![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
|
I would like to invite you and fellow Portlanders to join the Great American Wiknic 2012 this June (Wikipedia:Meetup/Portland/Wiknic ?) :) Also, please add any preliminary details to Wikipedia:Wiknic#2012 Wiknic.--Pharos (talk) 17:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Template:A Fine Frenzy has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
The article David Hattner you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:David Hattner for comments about the article. Well done! There is a backlog of articles waiting for review, why not help out and review a nominated article yourself? GoPTCN 15:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Sia, Best Of album cover.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 07:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
We're halfway through round 3 (or the quarter finals, if you prefer) and things are running smoothly. We're seeing very high scoring; as of the time of writing, the top 16 all have over 90 points. This has already proved to be more competative than this time last year- in 2011, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 was the lowest qualifying score. People have also upped their game slightly from last round, which is to be expected as we approach the end of the competition. Leading Pool A is Cwmhiraeth (submissions), whose points have mostly come from a large number of did you knows on marine biology. Pool B's leader,
Grapple X (submissions), is for the first time not our highest scorer at the time of newsletter publication, but his good articles on The X-Files and Millenium keep him in second place overall.
Miyagawa (submissions) leads Pool C, our quietest pool, with content in a variety of areas on a variety of topics. Pool D is led by
Casliber (submissions), our current overall leader. Nearly half of Casliber's points come from his triple-scored Western Jackdaw, which is now a featured article.
This round has seen an unusually high number of featured lists, with nearly one in five remaining participants claiming one, and one user, Muboshgu (submissions), claiming two. Miyagawa's featured list, 1936 Summer Olympics medal table, was even awarded double points. By comparison, good article reviews seem to be playing a smaller part, and featured topics portals remain two content-types still unutilised in this competition. Other than that, there isn't much to say! Things are coming along smoothly. As ever, 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. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
|
The article Kvinneakt you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Kvinneakt for comments about the article. Well done! There is a backlog of articles waiting for review, why not help out and review a nominated article yourself? GoPTCN 18:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi A.B. I had an eye surgery last Wednesday, and my vision will be impaired to some degree through at least mid-July. I can see fine with the other eye, so it's possible for me to read things and write short things like this note. On the other hand, it's not much fun to edit with one eye focused while the other is unfocused. I'm going to continue to be relatively inactive on Wikipedia until at least the middle of next month. Congrats on the two GAs, and good luck with the horse rings. I'll take a close look at the horse rings article several weeks hence, if you like. Finetooth (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:John Patitucci Another World cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 06:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I have reviewed Best Of... (Sia album), an article that you have nominated for GA. Statυs (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
We meet again. I have reviewed the article Oh Blue Christmas and have put it on hold. Best, Statυs (talk) 02:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I have also reviewed the above article and placed it on hold. Cheers, Statυs (talk) 06:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Good Article Barnstar | |
I don't know if this is the third or fourth time I've given you this barnstar, but you've earned it again for your recent GAs. Keep it up! Jsayre64 (talk) 15:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC) |
Be there, or be unwikified!--Pharos (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Surreal Barnstar |
Congrats on your article about Satan's Testicles, because Wikipedia was lacking in the balls department. tedder (talk) 23:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC) |
Thanks for signing the list at Wikimedia Cascadia. Are you coming to Wikimania? If so, we are having a chapters meetup where we are going to propose this chapter.
We should stay in touch. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC) |
Apologies for the lateness of this letter; our usual bot wasn't working. We are now entering round 4, our semi-finals, and have our final 16. A score of 243 was required to reach this round; significantly more than 2011's 76 points, and only a little behind 2010's 250 points. By comparison, last year, 150 points in round 4 secured a place in the final; in 2010, 430 were needed. Commiserations to Pool A's igordebraga (submissions), who scored 242 points, missing out on a place in the round by a whisker. However, congratulations to Pool B's
Grapple X (submissions), whose television articles have brought him another round victory. Pool A's
Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came second overall, with an impressive list of biological did you knows, good articles and featured articles. Third overall was Pool D's
Muboshgu (submissions), with a long list of contibutions, mostly relating to baseball. Of course, with the points resetting every round, the playing field has been levelled. The most successful Pool was Pool D, which saw seven into the final round. Pool B saw four, C saw three and Pool A saw only the two round leaders.
A quick note about other competitions taking place on Wikipedia which may be of interest. There are 13 days remaining in the June-July GAN backlog elimination drive, but it is not too late to take part. August will also see the return of The Core Contest- a one month long competition first run in 2007. While the WikiCup awards points for audited content on any subject, The Core Contest about is raw article improvement, focussing heavily on the most important articles on Wikipedia. As ever, 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. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 10:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
|
The article Just Chillin' you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Just Chillin' for things which need to be addressed. Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 18:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Another Believer, and sorry to bother you, but I have a question. You created and GA nominated Pod, but it has no picture. I think having a picture of a sculpture is very important, and I've found three CC-BY-SA images on Flickr.
Which, if any, are good enough to be uploaded and added into the article? David1217 What I've done 01:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Note that some images you created are up for deletion on commons. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Kvinneakt. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
We're approaching the beginning of 2012's final round. Pool A sees Cwmhiraeth (submissions) as the leader, with 300 points being awarded for the featured article Bivalvia, and Pool B sees
Grapple X (submissions) in the lead, with 10 good articles, and over 35 articles eligible for good topic points. Pool A sees
Muboshgu (submissions) in second place with a number of articles relating to baseball, while Pool B's
Ruby2010 (submissions) follows Grapple X, with a variety of contributions including the high-scoring, high-importance featured article on the 2010 film Pride & Prejudice. Ruby2010, like Grapple X, also claimed a number of good topic points; despite this, not a single point has been claimed for featured topics in the contest so far. The same is true for featured portals.
Currently, the eighth-place competitor (and so the lowest scorer who would reach the final round right now) has scored 332, more than double the 150 needed to reach the final round last year. In 2010, however, 430 was the lowest qualifying score. In this competition, we have generally seen scores closer to those in 2010 than those in 2011. Let's see what kind of benchmark we can set for future competitions! As ever, 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. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 22:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
|
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Milwaukee at Last DVD cover.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Roses in Portland you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Viriditas (talk) 11:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey Another Believer, about time I saw another FLC from you!! In other news, I saw this edit and wondered where you had found guidance or instruction to make categories list in alphabetical order? I've seen it before but never seen any kind of guideline that points us to do that? Hope all is well with you. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi. If you'd like, free free to join the Awake task force, as you have worked on some articles. Don't have to. Just inviting you to. TBrandley 05:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Sign up here: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes America/Portland :)--Pharos (talk) 12:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I am part of an effort to get Wikimedians access to the 2016 Summer Olympics as accredited reporters and photographers. Part of this effort includes covering the 2012 Summer Paralympics. Two Wikimedians have credentials to attend these games as reporters through Wikimedia Australia. As English Wikipedia does not allow original reporting, this is largely through Wikinews with a project page found at Wikinews:Paralympic Games. If you are interested in helping to get Wikimedians to the next Summer Olympics, I'd encourage you to assist with Wikinews efforts, and also to work on all language 2012 Summer Paralympic Wikipedia articles before, during and after the Games to demonstrate a track record of success. Thank you. --LauraHale (talk) 05:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
An Awake episode for you! |
Thanks for your help to Awake-related articles. To show my appreciation, I have awarded you a free Awake episode! TBrandley 15:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC) |
The final is upon us! We are down to our final 8. A massive 573 was our lowest qualifying score; this is higher than the 150 points needed last year and the 430 needed in 2010. Even in 2009, when points were acquired for mainspace edit count in addition to audited content, 417 points secured a place. That leaves this year's WikiCup, by one measure at least, our most competitive ever. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:
However, we must also say goodbye to the eight who did not make the final, having fallen at the last hurdle: GreatOrangePumpkin (submissions),
Ealdgyth (submissions),
Calvin999 (submissions),
Piotrus (submissions),
Toa Nidhiki05 (submissions),
12george1 (submissions),
The Bushranger (submissions) and
1111tomica (submissions). We hope to see you all next year.
On the subject of next year, a discussion has been opened here. Come and have your say about the competition, and how you'd like it to run in the future. This brainstorming will go on for some time before more focused discussions/polls are opened. As ever, 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. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
The article Maybe This Christmas you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Maybe This Christmas for things which need to be addressed. Kürbis (✔) 11:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
There are times when no articles at all are better than one-sentence permastubs. The Portland library articles are such a case. You just copy-pasted the same thing over again. You didn't even look up the geocoords...I had to spend an hour ripping them from the Multnomah County Library website. You hadn't even put in the geocoords on the Woodstock Library (and not having them would surely cost you GA). In conclusion, thanks for making a lot of work for me! pbp 01:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
The article Maybe This Christmas you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Maybe This Christmas for comments about the article. Well done! Kürbis (✔) 13:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
|
Hi, I noticed that in the course of tidying this article you moved a couple of images to the left. Personally, I prefer the neatness of all right-aligned, but in itself that's not a big deal. The reason I'm mentioning it is that the article will eventually be part of a Featured Topic, and a degree of uniformity is expected, in terms of eg section headings, layout etc. It's a long way off yet, three FAs down, three to go, so it will be months yet, but when I get that far it's likely that I'll right-align again, at least while the FTC is in progress, hope you won't see that as edit warring Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
<font=3> You're invited to participate in Wikipedia Takes Portland 2012, an annual event which occurs each September in Portland, Oregon as part of Wikipedia Takes America and Wiki Loves Monuments in the United States. Photographing sites in Portland listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) is the main focus of Wikipedia Takes Portland. This year the event will kick off at Saturday, September 22nd at noon at Pioneer Courthouse Square. Currently, there are no formal plans--this is simply an opportunity to meet fellow Wikipedians before trekking around PDX to photograph sites on the Register. Not interested in coming downtown? You can still upload your images as part of the international photo competition. Be sure to RSVP and share the results of your work HERE (number of images uploaded, links to galleries, successes, feedback, etc. Click here for more information about meetups in Portland! --Another Believer (Talk) 15:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC) |
---|
Thanks for the invite; sorry I missed you, but I did get some photos of NRHP sites and others. Visitor7 (talk) 01:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
If it were down to me I'd now be closing this review and listing the article as a GA, but of course it isn't, that's Maclean25's responsibility. In any event I think it's now something you can show to the library with some pride in your achievement. Because you're planning on using it as a model I've been a little tougher on the article than I would normally be at GAN, sort of a halfway house to FA really, but I hope you agree it's paid off. The only other thing I'd suggest would be to convert the inline citations to list defined references, to reduce the clutter in the article text, make it easier for editors, and also to act as a model of best practice. If you're uncertain what that would look like, then with your permission I'll convert the article, and if you don't like it you can simply revert me. Either way it won't affect the outcome of the GA review of course, which I'll continue to watch in case Maclean25 spots something I've missed. Malleus Fatuorum 00:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello Another Believer. I just wanted to thank you for selecting a submission for TFL. As you are aware, recently, at WT:TFL, there's been a lot of concern that the system has become stuck, that new nominations are being discouraged by the lengthy queues in place, and that my selections for TFL haven't been diverse enough. To that end, I've rebooted the system. In short, we will no longer have a submissions and prep page, just a submissions page. We'll limit the number of submissions to ten. The community can comment on, support, oppose etc the inclusion of any of the submissions. Directors will have final say on what goes on main page when. I've deleted all selections made from mid-October to Christmas to give others the opportunity to get involved. I'm sorry that efforts now have been, well, delayed I guess, and hope that you'll continue to support our process, as we try to improve and ultimately get more main page exposure. Feel free to ping me about any of this. Thanks again. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
We're over half way through the final, and so it is less than a month until we know for certain our 2012 WikiCup champion. Grapple X (submissions) currently leads, followed by
Sasata (submissions),
Cwmhiraeth (submissions) and
Casliber (submissions). However, we have no one resembling a breakaway leader, and so the competition is a long way from over. Next month's newsletter will feature a list of our winners (who are not necessarily only the finalists) and keep your eyes open for an article on the WikiCup in a future edition of The Signpost. The leaders are already on a par with last year's winners, but a long way from the huge scores seen in 2010. That said, a repeat of the competition from 2010 seems unlikely.
It is good to see that three-quarters of our finalists have already scored bonus points this round. This shows that, contrary to criticism that the WikiCup has received in the past, the competition does not merely incentivise the writing of trivial articles; instead, our top competitors are still spending their time contributing to high-importance articles, and bringing them to a high standard. This does a great service to the encyclopedia and its readers. Thank you, and good work!
The planning for next year's WikiCup is ongoing. Some straw polls have been opened concerning the scoring, and you can now sign up for next year's competition. As ever, 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. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
<font=3>WIKIPEDIA LOVES LIBRARIES: MULTNOMAH COUNTY EDIT-ATHON! You're invited to participate in Wikipedia Loves Libraries 2012, an edit-athon hosted by Multnomah County Library for the purpose of improving stubs relating to Multnomah County. The event will take place on Saturday, October 27, 2012 from 2:00-4:00pm at the Central Library in downtown Portland. You can view details about this Wiki Loves Libraries event here. Be sure to RSVP and share the results of your work HERE. Click here for more information about meetups in Portland! --Another Believer (Talk) 21:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC) |
---|
For the record... --Another Believer (Talk) 21:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
The article Woodstock Library you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Woodstock Library for comments about the article. Well done! Kürbis (✔) 09:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Great to meet you too ! Wikipedia:Meetup/Portland/Wiki Loves Libraries/2012. Here is one of the graphs I was talking about with editor information, though even this is now two years old editor trends study 2010. Hope to see you around on wikipedia and across the globe :). ∴ here…♠ 22:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Hey AB, some time ago you asked me to post some outcomes from our April 2012 meetup. Here you go, finally! Wikipedia:Meetup/Portland/April 2012#Outcomes Sorry for the delay. Feel free to add anything I missed -- I'm sure there's plenty, I'm just going off memory! -Pete (talk) 05:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
The 2012 WikiCup has come to a close; congratulations to Cwmhiraeth (submissions), our 2012 champion! Cwmhiraeth joins our exclusive club of previous winners: Dreamafter (2007), jj137 (2008), Durova (2009), Sturmvogel 66 (2010) and Hurricanehink (2011). Our final standings were as follows:
Prizes for first, second, third and fourth will be awarded, as will prizes for all those who reached the final eight. Every participant who scored in the competition will receive a ribbon of participation. In addition to the prizes based on placement, the following special prizes will be awarded based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, the prize is awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round.
Awards will be handed out in the coming days; please bear with us! This year's competition also saw fantastic contributions in all rounds, from newer Wikipedians contributing their first good or featured articles, right up to highly experienced Wikipedians chasing high scores and contributing to topics outside of their usual comfort zones. It would be impossible to name all of the participants who have achieved things to be proud of, but well done to all of you, and thanks! Wikipedia has certainly benefited from the work of this year's WikiCup participants.
Next year's WikiCup will begin in January. Currently, discussions and polls are open, and all contributions are welcome. You can also sign up for next year's competition. There will be no further newsletters this year, although brief notes may be sent out in December to remind everyone about the upcoming competition. It's been a pleasure to work with you all, and we hope to see you all in January! J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Albina Library is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albina Library until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. pbp 19:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on biased users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albina Library. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Sorry, but just saying "it isn't canvassing" doesn't mean that it isn't canvassing pbp 20:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I posted a notification on the talk page for WikiProject Oregon as well as the two contributors who participated in the discussion previously. Both are appropriate, as outlined above. I did not ask for their support. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. This looks do-able. I have many off-wiki promises to keep later today, but I got a bit done this morning. My plan is to return to these articles every day for a while and to help you and Pete (and anyone else) spiff them up. Finetooth (talk) 17:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
|
Yes sir. I'll probably be done with "Killer Within" by tomorrow or Thursday and I'll get started with another one before the week ends. :) —DAP388 (talk) 04:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the Thanksgiving note -- hope you have a happy one too! Nice to hear from you, and always admiring your wiki work. -Pete (talk) 00:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Congrats on the GA for Country Bill's. Finetooth (talk) 05:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
December 8 - Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited | |
---|---|
Yours, Maximilianklein (talk) 03:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC) |
Thanks for the note. Yes, I'm familiar with this little dude. I'll see what I can do to improve the article (maybe something, maybe nothing, not sure). I'm not nominating anything for anything these days, but I'm happy when others nominate things I've worked on either a little or a lot. Finetooth (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Update: Oregon Caves National Monument. Congrats, FT! --Another Believer (Talk) 01:00, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Would definitely be appreciated. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
|
Thank you for nominating this. I'll help if I can and try to behave myself, if possible. Please let me know if you see problems or have questions. I've been meaning to go down to the cave to try to get some better photos of things like the lodge and the big tree, but the park is an out-of-the-way place that's relatively inaccessible in winter. Lack of more images shouldn't be a problem at GAN, though. By the way, I don't think that editors who don't do reviews are "bad". Forced reviewing would be a disaster. We all do what we can or what we want to, and all of it is a gift to the commons. You are an excellent editor and also a "good" one, IMHO. Finetooth (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, and keep spreading those seeds! J04n(talk page) 22:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Hey all :).
I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :).
You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at okeyeswikimedia.org and I'll set you up with an account :).
If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an office hours session on Monday 17 December at 23:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office connect. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I feel like the Grinch leaving a message like this at this time of year, but I've procrastinated on it repeatedly and don't want to keep doing that. Although I really value your contributions to Wikipedia and don't want to do anything that might discourage you, I do urge you not to create any more one-sentence stubs on Oregon NRHP-listed properties – except when you intend to go back soon (within a few days or so) and add some actual content. From what I've observed, it appears that you almost never do that, and are just hoping someone else will do so (see next paragraph). Usually, your stubs don't even include an infobox. This was discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject NRHP and on your talk page back in June 2011, and I have to say I agreed with Dudemanfellabra on the basic objection. At the very least, I feel any NRHP stubs you create should include infoboxes, and the Elkman tool (which requires no installation of any software), which was mentioned to you there, makes that task easy. In most cases, your NRHP stubs are in fact not articles at all, by any conventional definition. I'm saying, if you're not going to write an actual article (NRHP infobox, photo if already available, and at least a few sentences of prose), then please leave these NHRP listings as red links, as recommended at WP:REDDEAL.
In that 2011 discussion, you argued that you believed creating these stubs would encourage people to write a real article (I'm paraphrasing liberally). From my perspective, the opposite is true. Their creation permanently denies anyone else the chance to be recorded as the article's creator, while adding absolutely no info. that cannot already be found in the list-type articles for each Oregon county or smaller area. I can only speak for myself, but personally I am more willing to devote the time for research and writing to create a new article if it is currently a red link. If it is a one-sentence stub (i.e. virtually no content), the amount of time I have to spend is exactly the same and yet I don't get identified as the article's creator. Being listed as the article's creator is not a major factor in my choices of what new articles to research and compose, but it is a factor, and can be a significant motivator. I could name several specific examples of articles I was planning to write, and had researched and gathered info on (some being Astoria subjects), but for which your creation of one-sentence stubs then stole some of my motivation; but this post has become too long already. For me, even a small loss in motivation often means a planned project never gets done. Anyway, I'm just giving an additional reason that creation of stubs like these NRHP ones (when the creator has no intention of expanding them himself) are not only not beneficial, but actually detrimental to WP, as I see it. The reasons given during that earlier discussion were also sound. Naturally, you are free to reject my argument, but I hope you'll consider it. Sorry to be critical, because I still greatly appreciate all your other contributions; I'm only finding fault with one small facet of your editing. SJ Morg (talk) 13:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi there; you're receiving this message because you have previously shown interest in the WikiCup. This is just to remind you that the 2013 WikiCup will be starting on 1 January, and that signups will remain open throughout January. Old and new Wikipedians and WikiCup participants are warmly invited to take part in this year's competition. (Though, as a note to the more experienced participants, there have been a few small rules changes in the last few months.) If you have already signed up, let this be a reminder; you will receive a message with your submissions' page soon. Please direct any questions to the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! J Milburn 19:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Elek Imredy may be worthy of an article as well that is why I redlinked it. There is confusion on the Hungarian animation page about a cartoonist that came over within a year with the same name. They may have faulty info, the ref is power point that I can't read at this point.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello Another Believer, and welcome to the 2013 WikiCup! Your submissions' page is here. The competition begins at midnight UTC. The first round will last until the end of February, at which point the top 64 scorers will advance to the second round. We will be in touch at the end of every month, and signups are going to remain open until the end of January; if you know of anyone else who may like to take part, please let them know! A few reminders: *The rules can be found here. There have been a few changes from last year, which are listed on that page. *Anything you submit must have been nominated and promoted in 2013, and you need to have completed significant work upon it in 2013. (The articles you review at good article reviews does not need to have been nominated in 2013, but you do need to have started the review in 2013.) We will be checking. *If you feel that another competitor is breaking the rules or abusing the competition in some way, please let a judge know. Please do not remove entries from the submissions' pages of others yourself. *Don't worry about calculating precisely how many points everything is worth. The bot will do that. The bot may occasionally get something wrong- let a judge know, or post on the WikiCup talk page if that happens. *Please try to be prompt in updating submissions' pages so that they can be double-checked. Overall, however, don't worry, and have fun. It doesn't matter if you make the odd mistake; these things happen. Questions can be asked on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn and The ed17 18:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |