Jump to content

User talk:Lord Roem/Archive2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

SCOTUS case articles

I really appreciate your effort creating these articles. However, please consider adding some literature to those articles, especially from law journals. There's rarely a SCOTUS decision that doesn't get reviewed in some of these journals. Also, you might consider joining Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases. --bender235 (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Most of the cases I've filled in so far are unanimous/short technical cases. Of two real substantive case articles I've created, one has been expanded into a GA and an other (Brentwood Academy case) I'm working on reading new sources. The WikiProject seems inactive when I went to the page originally, no? Lord Roem (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, the project's frontpage might hasn't been updated in a while, but the talk page is still in use. Also, it's always helpful to know who's involved in which topic. --bender235 (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok then, I'll be sure to check it out. Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 23:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Great. And keep up the good work! --bender235 (talk) 02:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Israel mediation

It appears we have tentative readiness for you to mediate between PiCo and myself, though there are still significant hurdles; so I am commenting to PhilKnight, a primary cabal volunteer, as well. First, I am still going slow due to the unrelated ArbCom case. Also, PiCo's acceptance, linked, has a noncommittal tone, resembling much I have had to deal with: meaning that I have no assurance that PiCo truly wishes to participate, due to the potential for ongoing denial that there is a problem at all. I have also been on wikibreak, and, with the article talk archives set to a ridiculous 30-day cutoff due to both our prior wordinesses, the actual dispute, though still sharp in my mind and the evidence, has the appearance of being receded; this, in addition to PiCo's noncommittal methodologies (which I would evidence) and my often nonconfrontational choices, has made it hard for third-party assistance to grasp the full issues. Finally, of course, I would hope for some assurance that you have more than a month's experience with WP, and with mediation, which is another reason I'm copying Phil; while putting my trust in you to mediate, I wouldn't want your account's newness to tempt additional problems. The diff between my last edit a month ago and PiCo's interim article management, particularly in the Iron Age I section, should at least show that there is a significant but often subtle content dispute. Please advice at the MedCab page. JJB 20:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Since I last commented on the mediation, I have involved myself as mediator in a second case. While one of them appears to be winding down, I don't think it wise to do any more and overload myself. It may be prudent for you to ask PhilKnight to be a full mediator on the case. Apologies if you were expecting me to do this. Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Since joining ArbCom, I no longer mediate cases for MedCab. I've left a note for Xavexgoem about this. PhilKnight (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
JJB is non-conrontational? This is the note he left on my Talk page: "Based on your latest comment at Talk:History of ancient Israel and Judah, please indicate at MedCab whether or not you agree to participate in that page's process. If you do not agree to participate in this bilateral resolution within 3 days, I am likely to take other, unilateral steps, which are likely not to reflect well upon your account; so it appears to be in your interests to participate wholeheartedly. JJB 20:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)" Well let's be generous, maybe JJB doesn't see that as a threat. Anyway, I'm quite happy for Lord R. to take this on. I'll leave it to JJB to outline his grievances with me, since I have none with him. PiCo (talk) 23:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
As I posted above, I am currently involved in two mediations; I am not able to take on a third. If you want to proceed to mediation quickly (i.e. not waiting on one of my mediations to wrap up), you are free to seek another editor to help out at the Cabal. Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I, got a message from Phil a while back. I'm a bit confused, since the header says "Israeli mediation" and the case at MedCab is Gibraltar. I'm willing to take this on since Phil nor Lord R can do so. Can you just help me out a bit? Xavexgoem (talk) 08:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Ah, strike that last comment. I hadn't noticed this was about Israel and Judah, which (as said before) has been sitting in the new list for months and months and months. Let me look it over. Xavexgoem (talk) 08:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Heartfelt thanks to all for your assistance! Congratulations to Phil, I had noted your inauguration but had not done the math 2+2 yet. JJB 12:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Gibraltar

Some assistance in keeping the discussion focused would be helpful I feel. Regards. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. Apologies that I've been out most of the weekend, I was busy. Lord Roem (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Could have a look at Imalbornoz's latest comments, I'd appreciate your perspective on them. Wee Curry Monster talk 01:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Don't worry WCM. I have the page on my watchlist. I read all comments. :-) Lord Roem (talk) 01:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I am chilled but I fear the discussion is being derailed by a lack of focus on what we're trying to discuss. After my last post I don't think I could have made the issue plainer. Could you also please independently check the google links I supplied. Thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I will try to keep the discussion focused, but it is for the other editors to check your sources; I am not a decider of who's right here. Lord Roem (talk) 01:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't asking you to decide who is right, rather the fact that the links work, as it is being alleged they don't. And bearing that in mind see [1] see [2] and [3]. You might then understand my frustration. Thanks. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 January newsletter

We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. Signups are now closed, and we have 129 listed competitors, 64 of whom will make it to round two. Congratulations to The Bushranger (submissions), who, at the time of writing, has a comfortable lead with 228 points, followed by Zanzibar Hurricanehink (submissions), with 144 points. Four others have over 100 points. Congratulations also go to Greece Yellow Evan (submissions), who scored the first points in the competition, claiming for Talk:Hurricane King/GA1, Principality of Sealand Miyagawa (submissions), who scored the first non-review points in the competition, claiming for Dognapping, and United Kingdom Jarry1250 (submissions) who was the first in the competition to use our new "multiplier" mechanic (explanation), claiming for Grigory Potemkin, a subject covered on numerous Wikipedias. Thanks must also go to Jarry1250 for dealing with all bot work- without you, the competition wouldn't be happening!

A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round two is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! 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 GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 22:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2011

The Signpost: 7 February 2011

The Signpost: 14 February 2011

WP:RSN and WP:NPOVN

Did you intend to take issues there when the WP:NORN discussion is finished? Wee Curry Monster talk 14:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Probably. Lord Roem (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 February 2011

Kepler-6 nomination

Hi, Lord Roem.

I've expanded the article accordingly. I still haven't been able to secure anything particularly unique about the star, but I think it's ready for another look. What do you think of it? --Starstriker7(Talk) 08:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The picture looks really nice! I will look over it one more time in a few hours, but I think there aren't any problems to deal with! :) Lord Roem (talk) 13:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Haha, alright. XD
Thanks for letting me take up this bit of your time. I appreciate it a ton. Best of luck as you work towards strengthening this encyclopedia's law topics. :) --Starstriker7(Talk) 05:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you aware of ...

... Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests ?

Also, the link I promised you in my e-mail is Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/Newyorkbrad/Questions; see my answer to general question 7.

Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the link to completed requests; I actually used that to collect the data :-)
The draft has also been edited to include your response, feel free to look it over to make sure I didn't misquote you. Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 03:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 February newsletter

So begins round two of the WikiCup! We now have eight pools, each with eight random contestants. This round will continue until the end of April, when the top two of each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers of those remaining, will make it to round three. Congratulations to The Bushranger (submissions) (first, with 487 points) and Zanzibar Hurricanehink (submissions) (second, with 459), who stormed the first round. Scotland Casliber (submissions) finished third with 223. Twelve others finished with over 100 points- well done to all of you! The final standings in round one can be seen here. A mere 8 points were required to reach round two; competition will no doubt be much more fierce this round, so be ready for a challenge! A special thanks goes, again, to United Kingdom Jarry1250 (submissions) for dealing with all bot work. This year's bot, as well as running smoothly, is doing some very helpful things that last year's did not. Also, thanks to Bavaria Stone (submissions) for some helpful behind-the-scenes updating and number crunching.

Some news for those who are interested- March will see a GAN backlog elimination drive, which you are still free to join. Organised by WikiProject Good articles, the drive aims to minimise the GAN backlog and offers prizes to those who help out. Of course, you may well be able to claim WikiCup points for the articles you review as part of the drive. Also ongoing is the Great Backlog Drive, looking to work on clearing all of the backlogs on Wikipedia; again, incentives are offered, and the spirit of friendly competition is alive, while helping the encyclopedia is the ultimate aim. Though unrelated to the WikiCup, these may well be of interest to some of you.

Just a reminder of the rules; if you have done significant work on content this year and it is promoted in this round, you may claim for it. Also, anything that was promoted after the end of round one but before the beginning of round two may be claimed for in round two. Details of the rules can be found on this page. For those interested in statistics, a running total of claims can be seen here, and a very interesting table of that information (along with the highest scorers in each category) can be seen here. 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 GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2011

Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams

Hey, there are a few points that require your attention at Talk:Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams/GA1. There are a few points, but they're just MoS—nothing major. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Alright; thanks for reviewing the article! :) Lord Roem (talk) 23:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I've passed it now. Congratulations, that's a nice bit of work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 02:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Your GA review of Refugee controversy in Sjöbo

I've now done some corrections in accordance with your reveiew. :)Alphasinus (talk) 14:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the constructive review and promotion to GA :DAlphasinus (talk) 22:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Louis J. Sebille

I don't understand why you have failed this review. I have not yet had time to correct the things you noted, and the rules state two weeks or so is a minimum for how long I would have to start fixing things. —Ed!(talk) 06:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I just realized I made a mistake (I had multiple windows open). I did not intend to close it, thank you for alerting me to the error. I am dreadfully sorry - I know the rules - you have many more days to resolve the issues. :-/ Lord Roem (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Cormier wrestling family GA review

Thanks for the review. I believe that I have addressed everything. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 March 2011

Louis J. Sebille

Louis J. Sebille

I picked up this GAN I believe I have addressed all concerns, can you take a look?--Iankap99 (talk) 22:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Why did you close the case?

You can bet if I were to now edit Gibraltar it will be reverted as "no consensus" to change. I still wish to edit the article but any change I propose is opposed with that response. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

To answer your first question, I closed the case as it seems parties have left participation (inactivity). I think though that the process has gained some appreciation for others' views and more civility. I hope at least this spills over into the main article page. This is a page where controversy may always be - due to its very content. But, discussion on the talk page can begin anew, over small, precise changes. The bigger picture is always harder to alter, but smaller sentence changes may be able to reach consensus faster. Best regards and best of luck, Lord Roem (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

GA Brentwood Academy

I have placed the review on hold and am looking forward to working with you. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I have addressed the issues raised in the review. Thanks for looking it over! Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 23:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
There are two areas left unaddressed: amici and § 1983. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 04:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Lord Roem. You have new messages at Talk:Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Assn./GA1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mithraic mysteries mediation

The Mithraic mysteries mediation process seems to be coming to a conclusion. While not everything has been resolved, the parties who have taken part seem to be closer to consensus on some of the issues. Of the original 4 parties, one (Roger Pearce) pulled out early, and another (CivilizedEducation) has recently resumed work on the article itself (he had indicated earlier that he might do this if the process went on too long). So I've just put the following message there... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 02:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC) "Tom, I've just noticed that Civ has resumed work on the article itself. (He has restored a number of reverted edits.) Perhaps it is time for you and I to resume editing also? Maybe we should thank Lord Roem for initiating this meditation, and conduct further discussions on the talk page of the article itself? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)"

GA Green Tree Financial Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph

I have placed this review on hold so that you can address the areas indicated. I am looking forward to working with you again. Racepacket (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 March 2011

The Signpost: 21 March 2011

Wikibreak?

It appears that your last edit was on March 13. Are you on a wikibreak? I am waiting for your responses at two GA nominations. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 March 2011

WikiCup 2011 March newsletter

We are half way through round two of the WikiCup, which will end on 28 April. Of the 64 current contestants, 32 will make it through to the next round; the two highest in each pool, and the 16 next highest scorers. At the time of writing, our current overall leader is Zanzibar Hurricanehink (submissions) with 231 points, who leads Pool H. Poland Piotrus (submissions) (Pool G) also has over 200 points, while 9 others (three of whom are in Pool D) have over 100 points. Remember that certain content (specifically, articles/portals included in at least 20 Wikipedias as of 31 December 2010 or articles which are considered "vital") is worth double points if promoted to good or featured status, or if it appears on the main page in the Did You Know column. There were some articles last round which were eligible for double points, but which were not claimed for. For more details, see Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring.

A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round three is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! 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 GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 01:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 April 2011

Thank you for your participation in the March 2011 GAN backlog elimination drive

On behalf of User:Wizardman and myself, we would like to take the time and thank you for your contributions made as part of the March 2011 Good articles backlog elimination drive. Awards and barnstars will go out shortly for those who have reviewed a certain number of articles.

During the backlog drive, in the month of March 2011,

  • 522 GA nominations were undertaken.
  • 423 GA nominations passed.
  • 72 GA nominations failed.
  • 27 GA nominations were on hold.

We started the GA backlog elimination drive with 378 GA nominations remaining, with 291 that were not reviewed at all. By 2:00, April 1, 2011, the backlog was at 171 GA nominations, with 100 that were left unreviewed.

At the start of the drive, the oldest unreviewed GA nomination was 101 days (Andrei Kirilenko (politician), at 20 November 2010, reviewed and passed 1 March 2011); at the end of the drive the oldest unreviewed GA nomination was 39 days (Gery Chico, at 24 February 2011, still yet to be reviewed as of this posting).

While we did not achieve the objective of getting the backlog of outstanding GA nominations down to below 50, we reduced the GA backlog by over half. The GA reviews also seemed to be of a higher quality and have consistently led, to say the least, to marginal improvements to those articles (although there were significant improvements to many, even on the some of the nominations that were failed).

If you would like to comment on the drive itself and maybe even make suggestions on how to improve the next one, please make a comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/March 2011#Feedback. Another GA backlog elimination drive is being planned for later this year, tentatively for September or October 2011. Also, if you have any comments or remarks on how to improve the Good article process in general, Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles can always use some feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles.

Again, on behalf of User:Wizardman and myself, thank you for making the March 2011 GA backlog elimination drive a success.

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 21:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 April 2011

The Signpost: 18 April 2011

The Signpost: 25 April 2011

WikiCup 2011 April newsletter

Round 2 of the 2011 WikiCup is over, and the new round will begin on 1 May. Note that any points scored in the interim (that is, for content promoted or reviews completed on 29-30 April) can be claimed in the next round, but please do not start updating your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. Fewer than a quarter of our original contestants remain; 32 enter round 3, and, in two months' time, only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. Scotland Casliber (submissions), who led Pool F, was our round champion, with 411 points, while 7 contestants scored between 200 and 300 points. At the other end of the scale, a score of 41 was high enough to reach round 3; more than five times the score required to reach round 2, and competition will no doubt become tighter now we're approaching the later rounds. Those progressing to round 3 were spread fairly evenly across the pools; 4 progressed from each of pools A, B, E and H, while 3 progressed from both pools C and F. Pools D and G were the most successful; each had 5 contestants advancing.

This round saw our first good topic points this year; congratulations to Zanzibar Hurricanehink (submissions) and Assyrian people Nergaal (submissions) who also led pool H and pool B respectively. However, there remain content types for which no points have yet been scored; featured sounds, featured portals and featured topics. In addition to prizes for leaderboard positions, the WikiCup awards other prizes; for instance, last year, a prize was awarded to Democratic Republic of the Congo Candlewicke (submissions) (who has been eliminated) for his work on In The News. For this reason, working on more unusual content could be even more rewarding than usual!

Sorry this newsletter is going out a little earlier than expected- there is a busy weekend coming up! A running total of claims can be seen here. 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 GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 19:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 May 2011

The Signpost: 9 May 2011

Lost

As you have done GA reviews for Lost articles before, can you take a look at The Constant, which I've put on peer review? Thanks. igordebraga ≠ 17:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 May 2011

Rowan v. U.S. Post Office Dept.

The full citation is missing for this reference. I guess it's from this book? jonkerz♠ 03:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 May 2011

The Signpost: 30 May 2011

WikiCup 2011 May newsletter

We're half way through round 3 of the 2011 WikiCup. There are currently 32 remaining in the competition, but only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. Scotland Casliber (submissions), of pool D, is our overall leader with nearly 200 points, while pools A, B and C are led by Texas Racepacket (submissions), Zanzibar Hurricanehink (submissions) and Saskatchewan Canada Hky (submissions) respectively. The score required to reach the next round is 35, though this will no doubt go up significantly as the round progresses. We have a good number of high scorers, but also a considerable number who are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. Also, an important note concerning nominations at featured article candidates: if you are nominating content for which you intend to claim WikiCup points, please make this clear in the nomination statement so that the FAC director and his delegates are aware of the fact.

A running total of claims can be seen here. 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 GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Politicians arrested and charges with corruption

You are invited for discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 June 1 and also Category talk:Politicians arrested and charges with corruption- . Shlok talk . 17:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 June 2011

The Signpost: 13 June 2011

The Signpost: 20 June 2011

The Signpost: 27 June 2011

WikiCup 2011 June newsletter

We are half way through 2011, and entering the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; the semi-finals are upon us! Points scored in the interim (29/30 June) may be counted towards next round, but please do not update your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. 16 contestants remain, and all have shown dedication to the project to reach this far. Our round leader was Scotland Casliber (submissions) who, among other things, successfully passed three articles through featured article candidates and claimed an impressive 29 articles at Did You Know, scoring 555 points. Casliber led pool D. Pool A was led by Ohio Wizardman (submissions), claiming points for a featured article, a featured list and seven good article reviews, while pool C was led by Norway Eisfbnore (submissions), who claimed for two good articles, ten articles at Did You Know and four good article reviews. They scored 154 and 118 respectively. Pool B was by far our most competitive pool; six of the eight competitors made it through to round 4, with all of them scoring over 100 points. The pool was led by Zanzibar Hurricanehink (submissions), who claimed for, among other things, three featured articles and five good articles. In addition to the four pool leaders, 12 others (the four second places, and the 8 next highest overall) make up our final 16. The lowest scorer who reached round 4 scored 76 points; a significant increase on the 41 needed to reach round 3. Eight of our semi-finalists scored at least twice as much as this.

No points were awarded this round for featured pictures, good topics or In the News, and no points have been awarded in the whole competition for featured topics, featured portals or featured sounds. Instead, the highest percentage of points has come from good articles. Featured articles, despite their high point cost, are low in number, and so, overall, share a comparable number of points with Did You Know, which are high in number but low in cost. A comparatively small but still considerable number of points come from featured lists and good article reviews, rounding out this round's overall scores.

We would again like to thank United Kingdom Jarry1250 (submissions) and Bavaria Stone (submissions) for invaluable background work, as well as all of those helping to provide reviews for the articles listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Please do keep using it, and please do help by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup.

Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here, for those interested, though it appears that neither are completely accurate at this time. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 July 2011

The Signpost: 11 July 2011

The Signpost: 18 July 2011

The Signpost: 25 July 2011

Looking for feedback on a new article I'm writing

Hi. We interacted last January when you were having a peer review done on LSC v. Velazquez. I'm working on a biographical article on George E. Crothers — an important alumnus, trustee, and benefactor of my alma mater, Stanford University (and not to be confused with George Crothers, the Irish cricket player). Once the page is in decent shape, I'm planning to nominate it for DYK. If you have any time to go take a look (User:Richwales/Drafts/George E. Crothers) and give me feedback, I'd be grateful. Thanks. Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 July newsletter

We are half way through the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; there is less than a month to go before we have our final 8. Our pool leaders are New Zealand Adabow (submissions) (Pool A, 189 points) and Russia PresN (submissions) (Pool B, 165 points). The number of points required to reach the next round is not clear at this time; there are some users who still do not have any recorded points. Please remember to update your submissions' pages promptly. In addition, congratulations to PresN, who scored the first featured topic points in the competition for his work on Thatgamecompany related articles. Most points this round generally have, so far, come from good articles, with only one featured article (White-bellied Sea Eagle, from Scotland Casliber (submissions)) and two featured lists (Hugo Award for Best Graphic Story, from PresN and Grammy Award for Best Native American Music Album, from Another Believer (submissions)). Points for Did You Know and good article reviews round out the scoring. No points have been awarded for In the News, good topics or featured pictures this round, and no points for featured sounds or portals have been awarded in the entire competition. On an unrelated note, preparation will be beginning soon for next year's WikiCup- watch this space!

There is little else to be said beyond the usual. Please list anything you need reviewing on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, so others following the WikiCup can help, and please do help if you can by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup- points are, of course, offered for reviews at GAC. Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 11:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 August 2011

The Signpost: 08 August 2011

The Signpost: 15 August 2011

The Signpost: 22 August 2011

The Signpost: 29 August 2011

WikiCup 2011 July newsletter

The finals are upon us; we're down to the last few. One of the eight remaining contestants will be this year's WikiCup champion! 150 was the score needed to progress to the final; just under double the 76 required to reach round 4, and more than triple the 41 required to reach round 3. Our eight finalists are:

  • Scotland Casliber (submissions), Pool A's winner. Casliber has the highest total score in the competition, with 1528, the bulk of which is made up of 8 featured articles. He has the highest number of total featured articles (8, 1 of which was eligible for double points) and total did you knows (72) of any finalist. Casliber writes mostly on biology, including ornithology, botany and mycology.
  • Russia PresN (submissions), Pool B's winner and the highest scorer this round. PresN is the only finalist who has scored featured topic points, and he has gathered an impressive 330, but most of his points come from his 4 featured articles, one of which scored double. PresN writes mostly on video games and the Hugo Awards.
  • Zanzibar Hurricanehink (submissions), Pool A's runner-up. Hurricanehink's points are mostly from his 30 good articles, more than any other finalist, and he is also the only finalist to score good topic points. Hurricanehink, as his name suggests, writes mostly on meteorology.
  • Ohio Wizardman (submissions), Pool B's runner-up. Wizardman has completed 86 good article reviews, more than any other finalist, but most of his points come from his 2 featured articles. Wizardman writes mostly on American sport, especially baseball.
  • Principality of Sealand Miyagawa (submissions), the "fastest loser" (Pool A). Miyagawa has written 3 featured lists, one of which was awarded double points, more than any other finalist, but he was awarded points mostly for his 68 did you knows. Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, including dogs, military history and sport.
  • Canada Resolute (submissions), the second "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Resolute's points come from his 9 good articles. He writes mostly on Canadian topics, including ice hockey.
  • Greece Yellow Evan (submissions), who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool A). Most of Evan's points come from his 10 good articles, and he writes mostly on meteorology.
  • Australia Sp33dyphil (submissions), who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Phil's points come from his 9 good articles, 4 of which (more than any other finalist) were eligible for double points. He writes mostly on aeronautics.

We say goodbye to our seven other semi-finalists, Another Believer (submissions), Poland Piotrus (submissions), United Kingdom Grandiose (submissions), Bavaria Stone (submissions), Norway Eisfbnore (submissions), Saskatchewan Canada Hky (submissions) and Wisconsin MuZemike (submissions). Everyone still in the competition at this stage has done fantastically well, and contributed greatly to Wikipedia. We're on the home straight now, and we will know our winner in two months.

In other news, preparations for next year's competition have begun with a brainstorming thread. Please, feel free to drop by and share any thoughts you have about how the competition should work next year. Sign ups are not yet open, but will be opened in due course. Watch this space. Further, there has been a discussion about the rule whereby those in the WikiCup must delcare their participation when nominating articles at featured article candidates. This has resulted in a bot being created by new featured article delegate Ucucha (talk · contribs). The bot will leave a message on FAC pages if the nominator is a participant in the WikiCup.

A reminder of the rules: any points scored after August 29 may be claimed for the final round, and please remember to update submission pages promptly. If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 September 2011

The Signpost: 12 September 2011

The Signpost: 19 September 2011

The Signpost: 26 September 2011


WikiCup 2011 September newsletter

We are on this year's home straight, with less than a month to go until the winner of the 2011 WikiCup will be decided. The fight for first place is currently being contested by Principality of Sealand Miyagawa (submissions), Zanzibar Hurricanehink (submissions) and Australia Sp33dyphil (submissions), all of whom have over 200 points. This round has already seen multiple featured articles (1991 Atlantic hurricane season from Hurricanehink and Northrop YF-23 from Sp33dyphil) and a double-scoring featured list (Miyagawa's 1948 Summer Olympics medal table). The scores will likely increase far further before the end of the round on October 31 as everyone ups their pace. There is not much more to say- thoughts about next year's competition are welcome on the WikiCup talk page or the scoring talk page, and signups will open once a few things have been sorted out.

If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 12:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 October 2011

The Signpost: 10 October 2011

Please comment on Talk:Trial as an adult

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Trial as an adult. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 07:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 October 2011

Please comment on Talk:Domestic violence

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Domestic violence. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 08:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 October 2011

WikiCup 2011 October newsletter

The 2011 WikiCup is now over, and our new champion is Zanzibar Hurricanehink (submissions), who joins the exclusive club of the previous winners: Dreamafter (2007), jj137 (2008), Durova (2009) and Sturmvogel_66 (2010). The final standings were as follows:

  1. Zanzibar Hurricanehink (submissions)
  2. Australia Sp33dyphil (submissions)
  3. Greece Yellow Evan (submissions)
  4. Principality of Sealand Miyagawa (submissions)
  5. Ohio Wizardman (submissions)
  6. Scotland Casliber (submissions)
  7. Canada Resolute (submissions)
  8. Russia PresN (submissions)

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.

No prize was awarded for featured pictures, sounds or portals, as none were claimed throughout the competition. The awards will be handed out over the next few days. Congratulations to all our participants, and especially our winners; we've all had fun, and Wikipedia has benefitted massively from our content work.

Preparation for next year's WikiCup is ongoing. Interested parties are invited to sign up and participate in our straw polls. It's been a pleasure to work with you all this year, and, whoever's taking part in and running the competition in 2012, we hope to see you all in January! J Milburn and The ed17 00:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2011

2011 WikiCup participation

Awarded to Lord Roem, who reached round 3 in the 2011 WikiCup.

It was good to have you on board this time around- we hope you enjoyed the competition! In case you are interested, signups for next year are open. Thanks, J Milburn and The ed17 20:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 November2011

Please comment on Talk:Palestinian people

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Palestinian people. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 09:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 November 2011

The Signpost: 21 November 2011

Please comment on Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses and child sex abuse

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses and child sex abuse. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 09:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 November 2011

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lord_Roem/Archive2&oldid=1141106763"