User talk:Tetra quark

The bin

I see your point of not having several links, but finding the hyperlink to the Sun article is very difficult. I request that you consider at least taking the link away from "solar masses" and putting it under the first Sun, since Solar mass has a link of its own. Jeihot 16:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding

)

December 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "PM ME URANUS", may not meet Wikipedia's

]

I'm inclined to agree, and unlike Pishcal I am an administrator. PM ME URANUS could very easily be construed as "private message me your anus", so unless you want your inbox filled with bottoms, I'd strongly recommend a username change. In fact, even if you do want to collect pictures of people's posteriors, you still need to get a new username; this one fits the bill as disruptive.

WP:CHUS (instructions are on the page there; it's very straightforward) and your account can be renamed to match your signature. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Your name is innapropriate for a project such as this. Could I kindly ask you to change it.Mbcap (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sure. I've posted a request in the changing username page. Sorry for taking this long, I completely forgot I had to change it.

talk) 12:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Just a greeting

Please no hard feelings at the WikiProject Astronomy. After all, it's Christmas. SkyFlubbler (talk) 02:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haha thanks. Those templates are cool, by the way Tetra quark (talk) 02:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there - in reply to this, this is what the page looks like on wider resolutions. If you want to use an image for the background, it would have to be one that can be tiled. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of absurd monitor is that? It is way huger than most.

Anyway, it took me a long time to figure out how to add a background (very few other pages have it) and now it is gonna stay. See, the whole point of wikipedia is that it is improved brick by brick. Everyone contributes a little and the result in the end is good. So, if you don't like the background, fix it. Double the image to make it fit. Don't undo what others have built. Thanks Tetra quark (talk) 04:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a normal 15 inch laptop monitor. Most modern monitors are wider.

I appreciate the time you spent on it, but the point is that the layout is still broken. A solid color background is indeed an improvement. Insisting on a broken layout because you spent a lot of time on it isn't constructive. In the meantime, I am trying to figure out how to render the image correctly - but until then, the layout is broken and the image should go. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relax. Sooner or later someone will fix it. It is not like it hurts to see an image that doesn't fit the box. Going solid black is trivializing.

Anyway, I think I know how to fix that issue. I just can't paste the code here. I've made a revision of the portal. Go see if anything changed for you in your huge monitor Tetra quark (talk) 05:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I had a huge monitor. It's a standard 15 inch monitor with a 1920x1080 resolution, I promise ;)

I've expanded the width so that it will be fine up to 2000px, though the image still extends from the bottom too far. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the portal still doesn't get much traffic anyway, let's leave it this way for a while. I'll summon @Technical 13: here so maybe he can fix that. Hello, Technical 13. The problem is that the image doesn't fill the box in wider monitors. I tried to paste more images in the background to the right by using "div" position:"right" but it didn't work. I hope you can give us a hand Tetra quark (talk) 05:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey m8, I just commented on your submissions on reddit. I'm u/zeus1131. Happy editing.

RoyalMate1 08:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Tetra quark (talk) 08:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Sry, I forgot to reply before Tetra quark (talk) 13:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello Tetra quark, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. Happy editing, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list

The reason I reverted is wrong. Instead, it's because you removed useful, referenced information from the article.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  14:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tom.Reding: well, technically yes, but in my opinion it is worth sacrificing some information for a better readability. All those numbers look confusing and are unnecessarily precise. Plus, what about the excessive references? Tetra quark (talk) 15:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1) That's not a valid excuse for completely removing information. When the amount of numbers in prose becomes too large, a solution would be to make a table.

2) Those numbers are not unnecessarily precise; they contain only 1 to 2 significant digits.

3) For an encyclopedia, there's essentially no such thing as excessive references.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  15:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

]

@Philroc: Sorry but I don't remember submitting a request. I uploaded a file or two on wikimedia commons but that's it Tetra quark (talk) 14:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tetra Quark: The talk page of the person who made the request, PM ME URANUS, redirects to your talk page. Philroc^{My contribs} 14:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC

@Philroc: Oh, so perhaps I did submit a request a reaaaally long time ago. Tetra quark (talk) 14:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tetra quark: Right, and it hasn't been checked in a super long time. Philroc^{My contribs} 14:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit summary made me instinctively (and incorrectly) assume that you removed information from the top. Which was fine, until I was reading through the diff and saw what you removed, and then thankfully saw that you moved useful "newsfeed" text from the top to elsewhere. Edit summaries are important, and it's always better to err on the side of verbosity and accuracy (if you move, say move). Please be careful, then everyone will have a better experience for it. Thanks.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  03:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tom.Reding: At first I thought that the change of bytes (the green or red number) was going to inform whether I deleted content or not. But yes, maybe I should have made myself more clear. Thanks for the warning Tetra quark (talk) 04:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a warning; just advice.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  04:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, right. Tetra quark (talk) 04:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tetra - two quick notes from your edits on the fundamental forces:

• Sources like Quora should rarely be used as sources, if ever. Sources can be considered reliable when they come from reputable sources or groups, typically with editorial oversight. Quora, like Yahoo! Answers, allows anyone to post content and add answers, meaning there's not much value in terms of reliability.
• With regard to User:Tetra quark/forces, make sure you never add user templates to articles. Your userspace is for personal projects, and articles should never link or transclude userspace content. You can always substitute your template into the article using {{subst:User:Tetra quark/forces}}, which will automatically copy the code into the article once the page is saved. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperHamster:

• Yeah I know
• Well, I already put the templates into articles. I figured it'd just be simpler to use a template rather than making the source code too long. I can change that later Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 04:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The Quora thing is in regard to this addition.
• If you'd like to have the table of the template, that's fine - but the template should be in the Tempalte space (e.g. Template:Fundamental forces table, or something among those lines). I wouldn't recommend it unless the table will be appearing in more than a couple articles, though. Thanks! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 09:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that makes sense Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 14:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding the word "usually," I really didn't want to get into a revert war over whether Livermorium 293 has a similar number of protons and neutrons ;) (though if bare nuclei are not atoms, then there's a problem with the second sentence stating plasma is made of atoms - again, just etymology) cheers! A(Ch) 16:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Anythingcouldhappen: Thanks for the message! And yes, I also think that plasma isn't made of atoms. I thought about reverting that information when it was added by someone else, but decided not to. I will remove that now. Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 16:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plasma is made of ionized atoms.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  16:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I tend to agree with Tetra and wouldn't usually call bare nuclei atoms, but in biochem its not uncommon to refer to a bare hydrogen nucleus in solution as a monoatomic cation, or as a hydrogen ion, or as a proton... all reasonable descriptions I see used all the time. Personally, I like the phrase "abstract a proton" too much to call it anything else, but there tends to be plenty of valid ways to explain the same phenomena depending on how you look at it :) A(Ch) 17:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which context you guys are talking about. Regardless, "ionized atoms" is correct, and, if you're sure you're talking about fully ionized atoms in that context, then, if you want, "atomic nuclei" and "fully ionized atoms" are both correct. Saying "plasma isn't made of atoms" is scientifically suspicious. If you really want to say something like that, you can say "plasma is not made of neutral atoms".   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  17:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The context is a few edits in the lede at Atom over whether fully stripped nuclei are atoms or not A(Ch) 17:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I'd change is in my edit summary: "saying it's 'never made of atoms [with electrons]' is too general specific to be generally true".   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  19:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI you can gain rollback by making a request over at

]

Thanks. I still don't know why I haven't enabled Twinkle. Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 20:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Tetra quark. The best thing to do when you are feeling upset about editing Wikipedia is to take a break. A long, restful break. Drink some very warm herbal tea, take a mid-afternoon nap, and go out to view some flowers. If you live in a cold climate, you may need to visit a florist shop or a greenhouse.

Then, check your own behavior, one, two, three, many times, to be 100% certain that you are not acting like an "immature editor" yourself. I hope not. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: Oh, you've seen it. Thanks for the message! It was 3 AM here and I was tired. I don't consider myself to be immature (if I were, I'd be abusing my power as a free editor with the "powers" I've been given), but perhaps I might become a little immature too when dealing with childish editors. Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 13:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About that revert.. a bio should have an image of the subject of the article. He is unrecognizable in that observatory image unless you have knowledge of him and the image. Use the image, just elsewhere in the article.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 01:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I kinda hesitated when I added that image in the lead. Well I moved it now :) Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 01:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your invitation for wikiproject cosmology. User talk:Mahusha 14 January 2015 19:40 UTC

@Mahusha: Nice! Add yourself in the list of members there Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 14:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tetra - please be cautious with AWB and removing references that contain dead links (e.g. [1]). See Wikipedia:Link rot for more information. As was outlined when you applied to use AWB, you should use caution and only apply AWB edits when you're sure of what's going on. A link to an online webpage is not required for a citation, and there are many ways to fix a dead link before simply removing it. For example, the Wayback Machine provides screenshots of webpages over history. As an example, for this dead link, you can find an archived version here. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperHamster:@Marchjuly: Well, thank you for bothering to go revert my edits. I didn't know that I was supposed to leave the dead links. AWB claimed it was a problem, so I just deleted them. Thanks, I'm still new to AWB :) Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 07:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, nice job with the other fixes so far! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 07:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I noticed that you added a stub tag to

]

@Graeme Bartlett: Thanks for the warning, I'll remove the stubs. Also, don't blame my AWB permission for that. I could have added the stub tags manually. It just happened that I was on AWB Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 14:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It will save work for those that remove them later. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Basically if it's over 1000 bytes, it's a start category instead of a stub. RoyalMate1 06:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tetra quark. I noticed your edit over at

]

@

Kingofaces43

: Yes, I am aware of those rules. I usually capitalize the word when it's after the word "the", but I always take a look at the context before saving the edit.

That first link mentions the Sun and the Moon as examples. In the sentence "Io is a moon of Jupiter", the word moon is lowercase because it doesn't refer to our moon, but rather, some other natural satellite. The same should be applied to our Sun. When the word sun is used to refer to other stars, it should be lowercase, if not, it's capitalized.

But now that I think about it, you may be right. I'm not sure if I would write the word sun capitalized when referring to non-astronomical stuff. "I went outside and the sun was warm". Well, I'll think about that. Anyways, about 90% of the edits I made were correct, considering I edited space-related articles only, so it's not a reason to be up in arms. Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 20:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh not up at arms at all. I just thought it was a curious exchange and looked into it further. The kind of response you gave by me just bringing it to your attention was all I was hoping for. Good luck.

talk) 20:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Kingofaces43: Thanks. I'll keep that in mind Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 21:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

AWB

How would you do this in AWB? --JorisvS (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JorisvS: It's quite simple. I make a list of articles that may contain the word universe, then I go to the Options tab and use the find and replace option. In the find field I type "the universe" and in replace I type "the Universe". Something like that.~And of course, I'll always check the context to be sure whether it should be capitalized.

By the way, I saw you correct a wrong edit I made where I capitalized "Sunshine". The word sun was found inside a word. I could add a space after "sun " (<-like that) in the find field so that problem wouldn't occur, but I can't do that because it would miss the word in the end of sentences (it would miss "Sun," or "Sun."). I constantly had to preview and correct words like sunshine, sunset etc and I missed that error you now corrected Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 21:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. I do that, too. I was hoping there would be less laborious way than manually correcting false positives. You could add "the sun." and "the sun," alongside "the sun ". It beats manually fixing them. --JorisvS (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JorisvS: Well, I personally find it entertaining to do some manual work. Also, the find and replace feature acts weird when I add more details in it... Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 22:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of weird? --JorisvS (talk) 22:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One way to get around that, without using

regex until you get comfortable with them, is to make separate rules for "the sun ", "the sun,", "the sun.", etc. with their own replacements: "the Sun ", "the Sun,", "the Sun.", respectively. You'll have a lot more fun.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  02:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

@JorisvS:@Tom.Reding: I had no idea what regex was. It seems like it is really helpful. And yes, I tried creating different rules like you said but as I said above, it didn't work well. I can't tell exactly why. For example, when the word "the" was in the beginning of a sentence (and was capitalized), the finder would ignore it. But if I added "The sun " —> "The Sun ", the software would mix the rules together or something. I would see "The Sun" in the middle of a sentence, where the first word shouldn't be capitalized. Perhaps I should have made it case sensitive, now that I think about it Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 02:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you've misread the discussion at

]

@Deor: Thanks for the message. Well, I'm not sure how I misread the discussion. Everyone appeared to be coming to the same conclusion and they are quite experienced users. Also, it is not my opinion. In fact, I started a discussion asking which way we should use the word, and I didn't influence anyone's answer in my message (although I left my humble opinion there).

Yes, I read the MOS section on celestial bodies. According to it, it's is ok to capitalize words like "sun" when they are in an astronomical context (As in the Sun is a main sequence star) and it's not ok when it is not. The word sun, for example, can be used to refer to stars in general as well (our sun is our primary source of energy. Implying -> there are other suns), and yes, it should be lowercased.

When it comes to the word "universe", the same rule can be applied. There is the Universe (which means, the totality of existence) and there are other uses of that word that can refer to one universe in a multi-verse, or refer to it in a philosophical way, or even when referring to wildly different things like "Miss universe". Even though MOS doesn't have an specific example that mentions the word universe, it's pretty clear the same should be applied.

Regarding AWB, all I have to say it is helping me tons. I can now easily put the See also section of articles in its right place quickly, remove stub tags, categorize articles, leave the banner of my new

Cosmology WikiProject

, watch articles that interest me almost automatically, etc, etc, etc. If you believe my use of it isn't being appropriate, maybe you should change the permission criteria. I met the 500 article edits requirement. If that's not enough, I don't know what I can do.

Again, thanks for messaging me Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 03:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your actions continue to be provocative rather than by consensus. I suggest you pause with your carte blanc changes immediately, before other editors come down on you like a ton of bricks. I feel you are going around just exploiting weakness in Wikipedia rather than contributing via reference information.

Of the issue of consensus, half the editors responding to your 'suggestion' have disagree with you, but you went ahead and started changing things anyway. Arianewiki1 (talk) 06:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tetra, you are of course quite right about capitalizing Universe. Heck, Wikipedia's own entry does it all the way through. It's also what the Oxford Dictionary of Astronomy does, and for good reason. You have my support! Skeptic2 (talk) 10:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I undid your change here. Quotations should not be "corrected" like this. --John (talk) 10:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@John: whoops, my bad. Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 14:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't add nonfree images like album covers to band articles. This is not considered as a valid fair use here. --John (talk) 11:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@John: Oh, fine. Well, they were on commons, so... you might want to report the images there as well. And by the way, what about the album cover on the nevermind page, for example? It shouldn't be allowed as well Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 14:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The album cover images are not on Commons and are not eligible to be as they are not free. They can be used on Wikipedia only under a claim of

fair use. The fair use rationale on File:NirvanaNevermindalbumcover.jpg, for example, makes clear that it is considered to be fair use only on the Nevermind article. There is a long-standing consensus that album covers are fair use on the album article but not on the band article. An exception might be made if there was a discussion of the album artwork (as opposed to the album itself) in the band article, but such an exception would have to be discussed and agreed first. --John (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

@John: Thanks for the clarification. I'm still a quite new user and I'm still not used to those (kind of annoying) rules. I will add other images to the article later. Possibly some image of them playing live Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 20:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We are trying to create a free resource here. It is one of our fundamental principles. Please read this essay to get an idea of why this is not an "annoying rule" but a consequence of our mission to deliver free content. As far as being a new user, of course, that's fine, it's a steep learning curve. Let me know if you need any help. --John (talk) 00:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I saw this edit. AWB should only be used to make completely uncontroversial edits. This matter seems to still be under discussion at the Astronomy project talk page. Please don't make any more AWB edits without reviewing the AWB usage rules. My advice would be to wait a week or so and then ask approval, as that now makes two problematic "corrections" you have made, which others then have to tidy up. I am a

]

@John: Yes, you're right. Maybe I should have waited for a few more opinions, even though everyone seemed favorable of the changes at first. I made a few mistakes sometimes (like in that article you linked), however, I believe that even though I made some wrong changes, most of them were correct, so there are now less stuff for others to fix overall. This is an encyclopedia. Capitalization errors are a serious issue, as it makes people doubt (even more) of the credibility of the articles. Well, thanks for your message. I'm still quite new to wikipedia afterall anyway Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 21:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that making occasional mistakes is natural, whether one is using AWB or not. The important thing is the cooperative spirit so that these mistakes are then fixed. --JorisvS (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JorisvS: Also, if I make a big mistakes using AWB, I can easily revert them the save way I edited Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 23:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disappointed you have continued. I am revoking your AWB access. --John (talk) 10:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There has never been a controversy on capitalizing proper nouns. That's a minor change I had been making long before that little argument I got into. When I said I should have waited a little longer to make the edits, I was referring specifically to the word "universe" as discussed here [4], but no one ever had a problem when I capitalized words like Sun and Earth. In fact, I've received some thanks.

As you already mentioned in my page, I made a few mistakes, but considering I got it right 90% of the time, it is worth it in the end. Check out my latest contribs and see by yourself if what I did was right or not. Technically yes, I edited based on the MoS. Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 14:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't like that you ignored my request above: "Please don't make any more AWB edits without reviewing the AWB usage rules" and immediately went on making semi-automated edits. 90% of the time isn't good enough, we are looking for close to 100% to be allowed on AWB. It is not fair to expect others to scrutinise all your edits and correct your mistakes. You should be able to do that yourself, and you should be properly responsive to queries from others about your edits. You should also never attempt to archive a discussion you have taken part in, except maybe on your own talk page. Don't worry, I know you are still fairly new here and maybe you rushed into AWB too quickly. Wait until you know your way around a bit better and we can try again. In the meantime, please don't hesitate to ask for any further help. --John (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@John: Fine, but honestly, don't you think I reduced significantly the things other people have to edit? Imagine capitalizing all those words manually? Technically, I was in agreement with the MoS, although I make a few mistakes. Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 18:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I tried to archive the discussion because of that one hot head member who was being stubborn. Just look at what that discussion has turned into now because of him. Most people were in agreement or indifferent if you see the other messages there.

Oh and just one more thing. I hope this information will be useful to you admins. I can still use AWB. I mean, I'm not going to use it for a while, but I test-edited one thing and it works. This error may be something worth of interest to you Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 18:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TQ, here's my suggestion. Go ahead and use WP's search feature to find articles that contain some misspelled words, such as "Unverse" or something, and correct them manually. If you can do this with a low error rate, I'm sure you could reapply for AWB permission in the future, as it would show that you can be trusted to use AWB's find-and-replace without making errors.

t • c) 19:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

@

StringTheory11: Thanks for the suggestion. The thing is that I pretty much do the changes manually. I only use AWB to spot the words and to switch articles more easily. Can I ask you something? Do you think the things I got right didn't compensate the few errors? Again, thanks for the message Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 19:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

WikiProject:Lede improvement team has been created

Hi Tetra quark I thought I'd let you know I have created the Lede Improvement Team's WikiProject page. I'm still working on it but feel free to make any changes as you see fit.  DiscantX 04:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DiscantX: Great! Sorry, I totally forgot to create it :( But anyway, I'll improve it now. Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 04:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay sounds great. I had to move the page by the way, as I accidently created it in main space. New address is

Wikipedia:WikiProject Lede Improvement Team. Not that you couldn't have figured that out what with the redirect and all...  DiscantX 04:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you

Thank you for the barnstar.

By the way, you wouldn't happen to know how to set up MediaWiki to host 2 or more wikis, would you? The Transhumanist 06:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Transhumanist: Sorry, no idea. haha Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 06:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The future sure is approaching fast. Get a load of these (20 short mind blowing tech videos, that play in sequence). The Transhumanist 06:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Transhumanist: I like the Air Jelly. What are those things exactly? Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 06:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robots. WP has an article on just one of them, the SmartBird. By the way, if you think those were freaky, take a look at these. (You'll have to click on each one to watch 'em). The Transhumanist 07:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Transhumanist: Oh, I know WildCat, I've already watched that video. Cool as tits. However, I'm still not quite sure what's the purpose of those things. Sure it is interesting, but that's something I wouldn't be investing my budget on ^^ Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 08:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Transhumanist: I know this is silly and kinda unrelated but I really wanted to buy one of these [5]... Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 17:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tetra. I've unblocked you per your statement here. Given that you understand why your behavior was problematic and have suggested a means to avoid it, understand that if you engage in

]

@I JethroBT: Sure, sure. Thank you!

Hi, FYI:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Comet#Number_of_comets_in_.22reservoir.22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.156.50.215 (talk) 01:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replied Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 01:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcoming :D

Ythyth (talk) 02:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ythyth: aww thanks c: Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 02:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re. your edit at Astrophysics, if I'm not mistaken, the "2" columns choice is deprecated in favor of 10em - 30em column widths. It appears to be an accessibility issue as explained on this documentation page. And it's not even in my browser with my settings (different for everybody). Maybe 10em or 15em would appear better? At least they will self-adjust for mobile devices and pads, which the "2" setting does not do. – Paine  04:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Paine Ellsworth: "{{cmn|2|" is what I see more often, so I thought it'd be the best. I'll see what I can do about that. Thanks for the message Tetra quark ^(talk) 04:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasure! – Paine 

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Earth's orbit, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eccentricity. 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) 09:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tetra - first round voting for the Commons Picture of the Year 2014 has started. Figured you might be interested in voting if you'd like to get more involved at the Commons; one of the categories is also Astronomy, with some pretty great pics. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperHamster: Nice! I have voted now. I'll keep up with this Tetra quark ^(talk) 03:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you have a badge on your homepage User:Tetra quark that declares that you believe in "scientific racism". I find this to be unfathomable. I could use many other words, but I can't even bring myself to say them. I find it hard to imagine how this unfortunate declaration could actually be acceptable to wikieditors with whom you might actually hope to collaborate. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Isambard Kingdom: That's my philosophy. Also, there is a quite significant difference between racism and scientific racism. Tetra quark ^(talk) 03:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One is bigotry, the other is bigotry which tries to use science to camouflage it. I don't see why other editors should be expected to edit with a person who espouses racism. Second Quantization (talk) 12:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, racism or racist pov has never been a problem with this editor. I see no reason why someone who espouses racism can't improve Wikipedia's coverage of cosmology. Let's judge the contributions, not the person. A2soup (talk) 12:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your username formatting is causing problems with Wikipedia's syntax hilighting. Please fix as a courtesy to other editors. What your current formatting results in:

'''[[User:Tetra quark|Tetra quark]] <sup>([[User talk:Tetra quark|don't be shy]])'''</sup> 00:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

What this should be changed to:

'''[[User:Tetra quark|Tetra quark]] <sup>([[User talk:Tetra quark|don't be shy]])</sup>''' 00:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I've had to make this adjustment to a couple of your comments in a talk page so that I could parse what I was working on. djr13 (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Djr13: I use syntax highligher and I never noticed that issue. Thanks for letting me know! Tetra quark ^(talk) 23:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Eeekster: please get out of my user page. don't post templated garbage here Tetra quark ^(talk) 01:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

can you check if the option "New image thumb design, and other related CSS tests (TOC, categories, etc.)" is set under "Testing and development" on the gadgets page in you preferences? if so, can you check to see if you see the same problem when you turn off this feature? Frietjes (talk) 17:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Frietjes: "Mobile sidebar preview - Show page in mobile view while browsing the desktop site" is the only item in the "Testing and development" heading here. That option you mentioned isn't anywhere in the page Tetra quark ^(talk) 17:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

are you sure? there should be three items under "Testing and development" on the "Gadgets" page and the second one should be "New image thumb design, and other related CSS tests (TOC, categories, etc.)". Frietjes (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Frietjes: Oh, the options didn't appear because I was using the MonoBook skin. I checked the Moon article again and the horizontally lined images and the red moon picture don't overlay anymore, but there is still a problem. look. The fourth image is below Tetra quark ^(talk) 17:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(aside) I recommend the free Chrome app Hacker Vision to nicely invert colors, giving you a much easier-on-the-eye black background with white+colored text. *scurries away mumbling to himself "oops you're using FireFox"*   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  18:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the screenshot is from the current version with {{auto images}}, not my version with {{multiple image}}, correct? Frietjes (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Frietjes: Whoops, my bad. Well, it turns out the problem still happens in your article revision. See Tetra quark ^(talk) 18:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

okay, that's a different problem. can you check this version? Frietjes (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Frietjes: Technically that's the original problem. Anyway, yes, it looks fine now on both skins Tetra quark ^(talk) 18:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

good, so, I am now assuming the multiple image template version works, so I am going with that. the auto images template is being phased out (see template talk:auto images). if for some reason I am total missing what is going on here, please let me know. Frietjes (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yo m8, I'm interested in starting a Portal:Ignosticism and Wikiproject:Ignosticism and/or a Portal and Wikiproject on theological noncognitivism and related things. Please tell me if you're interested. RoyalMate1 22:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Royalmate1: I'm not sure. Creating the cosmology portal and wikiproject was rather exausting. Ignosticism is something that'd be worth at least a portal though. I consider myself an ignostic. Tetra quark ^(talk) 23:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	You've been invited to be part of WikiProject Ignosticism
	Hello. Your contributions to Wikipedia have been analyzed carefully and you're among the few chosen to have a first access to a new project. I hope you can contribute to it by expanding the main page and later start editing the articles in its scope. Make sure to check out the Talk page for more information! Cheers 'RoyalMate1 00:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Reverted 1 edit by Squiver (talk) to last revision by Materialscientist. (TW))

Why?

Squiver (talk) 00:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Squiver: Your edit seemed weird. Unundo it if you want to Tetra quark ^(talk) 01:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What did you find weird about it? Squiver (talk) 08:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your edit on my talk page. Leave it just the way it is. The infobox says "brightest member" which means the most readily visible member of Laniakea, which is our own galaxy because although it appears mag 4.1, it is spread out, so it is equivalent to Earth visibility mag -5.0. It is different from "most luminous member" or the most brightest member in terms of actual light output, which is Markarian 421 since it is a blazar. You must not be confused to jumble those two terms. "Brightest" is the visibility from Earth; "Most luminous" is the actual light. Take note that of the 40+ Seyfert galaxies of the Virgo Cluster, Messier 49 is the brightest. Why? It is the brightest Virgo Cluster member as seen from Earth, even though it is not an active galaxy at all. Regards? SkyFlubbler ^(talk) 23:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, it's not an issue if we mention our own galaxy. Although your version has more info, this is not always the case. I know it sounds retarded, but remember, Wikipedia does not deal with what is obvious, we are dealing with what is right. No matter how obvious or retarded it is, as long as it is right, that is what we must include. Regards? SkyFlubbler ^(talk) 09:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey TQ, I opened a thread at Talk:Local Group and would welcome your participation. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thank you for subscribing to the WikiProject X Newsletter. For our first issue...

Has WikiProject X changed the world yet? No.

We opened up shop last month and announced our existence to the world. Our first phase is the "research" phase, consisting mostly of reading and listening. We set up our landing page and started collecting stories. So far, 28 stories have been shared about WikiProjects, describing a variety of experiences across numerous WikiProjects. A recurring story involves a WikiProject that starts off strong but has trouble continuing to stay active. Most people describe using WikiProjects as a way to get feedback from other editors. Some quotes:

• "Working on requested articles, utilising the reliable sources section, and having an active WikiProject to ask questions in really helped me learn how to edit Wikipedia and looking back I don't know how long I would have stayed editing without that project." – Sam Walton on WikiProject Video Games
• "I believe that the main problem of the Wikiprojects is that they are complicated to use. There should be a a much simpler way to check what do do, what needs to be improved etc." – Tetra quark
• "In the late 2000s, WikiProject Film tried to emulate WP:MILHIST in having coordinators and elections. Unfortunately, this was not sustainable and ultimately fell apart." – Erik

Of course, these are just anecdotes. While they demonstrate what is possible, they do not necessarily explain what is typical. We will be using this information in conjunction with a quantitative analysis of WikiProjects, as documented on Meta. Particularly, we are interested in the measurement of WikiProject activity as it relates to overall editing in that WikiProject's subject area.

We also have 50 people and projects signed up for pilot testing, which is an excellent start! (An important caveat: one person volunteering a WikiProject does not mean the WikiProject as a whole is interested; just that there is at least one person, which is a start.)

While carrying out our research, we are documenting the problems with WikiProjects and our ideas for making WikiProjects better. Some ideas include better integration of existing tools into WikiProjects, recommendations of WikiProjects for people to join, and improved coordination with

.

That's all for now. Thank you for subscribing!

– Harej 17:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your recent change of the lead photo in the article, I like that. But regarding your edit summary reasons, I expect that you are mistaken: the US and Mexico really are that big: it's a photo. In the commonest cartographic style (with the poles depicted along the entire top and bottom boundaries), there is obvious distortion of the areas near the poles, stretching them large and making Greenland appear half the size of the US or more. The photo you replaced has another perspective problem, produced as a result of the low orbit of the satellite that took the photo. The planetary disk looks like it covers a whole hemisphere, but in fact it does not. The image file states the apparent diameter really only comprises about 125 degrees of longitude or latitude. (I think that may be stretching it a bit.) It is the close-up view that distorts the apparent size. Note that the center of the photo is at a position north of the equator, yet not even the Great Lakes are visible in the north (though perhaps, barely, under some clouds). The east coast is visible (dimly) only as far as New York/Connecticut, and the west coast extends only to northern California. I think the view only extends past 45 degrees N nearer the photo middle (L/R). Evensteven (talk) 07:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tetra quark: just a warning that you're in danger of violating

)

You have now twice reverted changes at dark matter that you know are not representative of consensus, since two editors disagree with you at the talk page, and marked the edits as minor. That is not collaborative in spirit and is explicitly against the allowed use of the minor edit label. Please stop. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 01:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ashill: perhaps you should stop being stubborn and stop fighting over a simple word Tetra quark ^(talk) 01:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Though I agree that this is a silly amount of fight over a simple word, refusing to participate in the talk discussion in the face of a clear lack of consensus is not OK. Two editors have expressed clear, substantive reasons why we prefer the word "Universe" on the talk page, while you have contributed only "it's obvious" and asserted that we "disagree for the sake of disagreeing", and in the meantime continued to edit war without discussion. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 01:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ashill: there is no need to repeat the word universe. Within the 3rr limits, I'll keep changing that word indefinitely. Tetra quark ^(talk) 05:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If your idea of edit warring within the 3RR limits is to avoid being blocked, that's not going to work - continuous edit warring, even within the 3RR limits, is still disruptive and blockable. Other editors have chimed in on the talk page with their reasoning, yet you continue to revert against this without contributing to the discussion. Wikipedia is a community effort. Not everything that happens is going to be the way you want it, and that's okay. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Arianewiki1: get the --- of my talk page Tetra quark ^(talk) 12:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Arianewiki1. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. Thank you. Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:31, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE says "... an editor who is making personal attacks, and does not stop when you ask them, may be warned by an administrator and subsequently blocked." Note: Saying this, as below, to an Administrator is absolute suicide. Arianewiki1 (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

@Arianewiki1: Once again, get out. ... with your WP quotes and links. Just stop and think for a moment about what you've done. You come to my talk page, read a conversation in which you were not involved in, report me to an admin, and keep posting here. Look: .... Who the ... do you think you are, you ... ? get outTetra quark ^(talk) 16:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Arianewiki1. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. Thank you. Arianewiki1 (talk) 11:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@John:@Tetra quark:Go luck with that. See you in six days. 23:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm afraid I agree with Arianewiki1. I have blocked you for one week because of your continued edit-warrring and your statement that you intend to "keep changing that word indefinitely". This is not acceptable. --John (talk) 08:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @John: Go fuck yourself, just ban me already. Do you think I'm some sort of dog who has to be slowly tamed? I'm a volunteer here and thankfully I've done much more good than bad, so that won't be a concern when I rest my head on the pillow at night. So, as you can see, I haven't been very active in the past few weeks because I was about to lose the last drop of patience I still had with you guys. To start off, I can't deal withstubborn pieces of shit like Isambard Kingdom, arianewiki1 and you, Mr John. Second, 2 vs 1 is not a "consensus", but I'm not here to discuss the edits themselves and the reason I got blocked. I'm not even gonna discuss the fact that those two intended to revert me indefinitely as well, and that technically I wasn't breaking the 3rr. I don't care, I'm tired of wasting time and energy on you. I refuse to be treated like garbage, so please just drop the banhammer. Tetra quark ^(talk) 14:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tetra quark. I advise you to reread

; it's only 12 sentences. In particular, "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." (emphasis in original).

I also suggest that, although you are certainly allowed to say anything you want on your talk page, it might be seen as a gesture of good faith to think about whether you want to partially revert or edit portions of what you've said here. I look forward to your continued constructive contributions to the encyclopedia, if you're willing. Neither John nor any other administrator has the authority or cause to

you.

I realize that this might come across in a bad way, coming from an editor involved in a (minor!) content dispute with you, but I assure you that my comments are intended to be friendly and helpful. Feel free to delete them if you like. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 14:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Tetra quark. I am disappointed in your recent behaviour. Nevertheless I do still see potential in you and I want to extend a final offer to you. If you can post a convincing unblock, or if you wait out your current block, and completely refrain from reverting or anything approaching an edit war, I will do everything I can to protect you and help you avoid further blocks. If, on the other hand, you come back and resume poor editing like repeated reversion, I will have no alternative but to make the next block an indefinite one. The choice is yours. I hope you will choose wisely. --John (talk) 22:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@John: Thanks but I'm not quite sure what's the offer here. To post an unblock request is already my right, as far as I know. Anyway, I'll just wait for my 1 week block to end (edit: it ends today, apparently). After that, I'm not sure if I'll return, as I believe I've done my part to this project already. I might do some gnomish work here and there. Also, sorry for the excessive swearing above. Tetra quark ^(talk) 05:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Man, as a WikiProject creator, I highly respect you. But what are you doing? You put yourself in shame. You don't need to speak like that, because we are all Wikipedians, siblings, brothers and sisters. You disrespected your brother. And not just a normal brother; he is an admin. Please chill yourself. If you can't, try having a vacation for a week or two for you to cool down. SkyFlubbler ^(talk) 11:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SkyFlubbler: Thanks for the message. Also, thanks for the message you left on Arianewiki1's talk page. That's appreciated. Anyway, as a reply to you, read my message to John above. Regards Tetra quark ^(talk) 05:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, what are you doing! You are killing yourself! What have you done! Arinewiki has told you not to remove his messages but you didn't follow his orders. John has warned you already but you didn't stop.

What are you doing! What happened to you! You were once a great contributor, but now, you are doing bad things. You have lots of offenses. Are you not ashamed? I AM the one who appealed to them to give you another chance. Please, TQ. If you didn't change then John will block you forever and I will not do anything to stop them or to get you back. Please change. What happened to you? Tell me why are you doing this. Please stop whatever it was. I am begging you for the sake of

. I know I can trust you to change.

Remember, if you removed this message, I will do nothing anymore but to hand you over to John. Change while I can still do something for you. Because if I can't, John would deal with you since he is an administrator. Not just a normal editor, but an administrator. The highest position in Wikipedia!

Please talk to me in my talk if you have comments. Regards? SkyFlubbler ^(talk) 08:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. TQ is absolutely within his rights to do this. He has been notified of the

WP:GF

, and there is little else you or I can do. None of this is personal, but has to do with sorting out some of the recent behaviour. Please don't overreact with your plea. Furthermore, it is the whole community who decides actions not just me. I have not ordered TQ to do anything. All I did was request not to delete this. The continuing error here is the lack of willingness to collaborate with others, and seemingly not treating everyone with respect. I.e. Bad faith. This issue is irrespective of how good or bad an editor has or will be.

Currently, ignoring the

WP:ANI is equally silly. I would very strongly suggest he engage in the conversation there, so we can solve the issues, and all move on. Pretending this is some unfair game of victimisation, so I'll simply ignore it, just hardens things against TQ. I too wish to see this User contribute to the articles, but his liabilities from his past behaviour has made this questionable. As he will not listen to me, so I can do no more. Arianewiki1 (talk) 10:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

@SkyFlubbler: Thanks for your concern, but why are you being so dramatic? Relax, man. Also, what do you mean by "his orders"? He is not an admin, if you haven't figured by now. Tetra quark ^(talk) 15:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tetra quark,

We’d like to invite you to participate in a study that aims to explore how WikiProject members coordinate activities of distributed group members to complete project goals. We are specifically seeking to talk to people who have been active in at least one WikiProject in their time in Wikipedia. Compensation will be provided to each participant in the form of a $10 Amazon gift card.

The purpose of this study is to better understanding the coordination practices of Wikipedians active within WikiProjects, and to explore the potential for tool-mediated coordination to improve those practices. Interviews will be semi-structured, and should last between 45-60 minutes. If you decide to participate, we will schedule an appointment for the online chat session. During the appointment you will be asked some basic questions about your experience interacting in WikiProjects, how that process has worked for you in the past and what ideas you might have to improve the future.

You must be over 18 years old, speak English, and you must currently be or have been at one time an active member of a WikiProject. The interview can be conducted over an audio chatting channel such as Skype or Google Hangouts, or via an instant messaging client. If you have questions about the research or are interested in participating, please contact Michael Gilbert at (206) 354-3741 or by email at [email protected].

We cannot guarantee the confidentiality of information sent by email.

The link to the relevant research page is m:Research:Means_and_methods_of_coordination_in_WikiProjects

Ryzhou (talk) 02:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. 64 competitors made it into this round, and are now broken into eight groups of eight. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups. Round 1 saw some interesting work on some very important articles, with the round leader

) led round 1 with 601 points in 2013.

In addition to Freikorp's work, some other important articles and pictures were improved during round one, here's a snapshot of a few of them:

• level-4 vital article, to Good Article
  ;
• AHeneen (submissions) worked-up the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 article, also to Good Article status;
• Rodw (submissions) developed an extremely timely article to Good Article, taking Magna Carta there some 800 years after it was first sealed;
• And last but not least,
  Featured Pictures during round 1, including the 1948 one Deutsche Mark
  (pictured right), receiving the maximum bonus due to the number of Wikis that the related article appears in.

You may also wish to know that The Core Contest is running through the month of March. Head there for further details - they even have actual prizes!

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

)

Thanks for your assistance! Miyagawa (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiCup.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@

"Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor."

As you seem to be unprepared to remove this offensive text, or extend an apology, I have taken the action of removing by striking through text. (I could have removed these posts, BTW, all together.)

Your constant reversions of this can be view as a hostile act, where such uncivil comments like yours here, and these can be sanctioned.

If you wish to go through Administrator's arbitration, I'm happy to go down that path. You can also do this. Arianewiki1 (talk) 12:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@

pour oil on the fire by continuing to post here. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:REMOVEUNCIVIL. In fact I'd welcome it. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 12:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:NOBAN, all of which ask you not to engage in the behaviour you have recently been exhibiting. Your actions here do nothing to improve the situation and everything to escalate it; if you are genuinely interested in maintaining civility on Wikipedia, a good start would be to step away from this talkpage. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Out of courtesy to TQ, I would also ask that you continue this conversation on my talkpage, should you choose to do so. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to do so, but my reply to the post before this is;

@

WP:REMOVEUNCIVIL, actually.) Arianewiki1 (talk) 12:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Yunshui ^雲_水 15:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per this edit and this section above, I have blocked this account indefinitely. You should have stayed well away from that discussion given your previous history. Indefinite does not need to mean forever; if at some point in the future you wish to post an {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} notice having learned what will and won't work in our community, you are welcome to do so. Until that point, I would suggest reflecting on how this all played out. --John (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@John: What? Care to tell me exactly what's the problem? Let's think about this together using steps to simplify stuff.

• I used bad language in the past against you and others.

• Apparently you didn't care much, as you didn't take any action

• A few weeks later, a user comes out of nowhere and decides to strike the bad languade

• I don't want to have my messages changed, especially if they are in my own talk page, so I don't allow it

• Yunshui decides to come and discuss that. I advised him a couple of times to not make a big deal out of that, considering ariane's past history of "dramas".

• I, several times, say that I don't want to discuss such a trivial issue. I tried to avoid it as much as I could

• However, Yunshui posted that issue on
  WP:AN
  and on talk pages. He was inciting a discussion I didn't want to be in. I made that pretty clear lots and lots of time

• Since I have no escape, I had to say something somewhere, as I was losing my patience with all this stuff

• AND THAT'S IT! I mean.... what exactly is the problem? All I wanted was to make use of my right to keep my talk page messages as I wanted them to be, and that's just it. Now ariane simply deliberatedly decides to change stuff in my page and I end up getting blocked indefinitely?

To conclude, please reply. Tetra quark ^(talk) 00:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@John: (pinging you again just to be sure it'll work) Tetra quark ^(talk) 00:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@John: please? CARE TO EXPLAIN WHAT'S GOING ON?Tetra quark ^(talk) 01:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You will have to give John a reasonable time to reply. People are not online 24 hours a day, and you don't know what time zone he is in, or what other commitments he might have. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: He left that message not long before I replied, so I figured he was still online. But still, I don't trust the ping system 100% Tetra quark ^(talk) 01:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: I just saw your message on ariane's page. CAN YOU PLEASE TELL ME WHAT THE F--- I DID? Jesus, please read my bulleted message above Tetra quark ^(talk) 01:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a great deal to add to my message above, Tetra quark. I warned you a few weeks ago when you were last blocked not to stray again and to be particularly careful about edit-warring. In the last incident you restored material to your talk page what, eight times? We allow users more latitude at their own talk but such latitude is not infinite. Still you would have been ok if you had left it at that. Your mistake was that (in the diff I highlighted in my last post) you then sought out the editor you had been edit-warring with, who had been blocked, and taunted them about their block. All in all, with your current set of attitudes, you are not a net asset to Wikipedia, and so I have removed your right to edit. I have asked other admins to review my action at WP:AN, and of course you have the right to seek a review at any time. I would strongly advise holding off though until you understand why your behaviour was unacceptable. --John (talk) 06:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:AN for me Tetra quark ^(talk) 16:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I am sorry you find this pathetic. I am sure people commenting at WP:AN have the wit to come and look at what you have written here. You are right that there is no need for a further discussion. As a blocked user you have the right to post an unblock notice reflecting your understanding of why what you did was impermissible. Again, I counsel you to hold off doing this until you are good and ready. --John (talk) 17:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@John: Do you understand that people get angry when they are poked? John, stop and think for a second why you banned me indefinitely. It basically is because I didn't want to have that text striked in my own page. Also, because I told ariane to enjoy his block after he was "poking the bear". Do you understand why this is ridiculous? Tetra quark ^(talk) 18:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need then to work on your anger, how to avoid it where possible, and how to express that energy and passion in a positive way. As I said, you were not blocked for restoring the material on your talk page, but for taunting another user who was blocked. You are

not banned but blocked indefinitely. I do not see this as ridiculous but as sadly necessary. In spite of everything I still see the good in you but I need you to modify your way of interacting with others. I know you have the talent and the passion, but on a joint project it it necessary to work well with others. Please, please, reflect on the fact that you are not welcome to edit further here as long as you maintain your current approach. Consider changing it if you wish to continue to contribute. There is no need to ping me further, I am watching this page. --John (talk) 18:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

John, I have been watching this entire dispute from afar since the beginning because I had Tetra's page watchlisted due to an unrelated matter. I have stayed uninvolved until now, but I feel it might be time to speak up. Tetra's behaviour has been poor in many instances and generally I think the right course has been taken in that regard, but I find I do feel he has been hounded time and again by several editors here. Tetra has been "poked." His comments on his talk page should never have been struck (I almost reverted that myself, but again, I didn't want to get involved), which though I don't think is a fact that is being disputed^{actually, I suppose it is being disputed, though that's supposedly not the reason for the block}, it appeared to me to be a provocation. Whether or not it was intentionally so, I won't judge, but I think that it should be taken into context regarding this latest block. The dispute had been settled, or at least should have been, after his last block, yet there is a host of editors here who won't let it go. Although his comment about enjoying the block was out of line, as were many of his other comments, it is entirely understandable that he would be frustrated after being hounded in the manner that he has. He has repeatedly asked to be left alone, yet some insist on persisting. My suggestion is this: Unblock Tetra with a warning. Then every editor who has been involved in a dispute with him walk away; self-impose an interaction ban. If his conduct is found wanting again, someone who isn't involved can deal with it.

Tetra is a keen editor and this entire ordeal has been unfortunate in so many ways. I don't know if he will relapse into bad behaviour again. It's possible he may. But I can guarantee the fact that everything he does is put under the microscope isn't conductive.  DiscantX 21:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@John: Do you understand that I was totally minding my own business until someone pulled me to that discussion? Now I have to pay for that? Tetra quark ^(talk) 16:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody but you can control what you say and where you say it. It is (very) often better just to let things go, walk away, and do something more constructive. It is your seeming inability to avoid being "pulled" into controversy that has contributed to this latest block. --John (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@John: I am getting really really angry over the fact you are unable to see how ridiculous it was to block me infefinitely. Please read my previous messages again, especially the bulleted one and FOCUS. Tetra quark ^(talk) 03:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@John: Lastly, can you please tell me what I said? After ariane was being annoying and insistent, I told him to enjoy his block. So f------ what? Peace, peace; I was in a perfect state of peace. Doing gnomish work here and there sometimes. In peace. Everything was flowers, sunshine and flowers. Out of nowhere someone decides to invade my privacy. Spots something to nitpick on. Victim avoids as much as possible [6] any [7] goddamn [8] discussion [9]. Victim gets tired of finding even more links. Goes drink beer or else he might punch this expensive monitor Tetra quark ^(talk) 03:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have read all your messages again and I have indeed focused. I still stand by my block and it looks like it has been endorsed at WP:AN. However much you disagree with it, it looks like you are wrong and the rest of us are right. You will not be unblocked for threatening to get angry or punch your monitor. You will be unblocked as and when the community has evidence that you have learned how to work better with others here. That will require reflection on your part, not on mine. Take a few days or a few weeks to think about it and how you could do it differently. As I see it, you have a problem with edit-warring when you know that you are "right" and the other guy is wrong (you still have those thousand edits you were going to clean up where you changed "universe" to "Universe", remember?), you have a problem with your temper when things don't go your way and you over-personalise things (as in this case), and you need to eliminate these problems so the good side of your editing can come to the fore. Nobody is going to unblock you unless they see evidence that you have realised this and made progress towards it. Take your time and good luck. --John (talk) 11:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@John: "You will be unblocked as and when the community has evidence that you have learned how to work better with others here"'

I will tell you this for the zillionth time. I don't have the obligation to allow some user to arbitrarily make changes to my messages on my own talk page. Also, I do not have to tolerate someone disturbing my peace. Ariane was even blocked for a day for insisting on making his/her changes until you, out of nowhere, decided to block me indefinitely (or as I like to call it, forever).

"Take a few days or a few weeks to think about it and how you could do it differently."

There is literally nothing to think about. I was minding my own businesss and someone decided to disturb me and invade my privacy.

I'm extremely pissed off right now. I am f------- pounding on my keyboard to type at the moment. I bet ariane is laughing his ass off right now at my face, as he puts fuel in the fire and now he laughs at the results. I swear to god I feel like shooting myself in the head. Lastly, it's not about my temper. If you provoke anyone, they will feel pissed. It's god damn obvious. Ariane was even blocked for insisting on making his/her changes and now I am blocked forever because I told him to enjoy his block? That's it? Do you realize if he hadn't chose something to nitpick on, this would never have happened? ajef8uisabgefioyawsgfiuyawhbcuhisafi8zhdijTetra quark ^(talk) 15:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@John: the issue was not even related to the articles Tetra quark ^(talk) 15:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@John: I've been thinking, if I keep pinging you, you'll probably get tired one day and block me on my talk page as well, but in that case, I will really be banned forever Tetra quark ^(talk) 19:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@John:@Huon: I'm serious, can you please tell me what I did wrong then, because I don't understand? Care to debunk my arguments so far? Tetra quark ^(talk) 17:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John made it so clear that I'll speak for him: it was this edit. You describe that edit as "Since I have no escape, I had to say something somewhere, as I was losing my patience with all this stuff ", which I think demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of how inappropriate your comments were. You certainly did not have to say anything. Politeness and willingness to acknowledge mistakes can go a long way, yet you actively turned down repeated opportunities to do so. Blaming others rarely goes very far at all. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 17:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tetra, And, like it or not, as Arianewiki1 points out, WP:REMOVEUNCIVIL says "Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor." Still, it is you that should strike out the derogatory comments about other editors from your talk page. You should not edit war to try to maintain them. That is just unfathomable. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"I just had to edit-war to keep insults directed at others on my talk page, and when the person trying to clean up my mess had gotten blocked, I simply was forced to do a little grave-dancing." Seriously? That attitude is not conductive to a collaborative editing environment. At any step in the process you could have done nothing. Huon (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Huon: When ariane tried to strike the bad language, a long time had passed since I wrote the messages. Even John himself didn't do anything at the time (and I insulted him). It's simple, I just don't want people editing my messages on my talk page. Also, I'll admit I hesitated a little before saying "enjoy your block", but still, I don't think that's a big deal. Tetra quark ^(talk) 22:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the comments above. Your first step is to take responsibility for your own behaviour. If you cannot control it then nobody can and we will be forced to continue to do without your services. I had to say something somewhere; no, you did not. That was a choice you made there. A very poor one. --John (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@John: As I told Huon above, I did hesitate a little when saying "enjoy your block" (you know, that little voice in your head telling you not to do something), but still, what I said doesn't seem to be a big deal. It's not actually offensive in my point of view and he got just a one day block, unlike me. You also had to consider I was sick of that discussion over such a small issue. Anyways.... as of now I've had some ideas for improvements on some articles. I clicked "edit source", but forgot that I was blocked. It kinda bothers me I'm blocked indefinitely for an issue that is not even article-related. By that I mean, it doesn't affect the functionality of the website or anything. So.. yea. I suggest you give me at least a one day block. Or 1 week.Tetra quark ^(talk) 22:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was pinged ... you have a misconception about "your" talk page. It's not your talk page, it's

]

@NE Ent: The thing is that, as I said before, even John himself didn't do anything about the bad language, even considering he was one of the people insulted. A few weeks passed, and a user out of nowhere decides to modify my messages in my talk page. How can I describe the feeling... uh... it feels like an invasion, understand? And still, morally speaking the talk page is mine. As an analogy, when you travel to a foreign country, people don't read the laws of that country. You just assume the laws are reasonable. Same thing here on wikipedia. I (as well as most other users) didn't read the rules when registering, but we assume they are reasonable. To be able to leave my own messages in my own talk page as I want them to be is what is reasonable. Tetra quark ^(talk) 22:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

people don't read the laws of that country. You just assume the laws are reasonable Why would you do that? [10]. Anyway the policy is what the policy is. NE Ent 23:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NE Ent: Come on, be honest. If you were to travel here to Brazil, would you really check out the laws? Almost nobody does that. People just don't do what's obviously wrong. In most of those 10 cases, people were either stupid or they did something that would be wrong in any country. Having sex with a minor who claims to be overage is something that happens anywhere. The fact the person was in another country is not a relevant detail. Tetra quark ^(talk) 00:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Most countries have visitor information on their websites; I review them carefully before travel. NE Ent 01:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NE Ent: Well, I don't travel much, so I don't know. But yes, that's a good habit you have. Tetra quark ^(talk) 03:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In most civilized countries, if you act in a reasonable way, you usually end up staying within the laws and rules. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Isambard Kingdom: That's what I said Tetra quark ^(talk) 00:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Insults are not reasonable in the context of an environment, like Wikipedia, where people care about words. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 00:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I should say that insults are never acceptable, especially in an environment where people care about what is being said! Isambard Kingdom (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@

]

Not the same, though close. Note qualifiers, "at least". I've invited editors to contribute to the info box as they please. It is only a work in progress, admittedly. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Isambard Kingdom: Ok, but still, it is misleading. Also, wherever that note is, it is not in a suficiently visible place Tetra quark ^(talk) 01:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what is misleading about it. Note that virtually the entire content of the article Universe is about the universe we can observe, so, inevitably, the info box will be skewed towards providing info about the observable universe. I put the box there to stimulate discussion, and I hope it does. For now, however, I'm going to stop talking about this subject, here. Normally, we talk about articles on the article talk pages. Since you are blocked, I don't feel it is appropriate for me to engage this discussion here. I'm sorry, but I don't know what else to do. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tetra quark,

The Editing team is asking very experienced editors like you for your help with VisualEditor. The team has a list of top-priority problems, but they also want to hear about small problems. These problems may make editing less fun, take too much of your time, or be as annoying as a paper cut. The Editing team wants to hear about and fix these small things, too. 

You can share your thoughts by clicking this link. You may respond to this quick, simple, anonymous survey in your own language. If you take the survey, then you agree your responses may be used in accordance with these terms. This survey is powered by Qualtrics and their use of your information is governed by their privacy policy.

More information (including a translateable list of the questions) is posted on wiki at mw:VisualEditor/Survey 2015. If you have questions, or prefer to respond on-wiki, then please leave a message on the survey's talk page.

Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Whatamidoing (WMF):@John: Yea, I wish I could discuss some of the many ideas for improvement I have, but unfortuantely I'm blocked. Anyways, I've contributed to the survey Tetra quark ^(talk) 20:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

It looks like your block applies only at the English Wikipedida, which means you are welcome to contribute your ideas to mw:VisualEditor/Feedback. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@John: Care to just unban me already and save everyone the stress? ty Tetra quark ^(talk) 16:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC) @John: I need to get unbanned now. There are now lots of things I gotta work on. Things that have accumulated during all this time Tetra quark ^(talk) 19:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Tetra quark, I do sympathise with the situation you find yourself in. You have been blocked for a week now, you have been blocked indefinitely and not banned, and you can come back not when you request it, but when you post a convincing {{unblock|your reason here ~~~~}}. Have you read
  our how to on appealing a block? As quite a few people have told you, you need to change your approach completely before you can come back. Have you thought about that in the past week? --John (talk) 22:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • @John: I don't understand. Am I blocked for a week now? Do I have to post an unblock request? By the way, I'm just used to say "banned", but I don't mean that. Tetra quark ^(talk) 22:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, you are still blocked indefinitely, and there is no need for you to post an unblock request unless you wish to return to editing. As I said before, I encourage you to wait until you are really ready before doing so and this would involve reflecting on your behaviour. --John (talk) 22:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • @John: When you said I have been blocked for a week, I thought you gave me a 1 week block :c I thought that mainly because I suggested you to give me a 1 week block in the past. Oh well. Anyway, I don't intend to post an unblock request again in a while Tetra quark ^(talk) 21:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • @John: please, man. Just unblock me already. The reason for the block was so darn superfluous. Edit: I need more than ever to fix some stuff in a few articles Tetra quark ^(talk) 16:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yours is the only other talk page on my Frequently edited pages besides my own (you have to click the hypertext about 4/5 down), and I'm sure the same is true for other users here. That's not a bad thing; it just means that you can get overzealous and need some guidance (we all do). I used to do that a lot too, and still do sometimes, but I approach each message and interaction with "what did I do wrong now?", then "what does the documentation say/who's actually right?" and "

, and is it worth my time & effort?". Even while I'm doing something I think needs to be done, there's still a little (healthy) seed of self-skepticism. Your mentality seems to be "this is why I'm right", which is how a subject matter expert can (and not necessarily should) act, which very few of us are. It's tempting to try to mirror that persona, but it's ultimately counterproductive, even to the SME. Plasticity, self-doubt, open-mindedness, and perspective are some of the hallmarks of the best scientists, engineers, and the best editors I've seen here.

You have a critical eye, but I think you need to become more self-reflective, calm, mature, and less emotional before returning for any significant amount of time (without getting yourself blocked again, I mean). Maybe/hopefully you just need to hear it from a relatively-uninvolved non-administrator like myself to heed it. I've stayed uninvolved after tiring of checking your edits, letting someone else deal with it while hoping you'd eventually come around, which hasn't happened, so this is a good time (in case you soon decide to never come back).

Since I can't constructively criticize without actually criticizing, I apologize if I've offended you, so feel free to remove my message without any noise from me. I only hope you read it and take it at least somewhat seriously, so a potential effectively-permanent block becomes a less-lengthy one.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  18:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For this month's issue...

Making sense of a lot of data.

Work on our prototype will begin imminently. In the meantime, we have to understand what exactly we're working with. To this end, we generated a list of 71 WikiProjects, based on those brought up on our Stories page and those who had signed up for pilot testing. For those projects where people told stories, we coded statements within those stories to figure out what trends there were in these stories. This approach allowed us to figure out what Wikipedians thought of WikiProjects in a very organic way, with very little by way of a structure. (Compare this to a structured interview, where specific questions are asked and answered.) This analysis was done on 29 stories. Codes were generally classified as "benefits" (positive contributions made by a WikiProject to the editing experience) and "obstacles" (issues posed by WikiProjects, broadly speaking). Codes were generated as I went along, ensuring that codes were as close to the original data as possible. Duplicate appearances of a code for a given WikiProject were removed.

We found 52 "benefit" statements encoded and 34 "obstacle" statements. The most common benefit statement referring to the project's active discussion and participation, followed by statements referring to a project's capacity to guide editor activity, while the most common obstacles made reference to low participation and significant burdens on the part of the project maintainers and leaders. This gives us a sense of WikiProjects' big strength: they bring people together, and can be frustrating to editors when they fail to do so. Meanwhile, it is indeed very difficult to bring editors together on a common interest; in the absence of a highly motivated core of organizers, the technical infrastructure simply isn't there.

We wanted to pair this qualitative study with quantitative analysis of a WikiProject and its "universe" of pages, discussions, templates, and categories. To this end I wrote a script called ProjAnalysis which will, for a given WikiProject page (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek) and WikiProject talk-page tag (e.g. Template:WikiProject Star Trek), will give you a list of usernames of people who edited within the WikiProject's space (the project page itself, its talk page, and subpages), and within the WikiProject's scope (the pages tagged by that WikiProject, excluding the WikiProject space pages). The output is an exhaustive list of usernames. We ran the script to analyze our test batch of WikiProjects for edits between March 1, 2014 and February 28, 2015, and we subjected them to further analysis to only include those who made 10+ edits to pages in the projects' scope, those who made 4+ edits to the projects' space, and those who made 10+ edits to pages in scope but not 4+ edits to pages in the projects' space. This latter metric gives us an idea of who is active in a certain subject area of Wikipedia, yet who isn't actively engaging on the WikiProject's pages. This information will help us prioritize WikiProjects for pilot testing, and the ProjAnalysis script in general may have future life as an application that can be used by Wikipedians to learn about who is in their community.

Complementing the above two studies are a design analysis, which summarizes the structure of the different WikiProject spaces in our test batch, and the comprehensive census of bots and tools used to maintain WikiProjects, which will be finished soon. With all of this information, we will have a game plan in place! We hope to begin working with specific WikiProjects soon.

As a couple of asides...

• Database Reports has existed for several years on Wikipedia to the satisfaction of many, but many of the reports stopped running when the Toolserver was shut off in 2014. However, there is good news: the weekly New WikiProjects and WikiProjects by Changes reports are back, with potential future reports in the future.
• WikiProject X has an outpost on Wikidata! Check it out. It's not widely publicized, but we are interested in using Wikidata as a potential repository for metadata about WikiProjects, especially for WikiProjects that exist on multiple Wikimedia projects and language editions.

That's all for now. Thank you for subscribing! If you have any questions or comments, please share them with us.

Harej (talk) 01:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read this Wikipedia:Don't take the bait

Reasons why you should join WikiProject Christianity : Obtain answers to your questions about Christianity on the noticeboard (watch) Work side by side with friendly and welcoming editors who are passionate about Christianity Free subscription to our informative newsletter Explore Christianity in depth with one of our 30 specialty groups Get recognition for your hard work and valuable contributions Find out how to get your article promoted Featured class at the Peer Review Department Choose from a collection of over 55,000 articles to improve Join today!

Royalmate3 (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow member! WikiProject X needs your help!

We studied the various needs that WikiProjects have, and have come up with some ideas for our first round of WikiProject tool development. These include:

• An automatically updated WikiProject directory that surfaces WikiProject-related metrics and automatically generates a list of active participants and potential members;
• A lightweight, optional alternative to WikiProject banners, featuring an option to quickly send a message to the named WikiProjects;
• A tool that bootstraps WikiProjects; and
• A worklist generation script for WikiProjects

We are now looking for volunteer coders to work on these projects. If you are interested in developing these tools, or if you would to volunteer for other tasks, check out our new volunteers portal. Thank you for your help!

Cheers, Harej (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! For this month's issue...

We have demos!

After a lengthy research and design process, we decided for WikiProject X to focus on two things:

• A WikiProject workflow that focuses on action items: discussions you can participate in and tasks you can perform to improve the encyclopedia; and
• An automatically updating WikiProject directory that gives you lists of users participating in the WikiProject and editing in that subject area.

We have a live demonstration of the new WikiProject workflow at WikiProject Women in Technology, a brand new WikiProject that was set up as an adjunct to a related edit-a-thon in Washington, DC. The goal is to surface action items for editors, and we intend on doing that through automatically updated working lists. We are looking into using SuggestBot to generate lists of outstanding tasks, and we are looking into additional options for automatic worklist generation. This takes the burden off of WikiProject editors to generate these worklists, though there is also a "requests" section for Wikipedians to make individual requests. (As of writing, these automated lists are not yet live, so you will see a blank space under "edit articles" on the demo WikiProject. Sorry about that!) I invite you to check out the WikiProject and leave feedback on WikiProject X's talk page.

Once the demo is sufficiently developed, we will be working on a limited deployment on our pilot WikiProjects. We have selected five for the first round of testing based on the highest potential for impact and will scale up from there.

While a re-designed WikiProject experience is much needed, that alone isn't enough. A WikiProject isn't any good if people have no way of discovering it. This is why we are also developing an automatically updated WikiProject directory. This directory will surface project-related metrics, including a count of active WikiProject participants and of active editors in that project's subject area. The purpose of these metrics is to highlight how active the WikiProject is at the given point of time, but also to highlight that project's potential for success. The directory is not yet live but there is a

featuring a sampling of WikiProjects.

Each directory entry will link to a WikiProject description page which automatically list the active WikiProject participants and subject-area article editors. This allows Wikipedians to find each other based on the areas they are interested in, and this information can be used to revive a WikiProject, start a new one, or even for some other purpose. These description pages are not online yet, but they will use this template, if you want to get a feel of what they will look like.

We need volunteers!

WikiProject X is a huge undertaking, and we need volunteers to support our efforts, including testers and coders. Check out our volunteer portal and see what you can do to help us!

As an aside...

Wouldn't it be cool if lists of requested articles could not only be integrated directly with WikiProjects, but also shared between WikiProjects? Well, we got the crazy idea of having experimental software feature Flow deployed (on a totally experimental basis) on the new Article Request Workshop, which seeks to be a place where editors can "workshop" article ideas before they get created. It uses Flow because Flow allows, essentially, section-level categorization, and in the future will allow "sections" (known as "topics" within Flow) to be included across different pages. What this means is that you have a recommendation for a new article tagged by multiple WikiProjects, allowing for the recommendation to appear on lists for each WikiProject. This will facilitate inter-WikiProject collaboration and will help to reduce duplicated work. The Article Request Workshop is not entirely ready yet due to some bugs with Flow, but we hope to integrate it into our pilot WikiProjects at some point.

Harej (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The second round one has all wrapped up, and round three has now begun! Congratulations to the 34 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our second round. Leading the way overall was Cas Liber (submissions) in Group B with a total of 777 points for a variety of contributions including Good Articles on Corona Borealis and Microscopium - both of which received the maximum bonus.

Special credit must be given to a number of high importance articles improved during the second round.

• Coemgenus (submissions) was one of several users who worked on improving Ulysses S. Grant. Remember, you do not need to work on an article on your own - as long as each person has completed significant work on the article during 2015, multiple competitors can claim the same article.
• Cwmhiraeth (submissions) took Dragonfly to Good Article for a 3x bonus - and if that wasn't enough, they also took Damselfly there as well for a 2x bonus.
• level 4 vital article
  .

The points varied across groups, with the lowest score required to gain automatic qualification was 68 in Group A - meanwhile the second place score in Group H was 404, which would have been high enough to win all but one of the other Groups! As well as the top two of each group automatically going through to the third round, a minimum score of 55 was required for a wildcard competitor to go through. We had a three-way tie at 55 points and all three have qualified for the next round, in the spirit of fairness. The third round ends on June 28, with the top two in each group progressing automatically while the remaining 16 highest scorers across all four groups go through as wildcards. Good luck to all competitors for the third round! Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) 16:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@John: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:John#TQ I've read this. Thanks for at least letting me use my own talk page. Mind to unban me now? It's been a long time. thanks Tetra quark ^(talk) 19:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's been six weeks. What would be different this time around? --John (talk) 19:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@John: I can't tell you exactly. All I wanna do is edit some articles that have been modified for worse Tetra quark ^(talk) 14:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@John: So...? What do you say? All I wanna do is edit some articles. PS: @Arianewiki1: This discussion is between me and john. thanks. Tetra quark ^(talk) 17:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an idea. Tetra quark, to be honest, your replies above don't give me much confidence that you won't revert to your old ways if we unblock. However, I believe that you can be a productive member of the community, if you don't repeat your mistakes. If you accept an interaction ban preventing you from interacting with Arianewiki1 and a ban from performing any repetitive changes that affect more than 10 articles, I think that would be sufficient. @

t • c) 04:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

@

StringTheory11: I just wanna edit some articles. I'm not here to fight with anyone Tetra quark ^(talk) 16:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

@John: Fine - I promise I will not engage in edit wars or get into fights and discussions. Care to give me another chance? Tetra quark ^(talk) 19:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@John: Fuck it then, I'll just go edit articles in my gf's house. Tetra quark ^(talk) 13:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend against

block evasion. You have a clear path to getting yourself unblocked, which involves acknowledging your mistakes. Not removing helpful comments on your talk page would also be a show of good faith that will make an unblock much more likely. Getting caught evading a block will likely turn your indefinite block into an actual ban and make it essentially impossible for you ever to be allowed to edit Wikipedia again. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 14:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

@John:@Ashill: What do you want me to do? I've been pinging John since May 9 and I haven't got a single response. Some say I should use the unblock request template, but that would call the attention of other admins who don't understand my situation and all that went on, and I can't bother to explain everything to them. John is the only one who can do something. Tetra quark ^(talk) 15:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your blocks is not particularly special or unusual. Admins tend to be serious and thorough and will investigate the matter before acting on a well-worded unblock request. For sure, they will check your contribution history and notice any edits to your talk page that you have removed. I can't speak for John, but my guess is that he's not responding because you haven't said anything new or different or given anyone any reason to believe that your editing pattern will change. In particular, you have not apologized for your personal attacks against other editors and other uncivil behavior or even acknowledged the reasons for which you were blocked.

Also, have you followed through on your threat to evade the block and edit as Buckbill10? —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 15:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest you read this

block evasion

via sock puppetry as 'Buckbill10', you can also be permanently blocked via your IP address(es). I.e. "Automatically block the last IP address used by this user, and any subsequent IP addresses they try."

Wikipedia ultimately works by COOPERATION amongst all editors not by vigilantes who think they can do like when they like. It stupefies me that you haven't the actual guts to reasonably get past all this on what is a very very simple issue. I.e. Retract your unfortunate statements and slights. Where you sit at this moment, you will never be able to edit here again unless you change your whole approach and attitude. If you do want to just edit - fine. But any further 'stunts', like this latest one, will likely be meet with even more draconian measures. Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. First time for everything. Why haven't you deleted my response. (This seems conclusive evidence you were indeed using sock puppetry as 'Buckbill10'.) Suggest you apologies and fess up to your misdeeds to remove the second block, the come back here and just retract you questioned statements to remove the block here. If you do, request trial 0RR block to avoid the trap of edit warring again. Else, I cannot see how you can get out of your current difficult situation. Sorry. Arianewiki1 (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are suspected of

]

lol Tetra quark ^(talk) 04:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

get the... Arianewiki1

Hello, I'm Arianewiki1. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page.

Thank you. Arianewiki1 (talk) 21:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Arianewiki1: Get...Tetra quark ^(talk) 00:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Arianewiki1. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. Thank you. Arianewiki1 (talk) 11:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tetra quark, are you editing

]

Sock Puppet Investigation

I am informing you that I have initiated a sock puppet investigation concerning you: [11]. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

]

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter

That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. Forty-seven competitors move into this round (a bit shy of the expected 64), and we are roughly broken into eight groups of six. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups.

Twenty-two Good Articles were submitted, including three by Cyclonebiskit (submissions), and two each by MPJ-DK (submissions), Hurricanehink (submissions), 12george1 (submissions), and Cas Liber (submissions). Twenty-one Featured Pictures were claimed, including 17 by Adam Cuerden (submissions) (the Round 1 high scorer). Thirty-one contestants saw their DYKs appear on the main page, with a commanding lead (28) by Cwmhiraeth (submissions). Twenty-nine participants conducted GA reviews with J Milburn (submissions) completing nine.

If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on

]

WikiCup 2016 March newsletter (update)

Along with getting the year wrong in the newsletter that went out earlier this week, we did not mention (as the bot did not report) that Cas Liber (submissions) claimed the first Featured Article Persoonia terminalis of the 2016 Wikicup. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email).--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Round 2 is over and 35 competitors have moved on to Round 3.

Round 2 saw three FAs (two by Cas Liber (submissions) and one by Montanabw (submissions)), four Featured Lists (with three by Calvin999 (submissions)), and 53 Good Articles (six by Worm That Turned (submissions) and five each by Hurricanehink (submissions), Cwmhiraeth (submissions), and MPJ-DK (submissions)). Eleven Featured Pictures were promoted (six by Adam Cuerden (submissions) and five by Godot13 (submissions)). One Featured Portal, Featured Topic and Good Topic were also promoted. The DYK base point total was 1,135. Cwmhiraeth (submissions) scored 265 base points, while The C of E (submissions) and MPJ-DK (submissions) each scored 150 base points. Eleven ITN were promoted and 131 Good Article Reviews were conducted with MPJ-DK (submissions) completing a staggering 61 reviews. Two contestants, Cwmhiraeth (submissions) and Cas Liber (submissions), broke the 700 point mark for Round 2.

If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on

]

WikiCup 2016 November newsletter: Final results

The final round of the 2016 WikiCup is over. Congratulations to the 2016 WikiCup top three finalists:

• First Place - Cas Liber (submissions)
• Second Place - MPJ-DK (submissions)
• Third Place - Adam Cuerden (submissions)

In addition to recognizing the achievements of the top finishers and everyone who worked hard to make it to the final round, we also want to recognize those participants who were most productive in each of the WikiCup scoring categories:

• Featured Article – Cas Liber (actually a three-way tie with themselves for two FAs in each of R2, R3, and R5).
• Good Article – MPJ-DK had 14 GAs promoted in R3.
• Featured List – Calvin999 (submissions) produced 2 FLs in R2
• Featured Pictures – Adam Cuerden restored 18 images to FP status in R4.
• Featured Portal –
  SSTflyer (submissions
  ) produced the only FPO of the Cup in R2.
• Featured Topic – Cyclonebiskit (submissions) and Calvin were each responsible for one FT in R3 and R2, respectively.
• Good Topic – MPJ-DK created a GT with 9 GAs in R5.
• Did You Know – MPJ-DK put 53 DYKs on the main page in R4.
• In The News – Dharmadhyaksha (submissions) and Muboshgu (submissions), each with 5 ITN, both in R4.
• Good Article Review – MPJ-DK completed 61 GARs in R2.

Over the course of the 2016 WikiCup the following content was added to Wikipedia (only reporting on fixed value categories): 17 Featured Articles, 183 Good Articles, 8 Featured Lists, 87 Featured Pictures, 40 In The News, and 321 Good Article Reviews. Thank you to all the competitors for your hard work and what you have done to improve Wikipedia.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We will open up a discussion for comments on process and scoring in a few days. The 2017 WikiCup is just around the corner! Many thanks from all the judges. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup Greetings, all! We would like to announce the start of the 4th Good article nominations ! Thus far, there have been three GA Cups, which were successful in reaching our goals of significantly reducing the traditionally long queue at GAN, so we're doing it again. Currently, there are over 400 nominations listed. We hope that we can again make an impact this time. The 4th GA Cup will begin on November 1, 2016. Four rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on February 28, 2017), but this may change based on participant numbers. We may take a break in December for the holidays, depending on the results of a poll of our participants taken shortly after the competition begins. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same, as will the scoring. Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on November 14, 2016. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now! If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the judges. Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. We apologize for the delay in sending out this message until after the competition has started. Thank you to Krishna Chaitanya Velaga for aiding in getting this message out. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On 1 January 2017, WikiCup 2017 (the 10th Annual WikiCup) will begin. This year we are trying something a little different – monetary prizes.

For the WC2017 the prizes will be as follows (amounts are based in US$ and will be awarded in the form of an online Amazon gift certificate):

• First place – $200
• Second & Third place – $50 each
• Category prizes – $25 per category (which will be limited to FA, FL, FP, GA, and DYK for 2017). Winning a category prize does not require making it to the final round.

Note: Monetary prizes are a one-year experiment for 2017 and may or may not be continued in the future. In order to be eligible to receive any of the prizes above, the competing Wikipedia account must have a valid/active email address.

After two years as a WikiCup judge, Figureskatingfan is stepping down. We thank her for her contributions as a WikiCup judge. We are pleased to announce that our newest judge is two-time WikiCup champion Cwmhiraeth.

The judges for the 2017 WikiCup are Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email).

Signups are open now and will remain open until 5 February 2017. You can sign up here.

If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. It would have been 5 points, but when a late entrant was permitted to join the contest in February, a promise was made that his inclusion would not result in the exclusion of any other competitor. To achieve this, the six entrants that had the lowest positive score of 4 points have been added to the 64 people who otherwise would have qualified. As a result, some of the groups have nine contestants rather than eight. Our top four scorers in round 1 were:

• Cas Liber, last year's winner, led the field with two featured articles on birds and a total score of 674.
• Iry-Hor, a WikiCup newcomer, came next with a featured article, a good article and a tally of 282 bonus points for a score of 517. All these points came from the article Nyuserre Ini, an Ancient Egyptian pharaoh,
• 1989, another WikiCup newcomer, was in joint third place at 240. 1989 has claimed points for two featured lists and one good article relating to anime and comedy series, all of which were awarded bonus points.
• Peacemaker67 shared third place with five good articles and thirteen good article reviews, mostly on naval vessels. He is also new to the competition.

The largest number of DYKs have been submitted by Vivvt and The C of E, who each claimed for seven, and MBlaze Lightning achieved eight articles at ITN. Carbrera and Peacemaker67 each claimed for five GAs and Krishna Chaitanya Velaga was well out in front for GARs, having reviewed 32. No featured pictures, featured topics or good topics yet, but we have achieved three featured articles and a splendid total of fifty good articles.

So, on to the second round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on

]

May 2017 WikiCup newsletter

The second round of the competition has now closed, with just under 100 points being required to qualify for round 3. YellowEvan just scraped into the next round with 98 points but we have to say goodbye to the thirty or so competitors who didn't achieve this threshold; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Our top scorers in round 2 were:

• Cas Liber, led the field with five featured articles, four on birds and one on astronomy, and a total score of 2049, half of which came from bonus points.
• 1989 was in second place with 826 points, 466 of which were bonus points. 1989 has claimed points mostly relating to anime and Japanese-related articles.
• Peacemaker67 took third place with two FAs, one GA and seven GARs, mostly on naval vessels or military personnel, scoring 543 points.
• Other contestants who scored over 400 points were
  Czar
  . Of course all these points are now wiped out and the 32 remaining contestants start again from zero in round 3.

Vivvt submitted the largest number of DYKs (30), and MBlaze Lightning achieved 13 articles at ITN. Carbrera claimed for 11 GAs and Argento Surfer performed the most GARs, having reviewed 11. So far we have achieved 38 featured articles and a splendid 132 good articles. Commendably, 279 GARs have been achieved so far, more than double the number of GAs.

So, on to the third round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on

]

WikiCup 2017 July newsletter

The third round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 288 points being required to qualify for round 4. It was a hotly competitive round with all but four of the contestants exceeding the 106 points that was necessary to proceed to round 4 last year.

Freikorp

tied on 288, and both have been allowed to proceed, so round 4 now has one pool of eight competitors and one of nine.

Round 3 saw the achievement of a 26-topic Featured topic by MPJ-DK as well as 5 featured lists and 13 featured articles. PanagiotisZois and SounderBruce achieved their first ever featured articles. Carbrera led the GA score with 10, Tachs achieved 17 DYKs and MBlaze Lightning 10 In the news items. There were 167 DYKs, 93 GARs and 82 GAs overall, this last figure being higher than the number of GAs in round 2, when twice as many people were taking part. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.

As we start round 4, we say goodbye to the fifteen or so competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on

]

WikiCup 2017 September newsletter

Round 4 of the WikiCup has ended and we move forward into the final round. In round 4, a total of 12 FAs, 3 FLs, 44 GAs, 3 FLs, 79 DYKs, 1 ITN and 42 GARs was achieved, with no FPs or FTs this time. Congratulations to

Freikorp

topped the GAR list with 8 reviews each. As we enter the final round, we are down to eight contestants, and we would like to thank those of you who have been eliminated for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. The lowest score needed to reach round 5 was 305, and I think we can expect a highly competitive final round.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on

]

WikiCup 2017 November newsletter: Final results

The final round of the 2017 WikiCup is over. Congratulations to the 2017 WikiCup top three finalists:

• First Place - Adityavagarwal (submissions)
• Second Place - Vanamonde (submissions)
• Third Place - Cas Liber (submissions)

In addition to recognizing the achievements of the top finishers and everyone who worked hard to make it to the final round, we also want to recognize those participants who were most productive in each of the WikiCup scoring categories:

• Featured Article – Cas Liber (actually a two-way tie with themselves for an astonishing five FAs in R2 and R4).
• Good Article – Adityavagarwal had 14 GAs promoted in R5.
• Featured List – Bloom6132 (submissions) and 1989 (submissions) both produced 2 FLs in R2
• Featured Pictures – SounderBruce (submissions) improved an image to FP status in R5, the only FP this year.
• Featured Topic – MPJ-DK (submissions) has the only FT of the Cup in R3.
• Good Topic – Four different editors created a GT in R2, R3 and R4.
• Did You Know – Adityavagarwal had 22 DYKs on the main page in R5.
• In The News – MBlaze Lightning (submissions) had 14 ITN on the main page in R2.
• Good Article Review – Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (submissions) completed 31 GARs in R1.

Over the course of the 2017 WikiCup the following content was added or improved on Wikipedia: 51 Featured Articles, 292 Good Articles, 18 Featured Lists, 1 Featured Picture, 1 Featured Topics, 4 Good Topics, around 400 Did You Knows, 75 In The News, and 442 Good Article Reviews. Thank you to all the competitors for your hard work and what you have done to improve Wikipedia.

Regarding the prize vouchers - @Adityavagarwal, Vanamonde93, Casliber, Bloom6132, 1989, and SounderBruce: please send Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) an email from the email address to which you would like your Amazon voucher sent. Please include your preference of global Amazon marketplace as well. We hope to have the electronic gift cards processed and sent within a week.

We will open up a discussion for comments on process and scoring in a few days. The 2018 WikiCup is just around the corner! Many thanks from all the judges. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So the 2017 WikiCup has come to an end. Congratulations to the winner, to the other finalists and to all those who took part. 177 contestants signed up, more than usual, but not all of them submitted entries in the first round. Were editors attracted by the cash prizes offered for the first time this year, or were these irrelevant? Do the rules and scoring need changing for the 2018 WikiCup? If you have a view on these or other matters, why not join in the WikiCup discussion about next year's contest? Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. With 53 contestants qualifying, the groups for round 2 are slightly smaller than usual, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining users.

Our top scorers in round 1 were:

• Aoba47
  led the field with a featured article, 8 good articles and 42 GARs, giving a total of 666 points.
• FrB.TG , a WikiCup newcomer, came next with 600 points, gained from a featured article and masses of bonus points.
• Ssven2, another WikiCup newcomer, was in third place with 403 points, garnered from a featured article, a featured list, a good article and twelve GARs.
• Ceranthor, Numerounovedant, Carbrera, Farang Rak Tham and Cartoon network freak all had over 200 points, but like all the other contestants, now have to start again from scratch. A good achievement was the 193 GARs performed by WikiCup contestants, comparing very favourably with the 54 GAs they achieved.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. 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

.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down 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. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) and Vanamonde (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The second round of the 2018 WikiCup has now finished. Most contestants who advanced to the next round scored upwards of 100 points, but two with just 10 points managed to scrape through into round 3. Our top scorers in the last round were:

• Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with three featured articles
• Iazyges, with nine good articles and lots of bonus points
• Yashthepunisher, a first time contestant, with two featured lists
• SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with seventeen good topic articles
• Usernameunique, a first time contestant, with fourteen DYKs
• Muboshgu, a seasoned competitor, with three ITNs and
• Courcelles, another first time contestant, with twenty-seven GARs

So far contestants have achieved twelve featured articles between them and a splendid 124 good articles. Commendably, 326 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2018 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met; most of the GARs are fine, but a few have been a bit skimpy.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on

]

WikiCup 2018 July newsletter

The third round of the 2018 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round had at least 227 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

• Courcelles, a first time contestant, with 1756 points, a tally built largely on 27 GAs related to the Olympics
• Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three GAs on natural history and astronomy topics
• SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with a variety of submissions related to transport in the state of Washington

Contestants managed 7 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 120 good articles, 1 good topic, 124 DYK entries, 15 ITN entries, and 132 good article reviews. Over the course of the competition, contestants have completed 458 GA reviews, in comparison to 244 good articles submitted for review and promoted. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process; several submissions, particularly in abstruse or technical areas, have needed additional work to make them completely verifiable.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on

]

]

Orphaned non-free image File:NADA - National Aerospace Development Administration.jpg

Thanks for uploading

).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]