User:The ed17/Archives/66

I've made a start on this month's newsletter. Despite some upset, there has actually been a lot to celebrate this round. Anything to add? I'm not aware of any other competitions/drives due to start soon... J Milburn (talk) 15:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, you've already mentioned the gigantic Middle Ages FA... GoCE might have a drive going, but we don't award points for copyediting, so I think you're good! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

We are down to our final 16: the 2013 semi-finals are upon us. A score of 321 was required to survive round 3, further cementing this as the most competitive WikiCup yet; round 3 was survived in 2012 with 243 points, in 2011 with 76 points and in 2010 with 250 points. The change may in part be to do with the fact that more articles are now awarded bonus points, in addition to more competitive play. Reaching the final has, in the past, required 573 points (2012, a 135% increase on the score needed to reach round 4), 150 points (2011, a 97% increase) and 417 points (2010, a 72% increase). This round has seen over a third of participants claiming points for featured articles (with seven users claiming for multiple featured articles) and most users have also gained bonus points. However, the majority of points continue to come from good articles, followed by did you know articles. In this round, every content type was utilised by at least one user, proving that the WikiCup brings together content contributors from all corners of the project.

Round 3 saw a number of contributions of note. Figureskatingfan (submissions) claimed the first featured topic points in this year's competition for her excellent work on topics related to Maya Angelou, the noted American author and poet. We have also continued to see high-importance articles improved as part of the competition: Ealdgyth (submissions) was awarded a thoroughly well-earned 560 points for her featured article Middle Ages and 102 points for her good article Battle of Hastings. Good articles James Chadwick and Stanislaw Ulam netted Hawkeye7 (submissions) 102 and 72 points respectively, while 72 points were awarded to Piotrus (submissions) for each of Władysław Sikorski and Emilia Plater, both recently promoted to good article status. Collaborative efforts between WikiCup participants have continued, with, for example, Casliber (submissions) and Sasata (submissions) being awarded 180 points each for their featured article on Boletus luridus.

A rules reminder: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on the 29/30 June, which may be claimed in this round. 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. We are currently seeing concern about the amount of time people have to wait for reviews, especially at GAC- if you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 09:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm doing the final polishing on my Dispatches contribution. Can you give some guidance about preferred length? It is currently around 900 words, but I can trim if necessary. Can you also remind me how I deliver the article to you? It should be with you by tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 20:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

1500 would be too long, but 900 is perfectly fine, and please feel free to expand it a little more if needed. As for delivery, it's up to you. Some of our pages use Google Docs, and then I copy, paste, and upload while publishing. You could also put it in a sandbox, email me the link, and I'll move the page when publishing. Thank you again for doing this! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, the text is here. Please drop a line on my talk if this link is insufficient or if you have further queries with the text, otherwise it is all yours. Brianboulton (talk) 22:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

	WikiProject Amusement Parks Newsletter Quarter 3, 2013	463	124	5.13	50	30%	» Full edition
		Unassessed Articles	Coordinates Needed	WikiWork Load	Project Members	B&M articles are GA or FA

23:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Franz Kafka all time top TFA!!!

[1] 768,586 hits

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/Most viewed

WP:TOP25 (when updated)

PumpkinSky talk 12:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, and congratulations! That's an awesome accomplishment, one I suspect my battleship articles will never reach. ;-) I assume this will be featured in next week's traffic report. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

It might have had something to do with being a Google Doodle as well that day. Chris857 (talk) 22:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• When I checked, the Google Doodle linked to a Google search and not Wikipedia directly. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Correct, the doodle went to a google search results page, not the wiki article. PumpkinSky talk 00:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Please have a look here. --Meno25 (talk) 13:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I understand that you disagree with what I wrote, but that doesn't make it any less true and, respectfully, it doesn't entitle you to remove my post(s). Yes, unfortunately, someone has to step up and occasionally speak hard truths: stomping off (ragequitting) like a diva is poor form. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Why does somebody have to say it? In my experience it's never been helpful to call people divas when they are doing drastic things out of frustration or desperation, and it certainly never "needed" to be said. I'm astonished by your lack of sensitivity and empathy here. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Sluzzelin here, plus (a) he hasn't shown signs of divaing before, (b) he's taking a break, not ragequitting, and (c) your post is completely unnecessary and inflammatory. But to each their own, I suppose. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Ed's action looks sensible to me: there's no need to pile more drama on top of existing drama... Nick-D (talk) 03:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's important to counter-balance the impression that this type of behavior is acceptable or desirable. It isn't a lack of sensitivity or empathy at play here: it's years of experience watching countless users stomp off like this before (and watching the various hordes beg for their return). It's a fairly common pattern that's been repeatedly identified and documented; I don't think there's much harm in saying so. The appropriate response to no longer wanting to be here is to leave. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• If "years of experience watching countless users stomp off like this before" does not suggest to you that something is rotten in Wikiville, and that maybe people who have poured years of their lives into this project do not appreciate a growing attitude of distrust and Big Brotherism, then perhaps you may want to do a check on your statement that you are not lacking sensitivity and empathy.

Ed, if you're reading this... I sure as hell hope you make it into that master's program. Don't feel as if you have to look back, although of course I certainly enjoy having you here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone meant to suggest that Wikipedia is perfect. :-) Is something rotten on Wikipedia? More so now than before? Eh... maybe. I fail to see how stepping down as an admin addresses (or helps address) whatever may be rotten.

There's a growing attitude of distrust and Big Brotherism in the world today, particularly given recent leaks about widespread government surveillance programs. I fail to see what this has to do with ragequitting the English Wikipedia.

The point, in case it's still getting missed—and this applies to Drmies, Giano, Malleus, Boing and many others—is to resist the temptation to throw a tantrum or feed others who are currently throwing a tantrum. We all get exasperated at this place and taking an occasional wikibreak is great, particularly if you're a very active user. But you can express your exasperation or take a wikibreak without being a pissy queen about it.

Yes, some people have poured a lot of free time into Wikipedia. But it's a volunteer project. Anyone is free to contribute or not contribute. That's part of who we are and we make an effort to guard against the idea that people should be treated differently because they're (for example) particularly prolific editors, even though we recognize that we often fail.

My two cents. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Which have been appraised and taken for what their worth. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Crisco, for your information I got in but am putting it off for a year to save money. I'm admitted for the fall 2014 semester. :-)

• Yipee! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Trust me, I was far happier than just "yippie!" when I got the email and letter. ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

MZM, I'm far more in your camp than I suspect you realize. I just don't think now, when emotions are running high, is the best time to be pointing it out. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Just a heads up, you reached 3RR at Template:FAC-instructions. I've fully protected the page for now, but will be keeping an eye on it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I realized it after the third revert—I wasn't planning on editing it again. :-) Thanks for the note! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Don't mention it! I just wish Wikipedia would be calm for one week. Is that too much to ask? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Most likely. ;-) Unfortunately, I like to stay far, far away from controversy at most points, and I seem to have inadvertently walked full-on into it here by not paying attention. Lessons for the future, I suppose... Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Sigh. And a week of uninterrupted work would be enough to write a 40k character FA, assuming one has the sources ready (Sudirman took about six days of heavy lifting, and the bulk of work on Lie Kim Hok was done over a weekend). Agree about avoid controversy... hence why I avoid AN(I) and have recently avoided RFA. Mind you, if it comes to DYK/FP I kinda don't have a choice :-( — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I think you and I would agree that DYK needs a bit a work; too many subpar articles are being approved to go on the main page. Don't get me wrong—some are absolute gems!—but too many need work but are approved anyway to be seen by thousands of people. As for featured pictures (on the main page?), that's actually controversial? O.o Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Boids. They's all hatin' on the boids. (But yeah, very rare to have controversy there). I think DYK could use some revamping, but it's such a big mass of work that it would be difficult to achieve while still dealing with the standard controversies and declining participation rate. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• In my eyes it's either reform now or be removed in favor of GAs or something else entirely; I think that support for featuring brand-new articles on the main page is declining... but that's just my read of it. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• I think part of that is based on a (mistaken) belief that we've got articles on most everything worth having an article on. Some highly significant Indonesian films, for instance, don't have an article yet: for instance, Tiga Dara was Perfini's greatest commercial success and launched the careers of its stars, but I haven't gotten around to writing it yet and very few others would know enough to do so. The latest Citra Award for Best Film winner, Tanah Surga... Katanya, is still a redlink. Other really significant ones were just done this year: Darah dan Doa and Pengkhianatan G30S/PKI (the latter is almost ready for FAC). I think, though you'd know more than I, that articles on the Brazilian navy's armada are not complete yet either. I am not opposed to mixing new GAs with new articles, but removing new articles altogether... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Don't get me wrong—I'm not saying that they should be removed entirely (the ships of the Brazilian Navy are far from complete!), but the persistent problem of poor DYKs may doom that section to a GA fate. Just my two cents though. I could be far off. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• I hope not... I really hope not. But we should note that a lot of quality writers get started on DYK (my first DYK was Salah Asuhan... compare it with anything new. Not to be full of myself or anything, of course.) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Well, at its core, the dispute pits added impetus for new editors vs. the quality of the main page, does it not? What someone at DYK should be doing (IMHO) is campaigning for a relatively decent quality-based bump while gathering evidence that the lure of main page time pushes new editors into doing more (and therefore increasing the total number of editors!). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Issue is: if we are getting new editors, and asking for higher quality at the same time, how are we going to retain these new editors? We all remember how our first articles were... I remember mine. God, do I remember mine. Having a 2000k minimum limit, requiring the sourcing of every sentence, etc. will likely make DYK even less attractive to new editors. (Let alone that mess with the infoboxes... we don't want noobs stumbling into the crossfire over that.) Better reviews, definitely, particularly if we have experienced writers. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, mine weren't pretty either, but I learned through receiving quality reviews. Articles submitted at DYK don't have to be perfect—they just have to have reviewers willing to put in a minimum of time to give proper feedback, and there'd be your quality bump. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Item six is simply not acceptable. That's as unwiki as it gets. We've already been putting up with the FA-fiefdom for 11 years. Enough already. Let's vote on each line item or all variations at once. This issue needs to be settled after so many years of stagnation. One RFC option at a time will take foreverPumpkinSky talk

Thanks for the note, but I don't agree with you at the present time. I do hope that you can swing around to the positive camp—as of this moment, I'm supportive of elections and community consensus (assuming I don't receive evidence that it truly doesn't work from SandyGeorgia or others), but I don't think the FA community is ready for that. Hell, it may never be ready for that. Still, I'm supporting this limited reform in the hopes of greater reform later. Some is better than none. I really do hope that you can come around to Tony's position for now, and work on more comprehensive reform later... as opposed to joining those who oppose any reform. Kind regards, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

See comment I just posted to Choess at the bottom of my alt's discussion section. PumpkinSky talk 15:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much "reform" really needs to go on as the FAC system has worked pretty well all these years (unless I'm missing something). I'm just not sure why there's so much resistance to what I perceive to be a non-controversial decision to remove someone from the page who has no interactions with it anymore. I guess Sandy and co. are afraid of "unwashed masses"-style democracy undermining the FA delegate's process, but I don't see any reason historical or present to see that as likely. The vast majority of contributors have supported the FAC delegates because they're drawn from those involved with FAC in the first place. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts, David. I agree that the FAC-style system has worked very well over the years. It's my personal feeling that elections would put it more in step with regular wiki processes, nearly all of which have worked well (RfA being a notable exception), but I recognize that I'm holding a minority position. While I hold out hope for the future, I have no problems with supporting the removal of Raul from a position that he's effectively vacated, no matter how justified his reasons are for not editing, and putting the various delegates in charge. As I understand it, that's the only substantial change being made in the current FAC RfC (item six would codify current practice, I believe). I should also note that if the system works well without a true director, I doubt I'd be pushing for elections. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

But I replied to your replies to my replies to your review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Norman conquest of England/archive1. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

That I did—my apologies Ealdgyth. I'll get back to it tonight! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to win an argument; I was trying to back out of one by looking for someone better qualified to judge the user's contributions than me. Serendi^podous 05:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Are talking at cross purposes here? I'm not making any comments are arguments about your actions anywhere on-wiki, just Incnis' comment. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Kindly please consider posting to n:WN:Water cooler instead of e-mails for transparency, so the community can figure out who is best suited for helping you. Transparency may also add to confidence of people who would be accepting the proposal. Gryllida 12:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I have done so -- thanks for the pointer. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM – Volume III, Issue VI, June 2013 Headlines Australia and New Zealand report: Completion and continuation Belgium report: Edit-a-thon; Wiki Loves Monuments; Open Data Day Denmark report: Edit-a-thon about 1864 France report: National Archives & Toulouse Germany report: Edit-a-thon and more at Landesmuseum Braunschweig Netherlands report: Backstage event NA/KB; WWI Edit-a-thon; New potential partners Spain report: Wiki Loves Public Art Winners; Viquimodernisme case study Sweden report: Experimenting with different types of edit-a-thons, announcing winners and adding data Switzerland report: Wikipedian in Residence at the Swiss National Archives UK report: June in the UK USA report: Chemical Heritage Foundation Project Open Access report: WikiProject Open Access at Open Access conference; fifth Topic Page Tool testing report: BaGLAMa and GLAMorous ported to Wikimedia Labs Calendar: July's GLAM events Read this edition in full • Single-page To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

The page indicates that you deleted Talk:20th Reconnaissance Squadron in December 2012. Because I intend to recreate what would essentially be the same page (and vecause the tag says to) I wonder why you deleted it. Looking at the article versions from October and December 2012, I don't see an obvious reason there should not be a talk page. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It was actually in January 2012, but it was definitely a mistake. Thanks for catching it, and feel free to recreate it! :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I clicked the submissions links in the Wikicup newsletter but most competitors seem to have few or no submissions listed on those pages. When do those pages get updated? --Pine^✉ 05:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I assume that's because the pages have been updated to reflect the new round. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

FYI: [2]. I was the blocking admin here, and the Signpost story wasn't at all accurate I'm afraid. Note that Ms Collins was one of Mr Brooking's main targets on Wikipedia, and this was one of the reasons I imposed the BLP block. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm saying this without looking into the situation, but thanks for your diligence Nick. I should have more comments tomorrow, but it's 5am here so I think I'll sleep first. ;-) Regards, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

No worries Ed. There's also a thread at WP:AN#On-wiki badness moves to major newspaper about this topic which has now made it into NZ's main newspaper, so it would warrant some considered follow-up. I'm pondering whether I should contact the journalist, or just let the matter rest. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like you're having such a merry time with all this. :-) </sarcasm> Maybe we could do a story in "In the media" next week and point out where they've gone wrong? Most times we just report what the news has said about us, but we've done it before. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea - though this seems to boil down to someone with a rather large axe to grind. The basic sequence of events seems to have been that after his sockpuppets were blocked Mr Brooking posted this on his personal blog attacking Clarke (much of the cuts to articles he notes were actually made by me, or other editors) - he also suggests that the Kiwi equivalent of the National Security Agency was somehow involved in the block at the end of the piece. These claims were then picked up by some other Kiwi blogs, and then some provincial newspapers, and finally the NZ Herald. The journalists involved have not seriously attempted to test Mr Brooking's claim that Ms Collins was behind his block and the removal of material and have simply reported his claims, though they have noted that he was blocked for BLP violations and sockpuppetry. One contacted a Wikipedia editor for comment, but gave less weight to his or her explanation than Mr Brooking's claims: [3]. The NZ Council for Civil Liberties has also expressed "concern" over the claims without actually looking into them: [4]. The truth of the matter is that he was attempting to use Wikipedia to push his views, with a particular focus on attacking Ms Collins and other people with differing views to himself, and this rather inevitably led to his account being blocked and the material he'd added removed. Nick-D (talk) 23:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

all help is welcome — Ched :  ?  08:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ched, but I'm not familiar enough with the specific aspects of the case to start giving context :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

my first thought is that I'm scared shitless .. but meh - it's only a website. — Ched :  ?  17:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe look at past case requests to see an example? --Rschen7754 18:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

You'll be fine, Ched. All you really need to do is provide a list of involved parties and three to five major vitriolic discussions that prove your point that the area needs Arbcom intervention. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Heh I've filed 4 requests, even one as a 17 year old, and I'm still alive. --Rschen7754 18:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Why are my replies not showing in the discussion? I've tried purging, no luck. Brianboulton (talk) 13:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

(one has come through but not the other, at least as I see it) Brianboulton (talk) 14:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The replies at the bottom of the article itself are occasionally slow to update. Are you on that or on the talk page? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 31, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Harold, cheers, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ed, In case you haven't seen it, this article is lined up to be TFA on 6 August. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Awesome! I'll be traveling to Hong Kong that day, so I won't see much of it (or be able to help with vandal reverts), but I think it'll be okay. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Would you like another Dispatches contribution? The last one provoked a fair amount of discussion. I have something simmering... Brianboulton (talk) 13:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I drafted the previous Dispatch in my infobox, which has now become Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-07-10/Dispatches. How do I get my infobox back?

(talk page stalker) User:Brianboulton/Sandbox15 restored and the history properly divided between the "Signpost" page and your userspace. Bencherlite^Talk 14:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Ack, sorry Brian—I should have looked at the history before moving the page. Thank you, Bencherlite, for cleaning up my mess! I would love another dispatch, if you have the time. As you say, the last started a good amount of discussion, and that's something I definitely hope for with each article we publish. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi TPSers, I'll be on vacation until the 22nd and probably won't be anywhere near Wikipedia. Do try to not burn the place down while I'm away, alright? And if you all can keep an eye on the Signpost, I'd be much obliged. Thanks, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Have a good one! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• Wikimedia Foundation highlights
  • First workshop on how to evaluate the success of organized Wikimedia activities
  • Preparations for the launch of VisualEditor and Universal Language Selector
  • Community input invited for privacy policy update
• Data and Trends
• Financials
• Other movement highlights
  • Election results for Board and FDC
  • "Flow Funding" supports aerial photographs of Hamburg from a hot air balloon
  • Art and design students illustrate Wikipedia
  • Offline Wikipedia for prisoners

Guild of Copy Editors July 2013 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter Participation: Out of 30 people who have signed up for this drive so far, 18 have participated. If you have signed up for the drive but have not yet participated, it isn't too late. If you haven't signed up for the drive, sign up now! Progress report: Thus far we have reduced the number of May/June 2012 articles to just 124 articles, so we're on the right track. Unfortunately, for the first time in GOCE history, the number of articles in the backlog has actually gone up during this drive. While all participants are currently doing a fine job, we just don't have as many of them as we have had in the past. We have over 500 editors on our mailing list, but only 18 editors who have done a copy edit for the drive. If you're receiving this newsletter, it's because you have an interest in copy editing. Join the drive! Even if you only copy edit one article, it helps. Imagine how much progress we could make if everyone chipped in just one article. – Your drive coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, and The Utahraptor. >>> Sign up now <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Wikipedia:Four Award/Records, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the boilerplate message, but I'm pretty sure I can remove my own name from the page. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

... or not. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Four Award/Records, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm happy to say that I've brought this up at ANI here. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Would you or Milburn be interested in writing an update on the WikiCup contest for FCR? --Pine^✉ 05:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Pine, J normally does any WikiCup write-ups, but I can do something if he isn't available. Thanks! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

You are the worst kind.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

One tends to be a much better kind without being reverted and templated... Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Have posted at WT:FOUR, you may be interested Ed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks Crisco, I'm going to let the discussion play out for now. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello,
Firstly, I'm sorry I reverted your edit (about the quote) to Belgium in World War II, I just thought I ought to clarify my reasons. I'm principally concerned with the style of quote - the quote overlaps slightly with a picture. The "Cquote" produces a block of text, which I feel is a bit neater than the alternatives which fall into the gaps underneath the photo. The style of quote is also already in use on quite a few "in WWII" articles already (including twice on the "Belgium in World War II" article). I hope this seems reasonable to you.
All the best! ---Brigade Piron (talk) 09:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

No worries! You're not supposed to use {{cquote}} in articles, though—see WP:MOS#Block quotations. :-/ Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't know if I said this before, but we should meet up. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Most definitely. I'll be there from the 6th to the 13th, so we can meet up whenever. Maybe we'll assemble a fan club dinner. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd love to...! But I have an appointment with the dentist at that time. Drmies (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

You're so ... old, Drmies. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• You're on! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• There's certain advantages to old age, Ed. Like not checking the mirror each day to see if you could possibly get away with not shaving for a month. Drmies (talk) 01:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Well, sure. Because you know you can't. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• My mirror is too cracked to use by now. Tony (talk) 02:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Whippersnapper, I'll make sure that you get boomeranged at ANI. Hell, I'll run for admin just to block you. Drmies (talk) 02:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'd still support. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• As would I. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I have good news to share. Uruguayan War was finally promoted. It could have been promoted before, but... Regardless, I am in debt with you. Thank you very much for having taken your time to deal with this. Read an article, review it, and all that takes time. Thanks a lot! --Lecen (talk) 12:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I saw—thank you for writing it! It's a great article. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ed, Wikivoyage is celebrating its 10th anniversary today by Wikivoyagers all around the world. It would be nice if you mention about it in the next Signpost newsletter. see here for details [5]

--139.190.159.228 (talk) 13:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

In the area? You are invited to the upcoming Minnesota monthly meetup on August 3.

Place: Lavvu Coffee House
813 4th St SE, Minneapolis 55414
Date: Saturday, August 3
Time: 1:00pm-3:00pm+

For more info and to sign up (not required), see the meetup talk page.

This invitation was sent to users who were interested in past events. If you don't want to receive future invitations, you can remove your name from the invite list.

—innotata 23:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Beat Assailant requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. STATic message me! 06:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Australia's frontier wars Interview: What Wikimedia chapters can offer military history editors

I don't understand the purpose of this edit but maybe I don't understand enough about Wikidata. What do you think? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost&curid=19512737&diff=565830127&oldid=565796271 --Pine^✉ 06:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Interwiki links are now handled through Wikidata; you can see them at d:Q7395165, and they show up automatically on those pages. --Rschen7754 07:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to my defense, you talk page stalker, you. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

:3 Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey Ed.

I realise now that I was being a bit extreme. :) Sorry. haha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledgebroadener (talk • contribs) 06:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

No worries! Keep your head about you, and you'll be fine. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ed, If you have time, would I be able to commission you to write a short op-ed on your views of Wikimania 2013 for the Bugle? I imagine that you're going to write something for the Signpost which will chew up your time, but if there are any messages for military history editors from the conference which you could share I imagine that they'd be of considerable interest. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey Nick, I can write up a few paragraphs, but they may be better as a regular project news piece rather than an op-ed ... I don't think there will be much opinion in it. ;-) Cheers, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

A news story would also be great :) Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 08:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

We're halfway through this year's penultimate round, and the competition is moving along well. Pool A's Sasata (submissions) currently leads overall, while Pool B's Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) is second. Both leaders are WikiCup veterans, and both have already scored over 600 points this month. If the round were to end today, Miyagawa (submissions), with 274 points, would be the lowest-scoring participant to make it through. This indicates that participants will need a score comparable to last year's (573, the highest ever) to qualify for the final. The high scores this year are a testament both to the quality of participants and to the increased focus on significant content (eligible for bonus points) in this year's competition. So far this round, both Sasata and Cwmhiraeth (submissions) have made up over half of their score through bonus points, with, for example, high importance FA koala earning Sasata a total of 440 points (from a multiplier of 4.4) and high-importance GA sea earning Cwmhiraeth a total of 216 points (from a multiplier of 7.2). Other articles on important topics submitted this round include a featured article on the Norman conquest of England by Ealdgyth (submissions), and good articles on Nobel laureate in literature Henryk Sienkiewicz, Nobel laureate in physics Hans Bethe, and the noted Japanese aircraft carrier Hiryū. These articles are by Piotrus (submissions), Hawkeye7 (submissions) and Sturmvogel_66 respectively.

Other than that, there is not much to report! If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)