User talk:Toa Nidhiki05/Archive 5

I just want to alert you to an ongoing discussion on a topic relating to Christian music.HotHat (talk) 00:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

"The idea that 9/11 was a false-flag operation flies in the face of all evidence in the topic and is nothing more than nonsense promoted by a lunatic fringe."...I concur. I think the evidence for Bigfoot, the Yeti, UFO's, Loch Ness Monster and the Boogy Man are more compelling than any 9/11 CTs. It's right there in everybody's face, the evidence is recent, first hand, video taped from many different directions....here...the segment beginning at 22:30 minutes is particularly hard to watch....by that time, dozens of cameras were focused on the towers.--MONGO 02:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear God that view is just horrible. Probably the worst one of those is the phone call from a guy in the tower - you can hear everything end as the tower collapses and he screams. Just thinking about how thousands of people died in just a few seconds that brings up a lot of emotions - I was maybe seven when the planes hit the towers, but even though my memory of it is fuzzy I know we had a great teacher who handled it excellently. I believe we listened to radio about it and school was let out early. I didn't fully grasp understand what happened then, but I do now and it is just bad.

I think it is pretty clear from all the evidence what caused the towers to collapse and why they were attacked. It is the duty of everyone to find out the truth for themselves, out of respect of who died that day and just to know what caused it and why it happened. Ignorance is not respectful of the dead, and neither are crackpot theories. It is just like Kennedy conspiracists in that people want there to be some conspiracy, when really what happened is lunatics who have enough intelligence to pull something horrific off. The fact that everything in life is not some planned action on the part of world leaders is hard for some people to grasp, but it is the truth. Toa Nidhiki05 03:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The horrific part of the Wikipedia article is that the radicals want to talk about "torture" which the evil Americans did at GITMO after the event (we waterboarded 3 and a few other things), yet have fought to keep any of the documented testimonies of torture experienced by those on the planes, in the towers or the mental anguish people experienced afterwards due to lost loved ones, or after watching all the events that day.suffer even now with PTSD.MONGO 17:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I seriously cannot get the idea that KSM's "rights" were violated by waterboarding when, by his own admission, he ordered the killing of thousands and personally chopped the head off of somebody. That man has no rights at this point since he ruthlessly took the right to live away from so many innocents of all ages, races, and genders. America went through hell on 9/11, but god forbid we bring some hell to the terrorists. Toa Nidhiki05 18:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Well...as they say, two wrongs don't make a right...but I can think of a lot worse forms of torture than was used at GITMO. The radicals say they have proof of worse torture done in CIA holding facilities. While all that may be true, its a bit weird that the article strays into peripheral issues at all, when it should be almost exclusively about that day. In it is going to be full of everything, then I say we should have cell phone transcripts and related material too.MONGO 18:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, all it boils down to is that any sort of punishment restricts rights. The punishment just needs to fit the crime. But waterboarding isn't even a moderately bad form of torture as compared to electrocution, Chinese water torture, bamboo torture, or many of the atrocities committed by Germany/Japan in WWII.

But yeah, it is odd it goes into that detail but not into the transcripts of Betty Ong or Kevin Cosgrove. It really should, at least in the side in a box in the 'victims' section. Toa Nidhiki05 19:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe what you mention used to be in the article, but there were too many complaints about the article being a "memorial" by the radicals. So I think it was removed but links to idiotic conspiracy theories and about the wars and Gitmo stayed...its all part of the radical philosophy that we somehow deserved the event...the "chickens coming home to roost" nonsense, since the U.S. is obviously evil, etc.MONGO 20:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

How are factual accounts of victims 'memorials'? They corroborate inside information on what was going on inside the planes and buildings. GITMO and the wars are indirect responses that should have one section at most, along with immediate and direct effects (such as economic harm, toxic materials released into NYC, and immediate cultural impact). It's a shame how messy this article is and how it will never get better because the CTers and sympathizers would reject it. Toa Nidhiki05 20:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

After working on 9/11 topics for almost 7 years, I've reached a conclusion that major improwements aren't possible...parly because so much time is wasted wrestling off the CTers. Even if it weren't for them, the radicals would be crying about the lack of coverage about Gitmo and the wars and "lack of fighter plane interception"...the last point I disqualified after doing research. When I saw AQFK working so hard to try and get the article to GA and then FA, I felt inspired, but even his diligent efforts were crapped on. I'm surprised he maintained his cool and has continued editing since most people would have retired.MONGO 21:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

It is a shame at that, AQFK had a very solid plan. The problem is, it would never get past the censors, justifiers ("the US brought it upon themselves!"), Truthers, and truther-sympathizers... They have a bigger internet presence than the average people, who reject such nonsense, condemn the attacks and wish to create an informative article on the horrible attacks and their direct and indirect impact. Such an important topic needs to be made into a good page simply to inform people and present what happened as opposed to whatever fantasy world commentators created. Toa Nidhiki05 02:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Greetings. I must agree, the 9/11 articles are a nightmare. Seems like once an article/topic gets overrun by POV pushers it is very difficult to bring them back. So, I've been thinking...What do you think of building up Collapse of 7 World Trade Center in user space? The idea being we could then us it as a model for recovering the other articles. I've start some basic sourcing here with an eye towards pre-building citation templates. Thought? — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I normally build articles that way and have quite a few that I am working on in that manner, so that seems like a fantastic idea. That's a great method, and if we can get a few other interested users to help we could get it done quickly and in a way that most errors are eliminate. Getting the citations ready is a big deal, so perhaps we could work on getting them built while also deciding the basic format or the article (ie. which headers and subheaders go where). I'm not a huge scientific expert, but I'd be more than glad to help in any manner necessary - the topic is just too important to keep in such a bad state. Toa Nidhiki05 00:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Cool. I'll organize some user space pages over the next few days (e.g., sources, citation examples, outlines, image farm, drafts, etc) and post the links here. You might also be pleased to know that papers from the NIST report are starting to show up in peer-reviewed journals (for example here, here, and here). This should help in overcoming the "That's only the 'official story', you can use it but only if you attribute it." Which leads to garbage like "The NIST says...", "According to the NIST...", giving the impression the that the report is only what the NIST, and them alone, believes and thus is not really reliable for anything in Wikipedia's voice. I hate that. Anyway, with holiday insanity upon us things might be a little slow for me in the near term.You can't fool me, there ain't no sanity clause. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Alright, cool - whenever they are ready I can do whatever is needed to help. Best of luck in dealing with whatever holiday madness befalls you. Toa Nidhiki05 01:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the September 11, 2001 attacks. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to conduct yourself as you have at Talk:September 11 attacks, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

TDA...hum...1). I am sure Toa is aware of the arbcom case. 2). You're definitely not an admin 3). You've been twice topic banned from this topic so you're hardly in a position to judge. Feel free to take it to arbcom enforcement and see what happens. (Actually, don't do that because I already know what will happen and that will be 3 strikes and yer out).--MONGO 18:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Any editor can notify someone and log the notification. That is not a matter reserved for admins or "good" editors and it is good to have it on the record. Say whatever you like about me, but none of it excuses Toa's actions. He, all of you really, should stop engaging in this type of conduct. Article talk pages are not the place for you guys to rag on other editors or conspiracy theorists, especially not people you merely suspect to be conspiracy theorists.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

This is just plain silly - I was considering deleting this but this is just too ridiculous to delete. Apparently saying something about Ron Paul that is backed up is now a BLP violation, and calling a duck a duck is now a personal attack. My comments about CTers do not violate any policy because Louis acted like a CTer and the duck policy allows me to make that allegation. Calling CTs out as the garbage they are is not a violation of policy, it is calling a spade a spade and I will never apologize for it. I have no respect for people who implicate hundreds of thousands of people in mass murder to justify their own sensibilities. Toa Nidhiki05 19:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

TDA...I happen to like you for some odd reason...and I am generally not opposed to anyone that comments in various articles aout sometimes off the wall issues, as you have done. Its both entertaining and maybe even sometimes enlightening. But honestly, the AE admins were gracious to allow to to return to the 9/11 articles and so far you've caused no major issues, but this "reminder" about the arbcom case is almost trollish to be honest. No go forth and sin no more.--MONGO 19:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I would have to say I think you have done a lot of good work outside of the 9/11 CT topic and have found you quite friendly outside of it as well, such as when you reviewed a GAN of mine. I don't see a need for the notice, however, or for warning me about my comments toward CTers. If they go over the edge and violate rules, I will rightfully be blocked, which is good enough incentive alone because I don't ever want to be blocked again. Toa Nidhiki05 19:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi there; you're receiving this message because you have previously shown interest in the WikiCup. This is just to remind you that the 2013 WikiCup will be starting on 1 January, and that signups will remain open throughout January. Old and new Wikipedians and WikiCup participants are warmly invited to take part in this year's competition. (Though, as a note to the more experienced participants, there have been a few small rules changes in the last few months.) If you have already signed up, let this be a reminder; you will receive a message with your submissions' page soon. Please direct any questions to the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! J Milburn 19:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello Toa Nidhiki05, and welcome to the 2013 WikiCup! Your submissions' page is here. The competition begins at midnight UTC. The first round will last until the end of February, at which point the top 64 scorers will advance to the second round. We will be in touch at the end of every month, and signups are going to remain open until the end of January; if you know of anyone else who may like to take part, please let them know! A few reminders: *The rules can be found here. There have been a few changes from last year, which are listed on that page. *Anything you submit must have been nominated and promoted in 2013, and you need to have completed significant work upon it in 2013. (The articles you review at good article reviews does not need to have been nominated in 2013, but you do need to have started the review in 2013.) We will be checking. *If you feel that another competitor is breaking the rules or abusing the competition in some way, please let a judge know. Please do not remove entries from the submissions' pages of others yourself. *Don't worry about calculating precisely how many points everything is worth. The bot will do that. The bot may occasionally get something wrong- let a judge know, or post on the WikiCup talk page if that happens. *Please try to be prompt in updating submissions' pages so that they can be double-checked. Overall, however, don't worry, and have fun. It doesn't matter if you make the odd mistake; these things happen. Questions can be asked on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn and The ed17 18:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

with you elsewhere, and, checked out your user page as is sometimes my want, and from there jumped over to Legalism (theology) because I was not familiar with the term. In the first sentence or two of that article I added my first ever citation needed tag, a tag that I frequently am contemptuous of. Anyway, if you are an editor in that article you might want to add a reference, remove my tag or do something else, or do nothing. Lots of choices, but then . . . . ............ Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 20:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I now feel that the tag was probably a sort of legalism on my part, so removed it. Whether that makes me a citation tag virgin again is unclear. Carptrash (talk) 21:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Toa Nidhiki05, and welcome to the 2013 WikiCup! Your submissions' page is here. The first round will last until the end of February, at which point the top 64 scorers will advance to the second round. We will be in touch at the end of every month, and signups are going to remain open until the end of January; if you know of anyone else who may like to take part, please let them know! A few reminders:

• The rules can be found here. There have been a few changes from last year, which are listed on that page.
• Anything you submit must have been nominated and promoted in 2013, and you need to have completed significant work upon it in 2013. (The articles you review at good article reviews does not need to have been nominated in 2013, but you do need to have started and completed the review in 2013.) We will be checking.
• If you feel that another competitor is breaking the rules or abusing the competition in some way, please let a judge know. Please do not remove entries from the submissions' pages of others yourself.
• Don't worry about calculating precisely how many points everything is worth. The bot will do that. The bot may occasionally get something wrong- let a judge know, or post on the WikiCup talk page if that happens.
• Please try to be prompt in updating submissions' pages so that they can be double-checked.

Overall, however, don't worry, and have fun. It doesn't matter if you make the odd mistake; these things happen. Questions can be asked on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn and The ed17 12:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

You may want to have your say.HotHat (talk) 05:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I hope this does not backfire on me.HotHat (talk) 06:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

American football (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Field goal, Punter, Safety (gridiron football), Pylon and Jeff Reed

List of NFL champions (1920-1969) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Baltimore Colts

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi mate, I suggest you re-familiarise yourself with the usage rules for endashes, per the changes you've made to List of NFL champions (1920–1969). "Regular-season" should use a hyphen (as I have written it), not an endash. – PeeJay 12:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'm not the most familiar with that policy but I will look them over again. :) Toa Nidhiki05 17:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

It is not "disruptive" editing to remove references to various essays and articles speculating about the "type" of person who belongs to the truth movement and to replace these references with a list of notable members of the truth community. 9/11 truth websites are reliable sources of information as far as describing who their own members are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saurus68 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is. The material is well-cited from multiple reliable sources. Further, 9/11 Truther blogs are simply not reliable sources for anything. Period. We have a pretty well-set policy on self-published blogs by non-experts. Toa Nidhiki05 16:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that review. I appreciate it. Still need 32 more GAs to catch up to you, though  . Go Phightins! 03:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not the number of good articles you have that matters, and BLPs are pretty hard to get to GA. :) Toa Nidhiki05 03:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I know; three of my GAs were BLPs. In the end, Wikipedia wins! Go Phightins! 03:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, and that's the great part - plus, with WikiCup going on, there is a lot of incentive for people to improve content as well. Most of my GAs came during last WikiCup and that was enough to get into the semi-finals, but it wasn't enough to get all the way and that is the impressive part. Toa Nidhiki05 03:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I had some GAs right at the end of last year (poor planning on my part), but this was my first that I can count for the WikiCup. I'm hoping to make two cuts. Go Phightins! 03:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I had the same issue last year, plus I joined midway through the first round and thus couldn't count several GAs I had made during the cycle but before I had joined. An easy way to get points is to improve articles that are on multiple Wikipedias - I got 84 bonus points off of American football on top of the standard 30 because it is on a crapload of Wikipedias. Bonus points are really invaluable in WikiCup. Featured lists are another really good way to get points Toa Nidhiki05 03:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited American football, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page United Football League (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Carolina Panthers, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Nike and Georgia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

 

Signups are now closed; we have our final 127 contestants for this year's competition. 64 contestants will make it to the next round at the end of February, but we're already seeing strong scoring compared to previous years.   Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) currently leads, with 358 points. At this stage in 2012, the leader (  Grapple X (submissions)) had 342 points, while in 2011, the leader had 228 points. We also have a large number of scorers when compared with this stage in previous years.   12george1 (submissions) was the first competitor to score this year, as he was last year, with a detailed good article review. Some other firsts:

•   12george1 (submissions) was also the first to score for an article, with the good article Hurricane Gordon (2000). Again, this is a repeat of last year!
•   Buggie111 (submissions) was the first to score for a did you know, with Marquis Flowers.
•   Spencer (submissions) was the first to score for an in the news, with 2013 Houphouët-Boigny stampede.
•   Status (submissions) was the first to score for a featured list, with list of Billboard Social 50 number-one artists.
•   Adam Cuerden (submissions) was the first to score for a featured picture, with File:Thure de Thulstrup - L. Prang and Co. - Battle of Gettysburg - Restoration by Adam Cuerden.jpg.

Featured articles, portals and topics, as well as good topics, are yet to feature in the competition.

This year, the bonus points system has been reworked, with bonus points on offer for old articles prepared for did you know, and "multiplier" points reworked to become more linear. For details, please see Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. There have been some teething problems as the bot has worked its way around the new system, but issues should mostly be ironed out- please report any problems to the WikiCup talk page. Here are some participants worthy of note with regards to the bonus points:

•   Ed! (submissions) was the first to score bonus points, with Portland-class cruiser, a good article.
•   Hawkeye7 (submissions) has the highest overall bonus points, as well as the highest scoring article, thanks to his work on Enrico Fermi, now a good article. The biography of such a significant figure to the history of science warrants nearly five times the normal score.
•   HueSatLum (submissions) claimed bonus points for René Vautier and Nicolas de Fer, articles that did not exist on the English Wikipedia at the start of the year; a first for the WikiCup. The articles were eligible for bonus points because of fact they were both covered on a number of other Wikipedias.

Also, a quick mention of   The C of E (submissions), who may well have already written the oddest article of the WikiCup this year: did you know that the Fucking mayor objected to Fucking Hell on the grounds that there was no Fucking brewery? The gauntlet has been thrown down; can anyone beat it?

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

On 4 February 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Anna Cohí, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that visually impaired para-alpine skier Anna Cohí began competing in the World Championships at age fifteen? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Anna Cohí. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added 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.

Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

With regards to the notification I left a while back, I just noticed that the template made a bizarre claim that I was an uninvolved administrator. This was definitely not my intent and was due to a change that had been made to the template since I last used it. Obviously, I am a moron.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't even notice it, but I appreciate the apology - no hard feelings. We all make mistakes, so it isn't a huge deal or anything :) Toa Nidhiki05 01:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, it appears that you have some knowledge of Charlotte, North Carolina area. WikiProject Charlotte would like to invite you to join us and expand Wikipedia's information on this Carolina city/region. Happy Editing!

Let me know if you'd be interested in helping to re-activate the Queen City's WikiProject! Cdtew (talk) 22:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

You can find it here. Lets get some outside views and debate it before it is added (or not added). Casprings (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for opening it, I agree with the move. Toa Nidhiki05 16:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I would like to get this done. I don't want to violate the WP:Canvassing rule, but I would like to get some un-involved attention on this. Any thoughts? Casprings (talk) 04:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, short of alerting all tagged WikiProjects there isn't much I can think of. Alerting each project, while certainly not a 100% impartial method, is better than getting no outside input at all. Toa Nidhiki05 05:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I think a reasonable solution had benn proposed.

I am going to leave the RFC open to see what others think. I think the change could make the article become unruly if people keep making comments. However, I am fine with seeing how it develops. Casprings (talk) 01:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tie (draw), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sudden death (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

He's a troll, ignore him and he will go away. No one takes him seriously anyways.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Eh, I'm really just humoring him right now because I am bored. You're probably right though, he clearly isn't here for legitimate purposes - if he was, he'd be working day and night on an RfC for all the evil actions made by WP:CONSERVATISM, real or imagined. Toa Nidhiki05 01:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

This list is among the oldest at FLC at the moment. Would you happen to have a few minutes to take a look and see if you can find any issues? --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I'll check over it. Toa Nidhiki05 17:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Round 1 is now over. The top 64 scorers have progressed to round 2, where they have been randomly split into eight pools of eight. At the end of April, the top two from each pool, as well as the 16 highest scorers from those remaining, will progress to round 3. Commiserations to those eliminated; if you're interested in still being involved in the WikiCup, able and willing reviewers will always be needed, and if you're interested in getting involved with other collaborative projects, take a look at the WikiWomen's Month discussed below.

Round 1 saw 21 competitors with over 100 points, which is fantastic; that suggests that this year's competition is going to be highly competative. Our lower scores indicate this, too: A score of 19 was required to reach round 2, which was significantly higher than the 11 points required in 2012 and 8 points required in 2011. The score needed to reach round 3 will be higher, and may depend on pool groupings. In 2011, 41 points secured a round 3 place, while in 2012, 65 was needed. Our top three scorers in round 1 were:

1.   Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), primarily for an array of warship GAs.
2.   Miyagawa (submissions), primarily for an array of did you knows and good articles, some of which were awarded bonus points.
3.   Casliber (submissions), due in no small part to Canis Minor, a featured article awarded a total of 340 points. A joint submission with   Keilana (submissions), this is the highest scoring single article yet submitted in this year's competition.

Other contributors of note include:

•   Sven Manguard (submissions), whose Portal:Massachusetts is the first featured portal this year. The featured portal process is one of the less well-known featured processes, and featured portals have traditionally had little impact on WikiCup scores.
•   Sasata (submissions), whose Mycena aurantiomarginata was the first featured article this year.
•   Muboshgu (submissions) and   Wizardman (submissions), who both claimed points for articles in the Major League Baseball tie-breakers topic, the first topic points in the competition.
•   Toa Nidhiki05 (submissions), who claimed for the first full good topic with the Casting Crowns studio albums topic.

Featured topics have still played no part in this year's competition, but once again, a curious contribution has been offered by   The C of E (submissions): did you know that there is a Shit Brook in Shropshire? With April Fools' Day during the next round, there will probably be a good chance of more unusual articles...

March sees the WikiWomen's History Month, a series of collaborative efforts to aid the women's history WikiProject to coincide with Women's History Month and International Women's Day. A number of WikiCup participants have already started to take part. The project has a to-do list of articles needing work on the topic of women's history. Those interested in helping out with the project can find articles in need of attention there, or, alternatively, add articles to the list. Those interested in collaborating on articles on women's history are also welcome to use the WikiCup talk page to find others willing to lend a helping hand. Another collaboration currently running is an an effort from WikiCup participants to coordinate a number of Easter-themed did you know articles. Contributions are welcome!

A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's   Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate   Miyagawa (submissions) (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's   Casliber (submissions) (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr (  Hawkeye7 (submissions)), on the European hare (  Cwmhiraeth (submissions)), on the constellation Circinus (  Keilana (submissions) and   Casliber (submissions)) and on the Third Epistle of John (  Cerebellum (submissions)). All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:03 Who Am I.ogg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Toa Nidhiki05 23:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

If you have time or interest, feel free to take a look at my two lists at FLC: List of awards and nominations received by Fiona Apple and List of songs recorded by Pink Martini. Thanks so much! --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

On 10 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Already There, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the intro to "Already There", a song by Christian rock band Casting Crowns, was compared to U2's "Beautiful Day"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Already There. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added 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.

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

On 12 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article American Dream (Casting Crowns song), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Christian rock band Casting Crowns' song "American Dream" became the band's first music video? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/American Dream (Casting Crowns song). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added 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.

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 00:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Who Am I (Casting Crowns song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Digital download (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

On 20 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Who Am I (Casting Crowns song), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Christian rock band Casting Crowns have performed their song "Who Am I" at a Bush-Cheney '04 campaign rally and the 2009 Spring Friendship Art Festival in North Korea? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Who Am I (Casting Crowns song). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added 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.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your uploads to Wikipedia. There is an issue with some of them, specifically:

• File:Finally home.jpg
• File:Lift Up Your Face.jpeg

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the images because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the images, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image files themselves. Please update the image descriptions with URLs that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 21:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:App-Michigan Scoreboard.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

2007 Appalachian State vs. Michigan football game (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mike Hart

George W. Bush (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to The Hill

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)