This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Congratulations on reaching 25! You've gotten the hang of the work, now it's time to press on for 50! – Muboshgu (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Muboshgu! —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate Miyagawa (submissions) (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's Casliber (submissions) (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.
Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr (Hawkeye7 (submissions)), on the European hare (Cwmhiraeth (submissions)), on the constellation Circinus (Keilana (submissions) and Casliber (submissions)) and on the Third Epistle of John (Cerebellum (submissions)). All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.
Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.
A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Hey Bloom6132, would you mind giving a review for List of roller coaster rankings? The review is being threatened to not be promoted because there's not enough of a consensus. I'd really appreciate it,--Astros4477 (Talk) 18:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
ITN credit
On 15 April 2013, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Venezuelan presidential election, 2013, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.
Hello Bloom6132. I'm rather concerned by this edit of yours, in which you appear to have made a blind revert, as you have removed additional information I added to the template (Registered voters and turnout). The original template is very badly laid out (the candidate column is too wide and the party one not wide enough). The 2008 template should not be used as an example, as that too is appallingly laid out - I will fix that later too. Cheers, Number57 12:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello again. I do apologise - somehow I didn't see that you'd retained the voters/turnout. The changes you have made since are definitely an improvement, although I do still wonder why we need the translations? They do exist on some articles, but not on others (e.g. the Venezuelan presidential election, 2013 that you cited), and I'm not sure what they add?
With regards to the introduction of the article, the two examples you cited are fairly rare (they seem to all be for the elections just held) - the majority of election articles start with "General/presidential/parliamentary elections were held..." All pre-2008 elections in Paraguay follow that format, just not the 2008 one (which is in another different format). Sadly there is no actualy article manual of style yet for election articles, although I did start drafting one some time ago here. Number57 14:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
WikiProject Christianity Newsletter (May 2013)
Hi, I thought I would drop you a note to say that I mentioned in this month's issue of Ichthus. If you wish to receive the full content in future, please drop me a note on my talk page.--GilderienChat|List of good deeds 18:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Your request for rollback
Hi Bloom6132. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:
Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Beeblebrox (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Beeblebrox (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Re:WikiCup points inclusion clarification
Thanks for the note- I've removed them and explained to the user in question. J Milburn (talk) 12:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Bloom6132. You have new messages at Bagumba's talk page. Message added 19:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Seeing that you are in WikiCup and are a baseball fan, and perhaps biased because I brought Hoffman to GA, I really think it's not that far from FA if you want to bring it there. I'm going to be less involved with WP in coming months, so I cannot commit to how much support I'd provide. Anyways, something to consider. I threw this out to another editor too.—Bagumba (talk) 19:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I'll strongly consider it, although I can only start after mid-May (when my exams are over). —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Sure. If I'm not around by then, good luck.—Bagumba (talk) 23:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
It gives me great pleasure to award this Imperial Triple Crown to Bloom6132 for work on improving sporting content on wikipedia. Well done sir, Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Bloom6132. You have new messages at Casliber's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with Sven Manguard (submissions) claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and Cwmhiraeth (submissions) claiming for a did you know of sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place Casliber (submissions) and second place Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.
The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.
A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 16:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
DYK for Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception (Hong Kong)
Hello! Your submission of Pheng Xat Lao at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Drmies (talk) 14:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Bloom6132. You have new messages at Bagumba's talk page. Message added 21:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
On 16 May 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pheng Xat Lao, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that after the 1975 end of the Laotian Civil War, the lyrics to the national anthem of Laos, "Pheng Xat Lao", were changed but the music remained the same? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pheng Xat Lao. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Thanks for the note. I'm having a chat to the user in question about the issue. J Milburn (talk) 11:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Rosetta Barnstar
Really appreciate your work on Polynesian churches and African flags!! ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
First? Wow you've been doing some amazing work on counteracting syst. bias. WP:RBN aims to expand the Hanoi cathedral if you're interested?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Flag of Senegal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kanaga (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I thought I would drop you a note to say that I mentioned an article you worked on in this month's issue of Ichthus. If you wish to receive the full content in future, please drop me a note on my talk page.--GilderienChat|List of good deeds22:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Gilderien! —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I have changed the title back to the original per WP:COMMONNAME. Please address my concerns on the talk page before changing it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiddingme (talk • contribs) 13:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I'll have a look next time I'm on here for more than the couple of minutes I'm snatching now before I go out......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Bloom hope you are well? Can you clarify that Nadal and Federer have met in finals 19 times not 20 from Rome 2006 through to Rome 2013 according to Nadals career statistics page. The total I come to also includes an exhibition final in 2011. If you are including exhibition finals then Lendl and McEnroe have in fact met in 29 finals overall and that record should be reinstated.--Navops47 (talk) 09:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome! Glad to be of help. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Again, thanks for reviewing Cain and thanks for reviewing Lieber. I especially did not expect Lieber to get reviewed that quickly! Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 10:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
DYK for List of Major League Baseball pitchers who have struck out four batters in one inning
I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).
So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.
What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.
The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.
We are down to our final 16: the 2013 semi-finals are upon us. A score of 321 was required to survive round 3, further cementing this as the most competitive WikiCup yet; round 3 was survived in 2012 with 243 points, in 2011 with 76 points and in 2010 with 250 points. The change may in part be to do with the fact that more articles are now awarded bonus points, in addition to more competitive play. Reaching the final has, in the past, required 573 points (2012, a 135% increase on the score needed to reach round 4), 150 points (2011, a 97% increase) and 417 points (2010, a 72% increase). This round has seen over a third of participants claiming points for featured articles (with seven users claiming for multiple featured articles) and most users have also gained bonus points. However, the majority of points continue to come from good articles, followed by did you know articles. In this round, every content type was utilised by at least one user, proving that the WikiCup brings together content contributors from all corners of the project.
A rules reminder: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on the 29/30 June, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. We are currently seeing concern about the amount of time people have to wait for reviews, especially at GAC- if you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 10:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
DYK
Hi, I have moved your comment to the General Discussion section as per the note at the top. You may wish to see my reply.--GilderienBerate|List of good deeds 09:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
WikiCup 2013 July newsletter
We're halfway through this year's penultimate round, and the competition is moving along well. Pool A's Sasata (submissions) currently leads overall, while Pool B's Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) is second. Both leaders are WikiCup veterans, and both have already scored over 600 points this month. If the round were to end today, Miyagawa (submissions), with 274 points, would be the lowest-scoring participant to make it through. This indicates that participants will need a score comparable to last year's (573, the highest ever) to qualify for the final. The high scores this year are a testament both to the quality of participants and to the increased focus on significant content (eligible for bonus points) in this year's competition. So far this round, both Sasata and Cwmhiraeth (submissions) have made up over half of their score through bonus points, with, for example, high importance FA koala earning Sasata a total of 440 points (from a multiplier of 4.4) and high-importance GA sea earning Cwmhiraeth a total of 216 points (from a multiplier of 7.2). Other articles on important topics submitted this round include a featured article on the Norman conquest of England by Ealdgyth (submissions), and good articles on Nobel laureate in literature Henryk Sienkiewicz, Nobel laureate in physics Hans Bethe, and the noted Japanese aircraft carrier Hiryū. These articles are by Piotrus (submissions), Hawkeye7 (submissions) and Sturmvogel_66 respectively.
Other than that, there is not much to report! If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
This year's final is upon us. Our final eight, in order of last round's score, are:
Hawkeye7 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer who has contributed on topics of military history and physics, including a number of high-importance topics. Good articles have made up the bulk of his points, but he has also scored a great deal of bonus points. He has the second highest score overall so far, with more than 3000 points accumulated.
Casliber (submissions), another WikiCup veteran who reached the finals in 2012, 2011 and 2010. He writes on a variety of topics including botany, mycology and astronomy, and has claimed the highest or joint highest number of featured articles every round so far this year. He has the third highest score overall, with just under 3000 points accumulated.
Cwmhiraeth (submissions), 2012 WikiCup champion, who writes mostly on marine biology. She has also contributed to high-importance topics, seeing huge numbers of bonus points for high-importance featured and good articles. Previous rounds have seen her scoring the most bonus points, with scoring spread across did you knows, good articles and featured articles.
Sasata (submissions), a WikiCup veteran who finished in second place in 2012, and competed as early as 2009. He writes articles on biology, especially mycology, and has scored highly for a number of collaborations at featured article candidates.
Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), the winner of the 2010 competition. His contributions mostly concern Naval history, and he has scored a very large number of points for good articles and good article reviews in every round. He is the highest scorer overall this year, with over 3500 points in total.
Ealdgyth (submissions), who is competing in the WikiCup for the second time, though this will be her first time in the final. A regular at FAC, she is mostly interested in British medieval history, and has scored very highly for some top-importance featured articles on the topic.
Miyagawa (submissions), a finalist in 2012 and 2011. He writes on a broad variety of topics, with many of this year's points coming from good articles about Star Trek. Good articles make up the bulk of his points, and he had the most good articles back in round 2; he was also the highest scorer for DYK in rounds 1 and 2.
Adam Cuerden (submissions) has previously been involved with the WikiCup, but hasn't participated for a number of years. He scores mostly from restoration work leading to featured picture credits, but has also done some article writing and reviewing.
This last month has seen some incredible contributions; for instance, Cwmhiraeth's Starfish and Ealdgyth's Battle of Hastings—two highly important, highly viewed pages—made it to featured article status. It would be all too easy to focus solely on these stunning achievements at the expense of those participants working in lower-scoring areas, when in fact all WikiCup participants are doing excellent work. A mention of everything done is impossible, but here are a few: Last round saw the completion of several good topics (on the 1958, 1959 and 1962 Atlantic hurricane seasons) to which 12george1 had contributed. Calvin999 saw "S&M" (song), on which he has been working for several years, through to featured article status on its tenth try. Figureskatingfan continued towards her goal of a broad featured/good topic on Maya Angelou, with two featured and four good articles. ThaddeusB contributed significantly to over 20 articles which appeared on the main page's "in the news" section. Adam Cuerden continued to restore a large number of historical images, resulting in over a dozen FP credits this round alone. The WikiCup is not just about top-importance featured articles, and the work of all of these users is worthy of commendation.
Finally, the usual notices: If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 05:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Check article
Can you check my article? Article's name is Veron (Software). Is this article satisfy Wikipedia's notability
guidelines ? Faisal6545 (talk) 22:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Edit help
Hi Bloom6132,
I just did a whole round of editing to the Stanley Park page, and saw your username on a list of people who participate in the "Vancouver project" - to improve Vancouver wikipedia pages. It looks as though you are still active. Do you have time to look over the work I've done? I am a first time contributor. I did a LOT of work, and kept all the original content for the most part. I would love to see it get to GA status. If there is anything I can do to return the effort, I am happy to.
Hi Rhild. WOW! At first glance, that's an extremely impressive expansion, especially given that it's your first-time here. I'll take a more through look at it a little later and give you some feedback. Since I'm not a major contributor to the article, I'll be more than happy to do the GA review for you when you nominate it. And don't sweat about returning the favour; just keep up the great work and have fun on WP! Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi again Bloom6132,
Thank you for being so receptive! I nominated it just now. It put something on the Stanley Park talk page. I had some feedback from an editor on here, but he knew nothing about Stanley Park. I am happy to hear someone who knows Vancouver wants to review it. Rhild (talk) 19:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I'll leave some initial comments, either on the article talk page or your own TP (whichever one you prefer). When I get around to the GA review, I'll probably have to let a second reviewer take a look at the article. I'll be honest with you – I've only done 4 GA reviews during my time at WP, and this would be the longest and most comprehensive article by far (most of the articles I've reviewed were approx. 10kB max). This will also be a learning experience for me too, but I'll promise you that I'll do my very best. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Please leave comments on the article talk page. No worries. I already know where there are some weaknesses, but want someone with a bit more experience with WP and with Vancouver to review it. Can you note which pictures you think are helpful as your first order of business - first impressions count and I want to ensure we are telling the story well. Rhild (talk) 22:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
August 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pat Collins may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
{{by|1932}}.<ref name=BRm/> In 1936, he teamed up with former minor league pitcher [[Van Hammer (baseball|Van Hammer]] in attempting to establish a new [[Western League (defunct minor league)|
I made some changes to the Visa requirements for Canadian citizens particularly to the Argentina and Chile requirements and then noticed your note about them being visa-free despite hefty fee and stamp in the passport that fee'd been paid. I actually disagree with that statement - if you have to pay to enter (particularly ahead of time, as in the case is with Argentina) and get a stamp, how is it different from a visa. I see there being three categories: free, pay and recieve something at the border, pay and receive something ahead of time. If it's more complicated than that perhaps there is an opportunity to make it clear what is considered visa-free in the opener of the article. --Truther2012 (talk) 21:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Brockton Point
I ended up finding a couple of lines to add to the Brockton Point article. Take a look. Hope you still are within the 5 day timeframe.
Rhild (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Murderers' Row
Good job with the Pat Collins DYK. Are you planning on taking that to GA any time soon? I have a pipe dream in my head that we can make Murderers' Row a good topic. I'm close to nominating Herb Pennock. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! I wasn't planning to do a GA on Collins (since there aren't many sources on him), but now that you mention a potential GT, I'll give it a go. I also got Mark Koenig on my to-do list. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I think there are enough. I took Eddy Furniss to GA and it's not much longer. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm also going to make a push on Monument Park honorees. I've got Red Ruffing ready for DYK. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the reassurances regarding GA prose length. That's an impressive expansion you made with Ruffing. Since it's been sitting for nearly a week, would you like me to give it a look? —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, but no need to do it on my account. There are older noms waiting for a review, and Ruffing's will happen when it happens. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I've nominated Collins for GAN. Do you think there'll be too much COI if we did a "Murderers' Row swap" (me reviewing Pennock and you doing Collins)? —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Core Four
In addition to the Murderers' Row articles, we should finish up with Core Four and the subarticles after the season. With Rivera and Pettitte retiring, I'm sure some great retrospective pieces will be written in October. It'd make a nice Good Topic. With Jeter and Rivera already FA, we'd just need Core Four, Posada, and Pettitte. If we could get a third FA, it'd make it a Featured Topic. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Great idea. Since you've already contributed the most to Posada's article (203 edits and counting), I think it's only right for you to take it to GA/FA. I'll stick with Core Four (hopefully it'll be better this time) and I'll maybe give Pettitte's article a shot. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
I was definitely thinking that (me: Posada, you: Core Four). Posada is nearly ready for GAN. Pettitte, we can collaborate on together. Probably can't nominate it until after the season. It will make a nice GT for you, me, and Y2kcrazyjoker4. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
"American retired baseball player" implies that he is American and used to be a baseball player - that is correct information. "retired American baseball player" implies that he has retired from being a baseball player and from being American - that is incorrect. GiantSnowman 15:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
False. By stating "American retired baseball player", you're splitting up the subject of the phrase (American baseball player) with an adjective – that shouldn't be done and is grammatically incorrect. It's like calling me a "Canadian active pianist". That's completely wrong – I'm an active Canadian pianist. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
No, you're not. Thanks for reverting without discussing - use the article talk page before making any more silly edits please. GiantSnowman 16:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
WikiCup 2013 September newsletter
In 30 days, we will know the identity of our 2013 WikiCup champion. Cwmhiraeth (submissions) currently leads; if that lead is held, she will become the first person to have won the WikiCup twice. Sasata (submissions), Hawkeye7 (submissions)—who has never participated in the competition before—and Casliber (submissions) follow. The majority of points in this round have come from a mix of good articles and bonus points. This final round is seeing contributions to a number of highly important topics; recent submissions include Phoenix (constellation) (FA by Casliber), Ernest Lawrence (GA by Hawkeye7), Pinniped, and red fox (both GAs by Sasata).
The did you know (DYK) eligibility criteria have recently changed, meaning that newly passed good articles are accepted as "new" for did you know purposes. However, in the interests of not changing the WikiCup rules mid-competition, please note that only articles eligible for DYK under the old system (that is, newly created articles or 5x expansions) will be eligible for points in this year's WikiCup. We do, however, have time to discuss how this new system will work for next year's competition; a discussion will be opened in due course. On that note, thoughts are welcome on changes you'd like to see for next year. What worked? What didn't work? What would you like to see more of? What would you like to see less of? All Wikipedians, new or old, are also warmly invited to sign up for the 2014 WikiCup.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
DYK nomination of St. Louis Cathedral, Fort-de-France
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Monte Pearson you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Royroydeb -- Royroydeb(talk) 09:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Adam Cuerden (submissions) wins the FP prize, for 23 featured pictures in round 5, worth 805 point.
Sven Manguard (submissions) wins the FPo prize, for 2 featured portals in round 3, worth 70 points.
Hawkeye7 (submissions) wins the topic prize, for a 23-article featured topic in round 5, worth 230 points.
Cwmhiraeth (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 79 did you know articles in round 5, worth 570 points.
ThaddeusB (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 23 in the news articles in round 4, worth 270 points.
Ed! (submissions) wins the GAR prize, for 24 good article reviews in round 1, worth 96 points.
The judges are awarding the Oddball Barnstar to The C of E (submissions), for some curious contributions in earlier rounds.
Finally, the judges are awarding Cwmhiraeth (submissions) the Geography Barnstar for her work on sea, now a featured article. This top-importance article was the highest-scoring this year; when it was promoted to FA status, Cwmhiraeth could claim 720 points.
Prizes will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!
Congratulations to everyone who has been successful in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and a particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition. While it has been an excellent year, errors have opened up the judges' eyes to the need for a third judge, and it is with pleasure that we announce that experienced WikiCup participant Miyagawa will be acting as a judge from now on. We hope you will all join us in welcoming him to the team.
Next year's competition begins on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; it is open to all Wikipedians, new and old. Brainstorming and discussion remains open for how next year's competition will work, and straw polls will be opened by the judges soon. Those interested in friendly competition may also like to keep an eye on the stub contest, being organised by Casliber. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2014 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so much for doing the fixes on the GA review on Warhop, I'm still peeking in occasionally as an IP address and just logged in to support an RFA candidate. I owe you a big favor in return once I find some time to contribute more to the project. Thanks Secretaccount 14:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
You're very welcome! And don't worry; take your time. I also find myself contributing a bit less now due to my workload in second-year law. Looking forward to collaborating with you again on other baseball articles. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Triple Crown
It is my pleasure to award Bloom6132 with this Imperial Napoleonic Triple Crown for all their work on good and featured content here on the English Wikipedia. All hail the Emperor! Regards. — ΛΧΣ21 01:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
DYK for Law Uk Folk Museum
On 11 November 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Law Uk Folk Museum, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Hong Kong's Law Uk(pictured) is the sole surviving village house and the last example of traditional Hakka housing in Chai Wan, a former Hakka village? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Law Uk Folk Museum. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I have started a new baseball notability discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports). I am interested in your take and would appreciate it if you read and comment on it. Alex (talk) 14:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Prince Fielder, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Texas Rangers (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your expansion of Plumbeous Water Redstart. It should feature in POTD in January, but please feel free to run the article through WP:DYK first if you want. Now lets have our cake and eat it too! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Yummy! Thanks a million Crisco! :) —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Correct, it is my opinion that spacing makes the reference more readable. However, in general, it's always much easier to read things where there is an appropriate amount of separation between instead ofhavingeverthingsmushedtogether. It's also your opinion that saving the 5 bytes is more important. On a dial up connection, 500 bytes (as an example) takes approximately less than a 1/100th of a second to load. On a broadband connection, 500 bytes is even more instantaneous. It's my opinion that article readability is worth more than less than a 1/100th of a second to a small percentage of Wikipedia editors.
I hope you'll reconsider making whitespace-only changes in the future. — X96lee15 (talk) 23:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Next time, please read the 3RR rule first before falsely claiming I've violated it. The rule clearly states no "more than three reverts on a single page". I've only reverted you three times today. Three, not more than three, rendering your claim as purely BS. And no, it's not my opinion that "saving" 5 bytes is more important. I said, for such an unnecessary move, "5 bytes is five bytes too many." And your claim that "article readability is worth more" is simply inaccurate – spacing or no spacing makes absolutely no difference when reading the references, let alone the article. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
My fault. I've misinterpreted the rule all these years. That being said, you need to assume good faith and not call things I say "bull shit". And I still content that your stance and my stance are both opinions. Agree to disagree. — X96lee15 (talk) 12:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry about not assuming good faith – I fully retract the comment I made. And yes, agreeing to disagree is a good idea for both of us. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pat Collins you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TonyTheTiger -- TonyTheTiger(talk) 04:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
The article Pat Collins you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Pat Collins for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TonyTheTiger -- TonyTheTiger(talk) 08:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Both MLB and the MLBPA have said that the 2003 list is not accurate. The 2003 list was compiled by the federal govt. as part of their investigation of BALCO. It is not a list from MLB of who tested positive. Michael Schmidt and his lawyer informants broke federal law by releasing the few names they did. It is not a proven fact that David Ortiz (or anybody else on the 2003 list) tested positive. In fairness to Ortiz the word allegedly should be in there since nothing has been proven. Here's 3 articles about this.
Both MLB and the MLBPA have said that the 2003 list is not accurate. The 2003 list was compiled by the federal govt. as part of their investigation of BALCO. It is not a list from MLB of who tested positive. Michael Schmidt and his lawyer informants broke federal law by releasing the few names they did. It is not a proven fact that David Ortiz (or anybody else on the 2003 list) tested positive. In fairness to Ortiz the word allegedly should be in there since nothing has been proven. Here's 3 articles about this.
The MLBPA is the last thing I'd call a "neutral" source. It was long held a stance against drug testing in order to protect its players, and it's doing the same thing by covering Ortiz's ass. On the other hand, the MLB.com and Daily News story that you've provided me actually reinforces the argument I'm making – Ortiz tested positive for PEDs, therefore he "ha[s] had ties to" PEDs (which is what the 50 home run club list is saying in general; not referring specifically to him, but to everyone from that era). In Ortiz's case, he's denying he took steroids and he's attributing his positive PED test to "nutritional supplements." By attributing his positive test to something, he's acknowledging he failed the PED test. I'm a Yankees fan, but I'm not clouded by bad, biased POV judgment demonstrated by the edits you made. When A–Rod admitted he failed his 2003 test, nothing else has to be proven – he automatically "has ties to PEDs." Likewise, the same applies to Ortiz. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:15, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I said that it's the same for anybody mentioned on the "list" so I don't have a biased pov. You can think whatever you want about the MLBPA, but they're stating the facts. MLB has said the same thing. There's 104 names on this list yet there were only 90 positive tests and some of those would've been contested. So how can you say he tested positive for sure? They told Ortiz that he's on the list, but the list isn't accurate. They didn't even know what he tested positive for, if he did test positive. The lab that did the tests did a poor job so MLB switched to a different lab when testing started in 2004. The whole thing has more questions than answers to it.
"[T]he list isn't accurate" – do you have a source for that statement. As far as all the major reliable news sources are concerned, it's accurate.
"[T]here were only 90 positive tests and some of those would've been contested" – again, source? I've never read that anywhere in the various articles I've researched.
"They didn't even know what he tested positive for, if he did test positive" – first part of the sentence is correct; second half is completely inaccurate. Even Ortiz knows he tested positive for PEDs. That's why he's attributing it to nutritional supplements, not steroids. One thing you have to understand is that PEDs ≠ steroids. Amphetamines can be PEDs, but they aren't steroids. And yet players still get suspended for using them. —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
The part about the list not being accurate and the 90 positive tests (actually I was wrong, there were 83 positive tests according to MLB, and some players may have been tested twice if they tested positive for a supplement) is in the MLB.com article by Barry Bloom I sent you. Barry Bloom is a reliable and very respected writer. Ortiz was responding to a question by a writer asking him how he could be on the list. He answered that he didn't know and the only thing he could think of was the supplements he was taking. Many other top national baseball writers like Ken Rosenthal, Ken Davidoff and Tom Verducci have stated that the 2003 list is not accurate and a player appearing on it would not stop them from voting for that player for the Hall of Fame if they didn't have any other incidents in their career.
Seerey
Hey, saw your note on wanting to work on this guy's article. I have a bunch of sources for him, so if you'd want to do a collab on it (or want me to give the article a shot, since I wouldn't need Google), then let me know. Wizardman 18:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. If I don't get started about a week into the WikiCup (i.e. January 7), feel free to give the article a shot by yourself. Also, the offer I extended to Muboshgu (to give any links I've gathered) also extends to you – a small token of my gratitude for all the GA reviews you did for me over this past year.
And speaking of the WikiCup, do you think the baseball project should have some collaborative system in place for the tournament? From my (extremely rough) count, there are 6 members of the project in the comp this year, so it might make it a bit more efficient for all of us if we could somehow pool our resources together – perhaps 2–4 members per collaboration. Any thoughts? Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Welcome to the 2014 WikiCup!
Hello Bloom6132, and welcome to the 2014 WikiCup! Your submission page can be found here. The competition will begin at midnight tonight (UTC). There have been a few small changes from last year; the rules can be read in full at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring, and the page also includes a summary of changes. One important rule to remember is that only content on which you have completed significant work, and nominated, in 2014 is eligible for points in the competition- the judges will be checking! As ever, this year's competition includes some younger editors. If you are a younger editor, you are certainly welcome, but we have written an advice page at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Advice for younger editors for you. Please do take a look. Any questions should be directed to one of the judges, or left on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will make it to round 2. Good luck! J Milburn (talk·contribs), The ed17 (talk·contribs) and Miyagawa (talk·contribs) 17:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
"We Three Kings"
Quick question on {{Did you know nominations/We Three Kings}} — would you mind a revised hook of that the carol "We Three Kings" (Magi pictured) was written in 1857? That's far more surprising to me than anything else in the article, since Christmas carols always seem to be these centuries-old traditional pieces with no clear origins. I'll also ask The C of E, who reviewed the nomination. Nyttend (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate 
Miyagawa (submissions) (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's 
Casliber (submissions) (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.
Hawkeye7 (submissions)), on the European hare (
Cwmhiraeth (submissions)), on the constellation Circinus (
Keilana (submissions) and 
Cerebellum (submissions)). All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.
Sven Manguard (submissions) claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and 
Hello! Your submission of Pheng Xat Lao at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Drmies (talk) 14:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Figureskatingfan (submissions) claimed the first featured topic points in this year's competition for her excellent work on topics related to Maya Angelou, the noted American author and poet. We have also continued to see high-importance articles improved as part of the competition: 
Ealdgyth (submissions) was awarded a thoroughly well-earned 560 points for her featured article Middle Ages and 102 points for her good article Battle of Hastings. Good articles James Chadwick and Stanislaw Ulam netted 
Piotrus (submissions) for each of Władysław Sikorski and Emilia Plater, both recently promoted to good article status. Collaborative efforts between WikiCup participants have continued, with, for example, 
Sasata (submissions) being awarded 180 points each for their featured article on Boletus luridus.
Hawkeye7 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer who has contributed on topics of military history and physics, including a number of high-importance topics. Good articles have made up the bulk of his points, but he has also scored a great deal of bonus points. He has the second highest score overall so far, with more than 3000 points accumulated.
Casliber (submissions), another WikiCup veteran who reached the finals in 2012, 2011 and 2010. He writes on a variety of topics including botany, mycology and astronomy, and has claimed the highest or joint highest number of featured articles every round so far this year. He has the third highest score overall, with just under 3000 points accumulated.
Cwmhiraeth (submissions), 2012 WikiCup champion, who writes mostly on marine biology. She has also contributed to high-importance topics, seeing huge numbers of bonus points for high-importance featured and good articles. Previous rounds have seen her scoring the most bonus points, with scoring spread across did you knows, good articles and featured articles.
Sasata (submissions), a WikiCup veteran who finished in second place in 2012, and competed as early as 2009. He writes articles on biology, especially mycology, and has scored highly for a number of collaborations at featured article candidates.
Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), the winner of the 2010 competition. His contributions mostly concern Naval history, and he has scored a very large number of points for good articles and good article reviews in every round. He is the highest scorer overall this year, with over 3500 points in total.
Ealdgyth (submissions), who is competing in the WikiCup for the second time, though this will be her first time in the final. A regular at FAC, she is mostly interested in British medieval history, and has scored very highly for some top-importance featured articles on the topic.
Miyagawa (submissions), a finalist in 2012 and 2011. He writes on a broad variety of topics, with many of this year's points coming from good articles about Star Trek. Good articles make up the bulk of his points, and he had the most good articles back in round 2; he was also the highest scorer for DYK in rounds 1 and 2.
Adam Cuerden (submissions) has previously been involved with the WikiCup, but hasn't participated for a number of years. He scores mostly from restoration work leading to featured picture credits, but has also done some article writing and reviewing.
ThaddeusB (submissions), 
Dana boomer (submissions), 
Status (submissions), 
Ed! (submissions), 
12george1 (submissions), 
Calvin999 (submissions). Having made it to this stage is still an excellent achievement, and you can leave with your heads held high. We hope to see you all again next year. Signups are now open for the 2014 WikiCup, which will begin on 1 January. All Wikipedians, whatever their interest or level of experience, are warmly invited to participate in next year's competition.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pat Collins may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Royroydeb -- Royroydeb (talk) 09:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Piotrus (submissions)
Another Believer (submissions) wins the FL prize, for four featured lists in round 2, worth 180 points.
Sven Manguard (submissions) wins the FPo prize, for 2 featured portals in round 3, worth 70 points.
ThaddeusB (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 23 in the news articles in round 4, worth 270 points.
Ed! (submissions) wins the GAR prize, for 24 good article reviews in round 1, worth 96 points.
The C of E (submissions), for some curious contributions in earlier rounds.
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Pat Collins for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TonyTheTiger -- TonyTheTiger (talk) 08:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)