles reviewed during the final. Close behind, in second place was Carbrera, also a first-time competitor, reviewed the most articles (94). Their enthusiasm was a treat to witness. Congrats to you both!

The competition went relatively smoothly, with very little drama this time. We had to clarify one rule: in order for the points to count, you must mark your reviews as completed; it's not up to the judges to ensure that all reviews are completed by the end of a round. We were strict about adhering to this clarification, especially at the end of the final. We intend on stressing it in the stated rules for our next competition, which will be announced soon, so watch out for it. We also intend on applying for a grant through Wikimedia to include gift certificates for our winners, to further incentivize the GA Cup.

MrWooHoo should receive special recognition for acting as our main judge, and for stepping in for the rest of the judges when real-life busyness took over. He reviewed the majority of the submissions during our final round. Thanks for your hard work, and for the hard work of all our judges. We look forward to the next competition.

Again, thanks to all our competitors, and congrats to our winners.

Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase.

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) 02:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)