Mrathel

[1] If you would like to go ahead and be the one to list it and then list both of us, that would be fine. I don't know how active Kathyrn is right now to list it at the moment. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I would suggest "long poem". "Poem" is just fine. By the way, the blockquote might need to be turned into a normal quote, as it barely goes onto the third line, and some people are anal about that. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Fixed. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

If you want to add a line or two before the first stanza, feel free. The second stanza is prefaced with three lines as with the third. Regardless, they are only supposed to be a little explanatory and not controversial or debateable (so, what most people interpret or something that isn't too crazy). They also help guide the poem a little. The Themes are where the true analysis takes place. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I figured as much; I will look at adding to the intro on the first stanza.Mrathel (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ode to a Nightingale has a more complicated poem (i.e. hard to follow) and you can see how I handled it there. People want a lot of the poem, but they also want to have something to break it down and make it digestable. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I was almost thinking of Indolence to follow - the best followed by the worse. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 15:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hahaha, I like the logic behind that. Let's do it. Mrathel (talk) 15:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have just noticed that you have removed some rather interesting links showing how the poem has influenced other artists and their uses of it. Isn't that rather sad? It seems to be a subjective call to just delete without discussion. Please will you replace it. Wiki is after all an encyclopaedia and as such, links that a reader may have been unaware of are very important and exactly what a reference book should be for. Captainclegg (talk) 15:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

You can find my answer here [[2]]. Mrathel (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Congrats! Thanks to yours and Kathyrncelestewright's hard work, To Autumn is now an FA. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Did you want to go ahead and nominate this now? Ottava Rima (talk) 13:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I would love to, but I am stuck in Chicago until tomorrow night. I will nom it this weekend if you don't want to go ahead and do so yourself. There are a few things that I can see will need work from the start, but I think it will be an easy fix. Mrathel (talk) 04:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

If you want to work on it first some, feel free. I'll try working on it a little Saturday night. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Ode on a Grecian Urn - needs copyedit, maybe a few more in the themes section, and more contemporary reviews. I can handle the latter two.
• Ode to a Nightingale - needs copyedit and some more contemporary reviews.

I would recommend Nightingale to be honest. You can decide which of the two you think would be better. I will devote tomorrow to improving that one. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Dude, I am sorry that I have been so lame as of late; I will get back to editing those on thursday and will devote a few hours to each one. Just keep me postedMrathel (talk) 10:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'll have a chance to look through things. I forgot to add the classical responses to "Grecian Urn". That will be on my list on what to work through tomorrow. I think I may need to expand the themes by a paragraph just because it seems a little short. Exphrasis would probably be a good place to start for that. I'll contact you about it. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have updated two of the more important sections and will be updating the other two. It is nice to have a little break. It is hard to work when people are constantly shouting at you. By the way, see TonyTheTiger's note on my talk page about "FOUR". Some of the ode pages may have been newly created and sent to DYK, then to GAN, then to FA. You might want to put some of them forth so you can get some recognition for your hard work. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Does this poem Obedient Children of God really meet the notability criteria for Wikipedia? Likewise do Thou Art My Joy and From Heaven We Are Born and the other poems that Carolyn added to Wikipedia meet notability requirements? jonathon (talk) 23:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

My first impulse is no; but then again I didnt feel like doing the work to know for sure:) Based on the sources, i would be inclinde to say it isn't likely.Mrathel (talk) 00:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I’m afraid the first sentence of the Background section seems to be a bit of a muddle. Could you clarify it please? Thanks, Ian Spackman (talk) 17:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Not a problem. I have been looking for a better text to explain the background in more detail and was planning to clarify. Mrathel (talk) 17:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Splendid! Ian Spackman (talk) 22:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, that was an oversight on my part, but it appears to have been deleted now. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

On November 17, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Blood and the Moon, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Mrathel. I just wanted to assure you that you can't "overstay your usefulness" at WT:FAC. Your perspective is very valuable and I appreciate your constructive feedback. Sandy and I have been on all three sides of the fence (nominator, reviewer, delegate), so we try our best to keep everyone's interests in mind and help make the process run smoothly. Sometimes we are more successful than others...such is life! Karanacs (talk) 21:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I just have an irrational fear of harping on a situation that has been covered in the past and on which a consensus has been met that I am unaware of. I like to add good ideas, but sometimes I feel that my arguments fall into a circular pattern and have to remind myself to take a step back. I appreciate your encouragement though, as it can be difficult for editors newer to certain areas of the project to know when they are coming across as bold and when they are coming across as arrogant. Mrathel (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'll be your mentor for adminship. Thanks Secret ^account 17:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much. I felt horrible about the name mixup, but that is pretty much what I am looking for. I am going to have a lot of time to edit articles over the next 6 months or so, and I really would enjoy the chance to get that kind of input. Mrathel (talk) 17:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for tagging George T Pointon just now, I have duly zapped it, but there are two more things you should have done for an attack page: (a) blank the article so that the page only contains {{db-g10}} or {{db-atk}}; that gets the offensive material off view at once, so the attacker can't giggle over it or show it to the victim - an admin can look in the history to check it; and (b) warn the attacker - the template as expanded on the article contains a suitably fierce warning for you to copy and paste to his talk page. That way he may be deterred, and the record is there to help lead to a block if he tries it again. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Duly noted, thanks. Mrathel (talk) 18:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks for reviewing the article on León de Greiff, yes I would appreciate any help I could get with this article. I recognize its format its messy at best, it is difficult trying to piece the article from the Spanish sources since they never fully cover everything and the reviews are never neutral (a petty patriotic need to make anything Colombian sound like the best there ever was), translating and organizing it has been complicating as well since I only do it late at night. I have no idea how to submit anything for a peer review, or how get a GAR (or even what it is) so I would appreciate it if you let me know how to go about doing that. On the formatting of references I used the citation templates (mainly journal, book, website) to guide me but they are vague sometimes on how to use them properly, so let me know what should be changed or if you find it best to do it yourself then go ahead. mijotoba (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! I have finished adding something to the article and removed the "underconstruction" template to open it up for further critic. Let me know when you finish reviewing it and making the changes you think are best and then I can post it for the GAR, meanwhile I'll be looking over the GAR criteria to see if I can change anything. mijotoba (talk) 23:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your message on Grecian Urn; I'll do a re-review soon. But one question—what did I do wrong that caused you to place it in my archive instead of my actual talk page? I reverted it for now (feel free to reinstate it on my actual talk page, if you think that's necessary). Ucucha 17:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

No problem there. I just want to know actually how you came to post on the archive instead of my actual talk page, so that I can avoid confusing other people in the future. Ucucha 18:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, I went to your talk page, which didn't have anything on it except for the list of archives, and it was a lapse in judgment on my part, but I saw that one of the date ranges went through this month, looked at your article history which was empty, and wrongly assumed that you just intended people to post onto the archive running through December 2009. It didn't hit me until after that you had moved the page so there would be nothing under the article history for the talk page. Had there been someone who had posted there before me, I would not have thought twice about it, but seeing the blank page with a list of archives threw me off:) Mrathel (talk) 19:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the explanation. I added a "leave a new message" link to the talk page header now, which I hope makes things clearer. Ucucha 19:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

re wichita vortex sutra "low importance" .. is there a committee that gets together to decide these things or is that your personal opinion? - Mblaxill (talk) 18:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ginsberg is not one of the top 20 poets, and that poem is not one of his top poems. There are many well-known poems that are low importance. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Likewise, the "importance" is really just a classification to help the project decide which articles get the most attention. It not a personal vendetta against the author or the poem by any means; I personally have shaped the article on "Howl" and created articles for Howl and Other Poems and "A Supermarket in California". Given the current activity of the poetry project, the importance assessment is really a moot subject anyway, but if you would like to join and help, you can give it any assessment you like:) Mrathel (talk) 18:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

to me it seems an arbitrary judgment, tho admittedly i'm not an expert on the subject. Its worth mentioning that prominent writers such as Rolf Potts thought it more important than Howl so i guess it depends on who you ask. Personally i don't think the known-ness of a poem is a proper gauge of its importance. My 2 cents :) - Mblaxill (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well "importance" does not refer to the importance of the poem but the importance of the poem to the project. For instance, "Howl" received 29,711 hits last month alone versus "Wichita Vortex Sutra"'s 37. From the standpoint of the project, "Howl" is more viewed, thus of higher importance. Mrathel (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

 

Welcome to the biggest WikiCup Wikipedia has yet seen! Round one will take place over two months, and finish on February 26. There is only one pool, and the top 64 will progress. The competition will be tough, as more than half of the current competitors will not make it to round 2. Details about scoring have been finalized and are explained at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. Please make sure you're familiar with the scoring rules, because any submissions made that violate these rules will be removed. Like always, the judges can be reached through the WikiCup talk pages, on their talk page, or over IRC with any issues concerning anything tied to the Cup. We will keep in contact with you via weekly newsletters; if you do not want to receive them, please remove yourself from the list here. Conversely, if a non-WikiCup participant wishes to receive the newsletters, they may add themselves to that list. Well, enough talk- get writing! Your submission's page is located here. Details on how to submit your content is located here, so be sure to check that out! Once content has been recognized, it can be added to your submissions page, from which our bot will update the main score table. Remember that only articles worked on and nominated during the competition are eligible for points. Have fun, and good luck! Garden, iMatthew, J Milburn, and The ed17 19:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hey Mrathel, you know who has asked that we two work on the above in preparation for FAC. My online time is limited for a while, but over the next few weeks if you would like to collaborate, that would be great. I think we could knock it up to standard fairly easily. Its a strong article as is, only a c/e and some small adds needed. Ceoil ^sláinte 10:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I will do what I can to help. This month has been brutal in terms of work, so I have not had time to spend editing articles. I will be in touch this weekend when I have a few moments to do it. I told him I would help out, and I will do my best:) Mrathel (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

No worries - whenever. Nice work on the Yeats. Ceoil ^sláinte 20:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. We've had some shakeups regarding late entries, flag changes and early dropouts, but the competition is now established- there will be no more flag changes or new competitors. Congratulations to   Sasata (submissions), our current leader, who, at the time of writing, has more listed points than   Hunter Kahn (submissions) and   TonyTheTiger (submissions) (second and third place respectively) combined. A special well done also goes to   Fetchcomms (submissions)- his artcle Jewel Box (St. Louis, Missouri) was the first content to score points in the competition.

Around half of competitors are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. 64 of the 149 current competitors will advance to round 2- if you currently have no points, do not worry, as over half of the current top 64 have under 50 points. Everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places in round 2! 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, by email or on IRC. Good luck! J Milburn, Garden, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Any interest in dermatology? If so, we are always looking for more help at the dermatology task force, particularly with the ongoing Bolognia push. ;) ---kilbad (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

Round one is over, and round two has begun! Congratulations to the 64 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our first round. A special well done goes to   Sasata (submissions), our round one winner (1010 points), and to   Hunter Kahn (submissions) and   TonyTheTiger (submissions), who were second and third respectively (640 points/605 points). Sasata was awarded the most points for both good articles (300 points) and featured articles (600 points), and TonyTheTiger was awarded the most for featured topics (225 points), while Hunter Kahn claimed the most for good topics (70).   Staxringold (submissions) claimed the most featured lists (240 points) and featured pictures (35 points),   Geschichte (submissions) claimed the most for Did you know? entries (490 points),   Jujutacular (submissions) claimed the most for featured sounds (70 points) and   Candlewicke (submissions) claimed the most for In the news entries (40 points). No one claimed a featured portal or valued picture.

Credits awarded after the end of round one but before round two may be claimed in round two, but remember the rule that content must have been worked on in some significant way during 2010 by you for you to claim points. The groups for round two will be placed up shortly, and the submissions' pages will be blanked. This round will continue until 28 April, when the top two users from each group, as well as 16 wildcards, will progress to round three. 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; thank you to all doing this last round, and particularly to those helping at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. 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, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

We're half way through round two, and everything is running smoothly.   Hunter Kahn (submissions) leads overall with 650 points this round, and heads pool B.   TonyTheTiger (submissions) currently leads pool C, dubbed the "Group of Death", which has a only a single contestant yet to score this round (the fewest of any group), as well five contestants over 100 points (the most). With a month still to go, as well as 16 wildcard places, everything is still to play for. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Although unrelated to the WikiCup, April sees a Good Article Nominations backlog elimination drive, formulated as a friendly competition with small awards, as the Cup is. Several WikiCup contestants and judges have already signed up, but regular reviewers and those who hope to do more reviewing are more than welcome to join at the drive page. 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, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) 22:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

The article John Keats's 1819 odes you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:John Keats's 1819 odes for eventual comments about the article. Well done! –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

Round two is over, and we are down to our final 32. For anyone interested in the final standings (though not arranged by group) this page has been compiled. Congratulations to   Hunter Kahn (submissions), our clear overall round winner, and to   ThinkBlue (submissions) and   Arsenikk (submissions), who were solidly second and third respectively. There were a good number of high scorers this round- competition was certainly tough! Round three begins tomorrow, but anything promoted after the end of round two is eligible for points. 16 contestants (eight pool leaders and eight wildcards) will progress to round four in two months- things are really starting to get competitive. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Judge iMatthew has retired from Wikipedia, and we wish him the best. The competition has been ticking over well with minimal need for judge intervention, so thank you to everyone making that possible. A special thank you goes to participants   Stone (submissions) and   White Shadows (submissions) for their help in preparing for round three. Good luck everyone! 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, Fox and The ed17 17:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

We are half way through round 3, with a little under a month to go. The current overall leader is   Sasata (submissions), who has 570 points. He leads pool C. Pools A, B and D are led by   Hunter Kahn (submissions),   Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) and   White Shadows (submissions) respectively. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Two of last year's final 8,   Theleftorium (submissions) and   Scorpion0422 (submissions), have dropped out of the competition, saying they would rather their place went to someone who will have more time on their hands than them next round. On a related note, a special thank you goes to   White Shadows (submissions) for his help behind the scenes once again. There is currently a problem with the poster, perhaps caused by the new skin- take a look at this discussion and see if you can help. The competition has continued to tick over well with minimal need for judge intervention, so thank you to everyone making that possible. Good luck to all! 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, Fox and The ed17 20:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

We're half way through 2010, and the end of the WikiCup is in sight! Round 3 is over, and we're down to our final 16. Our pool winners were   Ian Rose (submissions) (A),   Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) (B, and the round's overall leader),   ThinkBlue (submissions) (C)   Casliber (submissions) and   TonyTheTiger (submissions) (D, joint), but, with the scores reset, everything is to play for in our last pooled round. The pools will be up before midnight tonight, and have been selected randomly by J Milburn. This will be the toughest round yet, and so, as ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Though unaffiliated with the WikiCup, July sees the third Great Wikipedia Dramaout- a project with not dissimilar goals to the WikiCup. Everyone is welcome to take part and do their bit to contribute to the encyclopedia itself.

If you're interested in the scores for the last round of the Cup, please take a look at Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Round 3 and Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Full/Round 3. Our thanks go to   Stone (submissions) for compiling these. As was predicted, Group C ended up the "Group of Death", with 670 points required for second place, and, therefore, automatic promotion. This round will probably be even tougher- again, the top two from each of the two groups will make it through, while the twelve remaining participants will compete for four wildcard places- good luck everyone! 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, Fox and The ed17

 

We are half-way through our penultimate round, and nothing is yet certain. Pool A, currently led by   Sasata (submissions) has ended up the more competitive, with three contestants (  Sasata (submissions),   Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) and   TonyTheTiger (submissions)) scoring over 500 points already. Pool B is led by   Casliber (submissions), who has also scored well over 500. The top two from each pool, as well as the next four highest scorers regardless of pool, will make it through to our final eight. As ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Planning has begun for the 2011 WikiCup, with open discussions concerning scoring and flags for next year's competition. Contributions to those discussions would be appreciated, especially concerning the flags, as next year's signups cannot begin until the flag issue has been resolved. Signups will hopefully open at some point in this round, with discussion about possible changing in the scoring/process opening some time afterwards.

Earlier this round, we said goodbye to   Hunter Kahn (submissions), who has bowed out to spend more time on the book he is authoring with his wife. We wish him all the best. In other news, the start of this round also saw some WikiCup awards sent out by   Suomi Finland 2009 (submissions). We appreciate his enthusiasm, and contestants are of course welcome to award each other prizes as they see fit, but rest assured that we will be sending out "official" awards at the end of the competition. 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, Fox and The ed17 22:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

We have our final eight! The best of luck to those who remain. A bumper newsletter this week as we start our home straight.

• Pool A's winner was   Sturmvogel_66 (submissions). Awarded the top score overall this round, Sturmvogel_66 writes primarily on military history, favouring Naval warfare.
• Pool B's winner was   Casliber (submissions). Awarded the top score for featured articles this round, Casliber writes primarily on natural sciences, especially botany and ornithology.
• Pool A's close second was   Sasata (submissions). Awarded the top score for featured pictures this round, Sasata writes primarily on natural sciences, favouring mycology.
• Pool B's close second was   ThinkBlue (submissions). Awarded the top score for good articles and topics this round, ThinkBlue primarily writes content related to television and film, including 30 Rock.
• The first wildcard was   TonyTheTiger (submissions). Awarded the top score for did you knows and valued pictures this round, TonyTheTiger writes on a number of topics, including baseball, American football and Chicago.
• The second wildcard was   White Shadows (submissions). Someone who has helped the Cup behind the scenes all year, White Shadows said "I'm still in shock that I made it this far" and writes primarily on Naval warfare, especially U-boats.
• The third wildcard was   Staxringold (submissions). Awarded the top score for featured lists and topics this round, Staxringold primarily writes on sport and television, including baseball and 30 Rock.
• The fourth wildcard was   William S. Saturn (submissions). Entering the final eight only on the final day of the round, William S. Saturn writes on a number of topics, mostly related to Texas.

We say goodbye to the six who fell at the final hurdle.   Geschichte (submissions) only just missed out on a place in the final eight.   Resolute (submissions) was not far behind.   Candlewicke (submissions) was awarded top points for in the news this round.   Gary King (submissions) contributed a variety of did you know articles.   Suomi Finland 2009 (submissions) said "I'm surprised to have survived so far into the competition", but was extactic to see Finland in the semi-finals.   Arsenikk (submissions) did not score this round, but has scored highly in previous rounds. We also say goodbye to   Ian Rose (submissions), who withdrew earlier this month after spending six weeks overseas. Anyone interested in this round's results can see them here and here. Thank you to   Stone (submissions) for these.

Signups for next year's competition are now open. Planning is ongoing, with a key discussion about judges for next year open. Discussion about how next year's scoring will work is ongoing, and thoughts are more than welcome at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring. Also, TonyTheTiger is compiling some information and statistics on the finalists here- the final eight are encouraged to add themselves to the list.

Our final eight will play it out for two months, after which we will know 2010's WikiCup winner, and a variety of prizes will be awarded. As ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.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, Fox and The ed17 23:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

We are half-way through our final round, entering the home straight.   TonyTheTiger (submissions) leads at the time of writing with 1180 points, immediately followed by   Sasata (submissions) with 1175 points.   Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) closely follows in third place with 1100 points. For those who are interested, data about the finalists has been compiled at Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/finalists, while a list of content submitted by all WikiCup contestants prior to this round has been compiled at Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Submissions. As ever, anything contestants worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Despite controversy, the WikiCup remains open. Signups for next year's competition are more than welcome, and suggestions for how next year's competition will work are appreciated at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring. More general comments and discussions should be directed at the WikiCup talk page. One month remains in the 2010 WikiCup, after which we will know our champion. Good luck everyone! 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, Fox and The ed17 23:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

User:Mrathel has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Mrathel's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Mrathel! Peace, Rlevse 00:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)Reply A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it.

For a user ribbon you can use, see

 

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

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   Miyagawa (submissions),   Hurricanehink (submissions) and   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 12:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Islamophobia may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

 

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
It's still edit warring, even if you're "right". Natureium (talk) 19:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

 

The file File:Me and dowdie.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused personal image, no context to indicate this is encyclopedic.

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

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)Reply