User talk:WaitingForConnection/Archive 8

This is a subpage of WaitingForConnection's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Subpages. In a nutshell, my view on flags and/or triagrammes is that  COD is about as informative as  HADDOCK.

Hi! As you've previously expressed interest in the competition, I'm just letting you know that the 2012 WikiCup is due to start in less than 24 hours. Signups are open, and will remain so for a few weeks after the beginning of the competition. The competition itself will follow basically the same format as last year, with a few small tweaks to point costs to reflect the opinions of the community. If you're interested in taking part, you're more than welcome, and if you know anyone who might be, please let them know too- the more the merrier! To join, simply add your name to Wikipedia:WikiCup/2012 signups, and we will be in touch. Please feel free to direct any questions to me, or leave a note on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! You are receiving this note as you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Please feel free to add or remove yourself. EdwardsBot (talk) 01:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WFC. Just wanted to tell you that I responded to your review of Super Bowl Most Valuable Player Award at WP:TFLS. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is scheduled to run at TFL next Monday but I've had some concerns raised on its suitability given several unreferenced sections. If you get a chance, could you take a look at it for me? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please assist I was directed here by User:HonorTheKing and User:The Rambling Man regarding sourcing issues on this featured list which is due to appear on the Main Page in a few days. Please tell me what you think is deficient on that article's talk page and I will amend it as necessary. Note: this notice is being placed on multiple talk pages at once. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - out of courtesy, I should inform you that your name has been mentioned at this discussion. Best wishes. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the notification. Regards, —WFC— 06:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey dude, if you get the time, could you look at TFL and in particular Timeline of prehistoric Scotland? A lot of work's been done on it but it seems to have stagnated. I'd really appreciate it if we could get another re-review of it, especially with all this talk of Scottish devolution...! Also List of English words containing Q not followed by U if you have time....! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No sweat. —WFC— 18:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And can I get a refund on Tamas please? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We already gave you £3.25million's worth. —WFC— 18:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, he ain't done nuffin. Ouch. Apparently he used to be good...! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So did his manager. —WFC— 18:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will look at the QU one right now, but I don't think I can be any use on Timeline of prehistoric Scotland sourcing debate. —WFC— 04:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you have strong feelings re this but I am entitled to my opinion. So please dont respond saying things like policy dictates that I can't reply to this the veracity it deserves. I very much do not understand why you can't just reply normally rather than saying things like that. As I said at the main page I am entitled to my opinion and as chris said the other one clearly as per previous discussion meets the policy's better. Edinburgh Wanderer 11:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I pointed out that I'm angry, and made a point of moving swiftly on to the substance. I make no apologies for disliking your comment, but am sorry if this wasn't taken in the spirit intended. —WFC— 21:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to apologise to you as well I'm clearly getting wound up about it partially because I feel its been too long a time to push this forward now and secondly I just am not convinced that all mobile devices and readers have the issue. The problem with apple devices is real if you could see the problems im having editing the main page due to its length it's unbelievable and I clearly see now it does better meet the mos for flags Anyway apart from my apology which I hope you accept I would like to know what your thoughts would be on expanding the trial to a wider range of articles getting further comments and reviewing including seeing if there is a way of removing the column for squad numbers when it dosent exist. I would be happy to the leg work in changing the articles. Edinburgh Wanderer 00:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Water under the bridge. I think a trial would need to be on a set of high-trafficked articles, possibly a set of clubs from an English and/or a Scottish League, and that the feedback from those should be used to further develop the template before a possible rollout. It's worth pointing out that even if the broad format is accepted, there are still some outstanding niggles, hence the differences between the headers of the Watford, Luton and Seattle Sounders squads. —WFC— 00:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure we could iron the problems out with a trial and high traffic articles I'm not good with english ones so unsure about high traffic ones there in Scotland it would be the likes of rangers Celtic or hearts or Hibs but you would need to drop down to sfl1 to 3 for no squad numbers and the traffic there will be far lower. To me the key after a trial would be quick implementation purely because the longer you wait it becomes stale casing problems to develop like this. If the consensus is there then we should go for itEdinburgh Wanderer 00:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I do understand however if I had sight issues it would be far worse than the problems I have so really it's not fair to them to be arguing a point that is far less significant.Edinburgh Wanderer 00:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a new section clearly setting out why i feel a trial is needed and setting out that i can set it up. not on grounds of tech issues its going to move forward this template no matter what so what I'm proposing is a trial of a few versions of that template to gain opinion on what option is the best this i feel would solve questions listed such as no squad numbers, headers and flag options. Im aware it probably won't happen due to it being me thats proposing this but if this is to be rolled out then we need to have clear opinion. I think its nearly there if we do this. the split is an issue but were never going to get past that so maybe there is another option without a split but who knows.Edinburgh Wanderer 13:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

technical question on page 2011–12 Heart of Midlothian F.C. season i have aligned two wiki tables side by side does this cause problems for screen readers leaving mobile devices aside for now. The reason i ask is would it be possible to align two templates side by side because if there isn't a break in the template I'm not sure if this still causes the problem. Edinburgh Wanderer 14:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On technical grounds Chris is probably your best bet. He can be a little difficult to work with until you understand how he works, but he's knowledgeable and can be trusted not to make issues up. I'll voice my opinion on a trial at the section you've created. Regards, —WFC— 20:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

to be honest I don't want to post on his talk page again he dosent take to kindly to me which is fair enough because I've wound him up. Anyway thanks I'll maybe post the question on the main page and hope someone replys. It's just If that dosent cause the problem as technically the template is intact then that's may be a way of splitting it. It may look awfull anyway but it was just something that I thought of. But as I say it may be the case that that technique causes the issue anyway. Edinburgh Wanderer 21:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two queries i gave using the template a go on the Heart of Midlothian F.C. page see [1] its rather long to due to hearts ridiculous squad size but i have two queries how would i change the background text in the header to another colour and for instance in the loan section how do i display on loan to a team like in the old template. I tried it and couldn't get it to work.Edinburgh Wanderer 22:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment the colour isn't part of the template (in the Watford article I've done it manually in the Wikitable). Chris and I have exchanged views about adding colour compatibility at Template talk:Football squad player2#Heading colour. I have already coded support for colours at User:WFCforLife/Test, but because it's controversial, I can't add it to the main template unless or until there is clear consensus. —WFC— 22:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I used the Watford version but the standard text is black but obviously maroon and black are hard to read so would change that to white. If I'm honest with you the colour coding is one of the things i like it gives it a bit of identity. The length on the hearts page is a bit of a issue but most squads aren't as big as that.Edinburgh Wanderer 22:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should be fixed now. —WFC— 22:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks really good.Edinburgh Wanderer 22:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It all kind of kicked off a bit again at the main page just as i thought it had died down. It was brought up the championship sides hadn't been notified so ive done that using the same one you used. Edinburgh Wanderer 22:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WFCforLife,

You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- The Helpful Bot 16:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Hey, I just took a shot at the prose for a new section covering the 2011 season. All facts should be properly referenced. When you get a moment, please review it and propose any changes you think need to be made before it's added to the article. Thanks for your help. --SkotyWA^T_C 00:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I'm not aware of any way to change the colour of sort keys. I'm not sure if this anywhere where you can ask, but I do have one suggestion. Regarding the Newcastle problem it would probably be best to have the background in white, as that would solve the problem. NapHit (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

just a quick question, as I've noticed it now. When sorting the position column it sorts alphabetically, would it be better to sort it by position on the field? As is done here, or is that not feasible with these templates? btw great job with the templates they look great! NapHit (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for that, good to know that my improvement has not gone un-noticed. I'll consider my answer carefully but won't give you one now, I think it would be best to answer it on the RfA when it is finally sorted, for wider eyes. Thanks again, GiantSnowman 09:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... is now at AfD. The discussion can be found at WP:Articles for deletion/2012 Wikipedia blackout. Thank you. →Στc. 03:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

United States Internet blackout was the most generic title I could think of at the time, but I'd prefer that we keep a suggestion—any suggestion—in the template to clarify that a more general (as opposed to specific) article is needed.   — C M B J   09:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My main objection was to a red link being posted on the article page, which can result in immediate creation rather than discussion. I hope my last few edits have struck a reasonable compromise? —WFC— 09:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Great job with the idea for starting the article English Wikipedia blackout, glad to see it easily survived the AFD. ;) — Cirt (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! —WFC— 18:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to the 2012 WikiCup! The competition officially began at the start of 2012 (UTC), and so you are free to claim any content from after that time. Your submission page, where you must note any content for which you wish to claim points, can be found here, and formatting instructions can be found in hidden comments on the page. A bot will then update the main table, which can be seen on the WikiCup page. The full rules for what will and will not be awarded points can be found at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. There's also a section on that page listing the changes that have been made to the rules this year, so that experienced participants can get up-to-date in a few seconds. One point of which we must remind everyone; you may only claim points for content upon which you have done significant work, and which you have nominated, in 2012. For instance, articles written or good article reviews started in 2011 are not eligible for points. This round will last until late February, and signups will remain open until the middle of February. If you know of anyone who may like to take part, please let them know about the comeptition; the more the merrier! At the end of this round, the top 64 scorers will progress to the next round, where their scores will reset, and they will be split into pools. Note that, by default, you have been added to our newsletter list; we will be in contact at the end of every month with news. You're welcome to remove yourself from this list if you do not wish to hear from us. Conversely, those interested in following the competition are more than welcome to add themselves to the list. Please direct any questions towards the judges, or on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn (talk) and The ed17 (talk) 21:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you change the Wikipedia:Today's featured list/February 2012 listings around if that's the best of ordering these lists? Also worth checking their "main page feature date" on the talk page is correct as well... Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I went ahead and added support to the templates for this since it was becoming a point of contention with editors who don't read the talk page. It was a good idea and I hope it sticks. More details in this discussion. Thanks for your unending hard work and creative ideas around here. --SkotyWA^T_C 05:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2012 is off to a flying start. At the time of writing, we have 112 contestants; comparable to last year, but slightly fewer than 2010. Signups will remain open for another week, after which time they will be closed for this year. Our currrent far-away leader is Grapple X (submissions), due mostly to his work on a slew of good articles about The X-Files; there remain many such articles waiting to be reviewed at good article candidates. Second place is currently held by Ruby2010 (submissions), whose points come mostly from good articles about television episodes, although good article reviews, did you knows and an article about a baroness round out the score. In third place is Jivesh boodhun (submissions), who has scored 200 points for his work on a single featured article, as well as points for work on others, mostly in the area of pop music. In all, nine users have 100 or more points. However, at the other end of the scale, there are still dozens of participants who are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly!

The 64 highest scoring participants will advance to round 2 in a month's time. There, they will be split into eight random groups of eight. The score needed to reach the next round is not at all clear; last year, 8 points guaranteed a place. The year before, 20.

A few participants and their work warrant a mention for achieving "firsts" in this competition.

• 12george1 (submissions) was the first to score, with his good article review of Illinois v. McArthur.
• 12george1 (submissions) was also the first to score points for an article, thanks to his work on Hurricane Debby (1982)- now a good article. Tropical storms have featured heavily in the Cup, and good articles currently have a relatively fast turnaround time for reviews.
• Sp33dyphil (submissions) was the first to score points for a did you know, with Russian submarine K-114 Tula. Military history is another subject which has seen a lot of Cup activity.
• Sp33dyphil (submissions) is also the first person to successfully claim bonus points. Terminator 2: Judgment Day is now a good article, and was eligible for bonus points because the subject was covered on more than 20 other Wikipedias at the start of the competition. It is fantastic to see bonus points being claimed so early!
• Speciate (submissions) was the first to score points for an In the News entry, with Paedophryne amauensis. The lead image from the article was also used on the main page for a time, and it's certainly eye-catching!
• Jivesh boodhun (submissions) was the first to score points for a featured article, and is, at the moment, the only competitor to claim for one. The article, "Halo" (Beyoncé Knowles song), was also worth double points because of its wide coverage. While this is an article that Jivesh and others have worked on for some time, it is undeniable that he has put considerable work into it this year, pushing it over the edge.

We are yet to see any featured lists, featured topics or good topics, but this is unsurprising; firstly, the nomination processes with each of these can take some time, and, secondly, it can take a considerable amount of time to work content to this level. In a similar vein, we have seen only one featured article. The requirement that content must have been worked on this year to be eligible means that we did not expect to see these at the start of the competition. No points have been claimed for featured portals or pictures, but these are not content types which are often claimed; the former has never made a big impact on the WikiCup, while the latter has not done so since 2009's competition.

A quick rules clarification before the regular notices: If you are concerned that another user is claiming points inappropriately, please contact a judge to take a look at the article. Competitors policing one another can create a bad atmosphere, and may lead to inconsistencies and mistakes. Rest assured that we, the judges, are making an effort to check submissions, but it is possible that we will miss something. On a loosely related note: If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your kind words! Regards, GiantSnowman 16:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WFC, I found the words you left on GS's talk page really nice and wonderful. Thought I'll leave a note. Wifione ^Message 14:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey WFC, hope you're well. Can you do me a favour in the next week or so, cast your eyes over 1st Academy Awards which is going to feature on the main page the day after this year's Oscars (in a couple of weeks time). I've had a quick look, as has Giants (if I remember correctly), but a third pair of eyes would be much appreciated. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Had a quick look and it seems in good shape (other than the TfD template on the infobox). By the way, it might be worth putting the posthumous number one singles list on standby. There hasn't been one for five years, and this week seems as likely a time as any. —WFC— 20:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a sec, ref 1 of the Academy Awards list isn't working? It's quite an important one too. —WFC— 21:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks. I thought that link might disappear up its own.... so we'll need to replace it with a general one. As for posthumous number ones, good call, will look into that right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited List of diets, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph (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) 10:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for the kind comments on the FLC for List of culinary nuts. I'm delighted that you're inspired to get back to producing content! I've added an inline citation for the comment on soy bean usage. Could you take a look and see if I've done it properly? Thanks! (Replying here is fine.) Waitak (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CONMEBOL TOC has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi- this is a message to let you know that you (under your previous username) are one of six people tied for 64th place in the WikiCup, and so have a chance to make it to round 2- see Wikipedia talk:WikiCup#Tiebreaker for details. Please reply there. Thanks! J Milburn (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiCup#Withdrawal. If you're interested, I'm happy for you to jump in. J Milburn (talk) 15:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated List of unreleased Michael Jackson material for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Rubiscous (talk) 17:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey WFC, even though I shouldn't be talking to you after this weekend's disastrous capitulation, I just thought I'd let you know I hadn't forgotten about your vision over at TFL. I've been away and busy trying to catch up, but will do so at WT:TFL shortly. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 10:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Troy Deeney, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Don Cowie (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) 10:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who regularly contributes to election articles: Due to recurrent discussions that lead nowhere, an open-ended discussion and proposals are invited Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items/Elections for ITN on the main page as to what should be recurrent without ITNC discussionsLihaas (talk) 07:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting...., that wasn;'t a supervote, that was me stating that we already have a policy for this. A supervote would have been keep it or dump it, at least as far as I know. (Apreciate the heads up ! ) ‑KoshVorlon| Angeli i demoni kruzhili nado mnoj... - 17:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not ignoring, it would be kind of like if someone started an RFC about including rumours about a living person in their article. We already have a policy (policies are already created by consensus) that states otherwise.

The RFC would be superfulus, as we policy already states we can't and it can't be over-ridden by an RFC, only changing the policy would change it. This RFC is the same thing. We already have a policy against advetising which includes user page. The RFC is asking what the the policy already has forbidden. It too is superfulus. Do you follow ? ‑KoshVorlon| Angeli i demoni kruzhili nado mnoj... - 17:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

• Account activation codes have been emailed.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• The 1-year, free period begins once you enter the code.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 04:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, left some comments at the talkpage. Feel free to do as you please with them. I haven't done much GAN reviewing so some of what I've said may be over the top, but hope some of it helps. Best to you, as always. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those, they were brilliant. —WFC— 07:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, GA never looked so good! Well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm delighted to have finally ticked it off of my to-do list. Most GAs are a relatively quick burst of hard work, but improving that article was a marathon. —WFC— 17:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I remember doing the Ipswich one (at FAC) and that took lot of effort from not-just-me.... Probably would never pass FAC now... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thankfully I don't have all of the sources on hand at the moment, so I won't be tempted to go for an FA run just yet. I think I've got a few other loose ends I'd like to tie up first in any case, not least getting getting the glossary done and dusted. —WFC— 17:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw you making edits there, do you have a master plan for it? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems relatively straightforward really: get through ball sourced (which I have repeatedly tried and failed to do), find a better lead image, sample the references to ensure that the sourcing isn't too tangental, get a bit of general feedback at WT:FOOTY, work out who should go on the FLC nom, and then go for it. —WFC— 17:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, do you think it is better to move the discussion over at the village pump for Topical Article over to WT:ITN? I don't feel like it will garner much attention if it remained at village pump. Colipon+(Talk) 02:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, WFC. I appreciate many of the comments you've made on the talk page. You've obviously given considerable thought to the various nuances that would accompany implementing PC, and I'm sure that if it's implemented you'll be one of the editors helping to make it work as well as it can. I have to say that I'm a little taken aback at how certain you seem that it will be implemented, though. Aside from the many cogent and compelling arguments made in favor of Option 1, its numbers of endorsers relative to those of Option 2 have been steadily creeping upward and now constitute more than one-third of the RfC's participants. In major RfCs such as this one, my experience has been that the numbers do tend to play some role in deciding how to close, and a >1/3 vote has been a deal-breaker in the past. I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Rivertorch (talk) 18:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm resigned to the idea that ultimately this close will have a democratic element, even though I don't like it. At least one of the closing admins has admitted that the numbers will be a big factor. Therefore my focus is on trying to ensure that it becomes no more than a democratic element – that whilst acknowledging the support for position 2 is going to influence the decision, they understand in no uncertain terms that to simply turn PC on and hope for the best would be reckless, and a decision that even PC's supporters would go on to regret. I'm also trying to help the closers, by suggesting that a way of closing in favour of position two whilst acknowledging the serious concerns which need to be dealt with would be to set a hard "turn-on" date in future. With a hard turn-on date, they will have done everything within their power to facilitate further discussion without dictating it, and if discussion stonewalls their judgement of the outcome of the RfC would still be respected and implemented. —WFC— 18:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. What I'm concerned about is that if everyone seems to be agreeing that a turn-on resulting directly from this RfC is a foregone conclusion, the closers may feel extra pressure not to close as "no consensus/keep status quo". Rivertorch (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that is a risk. But if there is pressure to make a black-and-white, "consensus for option 2" or "no consensus" close, it certainly isn't coming from me. I've been consistently pushing them to take points which haven't been addressed very seriously, and to consider the possibility that if PC fails again, there might not be a third time. —WFC— 20:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I mentioned you in this discussion, so I thought it would be polite of me to let you know. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't mind the split simply because this category could possibly have up to almost 300 pages if this is fully implemented. The above category being discussed is suppose to be the same as categories like Category:German football clubs 2012–13 season, Category:Austrian football clubs 2012–13 season, Category:English football clubs 2012–13 season and Category:Scottish football clubs 2012–13 season where you are grouping club seasons that have similarities in them. Just like there is a common country involved with other categories I just mentioned, there is a competition-based relation between the articles that are currently listed in the above category. Kingjeff (talk) 21:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WFC,

You mentioned at TFL that you were interested in rewriting the "Curse" section of List of Blue Peter presenters. Are you still interested in doing that? The blurb has been taken off the suggestions list until the issues have been resolved, but I'd like to see the list promoted soon so that it will be ready whenever a new presenter is instituted.

Neelix (talk) 19:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a go, although it could probably do with a copyedit. —WFC— 23:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WFC,

Thanks for the rewrite! I have done a copyedit and have resubmitted the blurb at TFL.

Neelix (talk) 01:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	at my successful RFA
	Thank you, WaitingForConnection, for !voting at my successful RFA; I am humbled that you put your trust in me. I grant you this flower, which, if tended to properly, will grow to be the fruit of Wikipedia's labours. Your former name reminds me of the connection over here.... oh, to have a decent connection. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The English Argentine article risks becoming a “British Argentine” article since some aspects are also relevant to Scottish Argentines, Welsh Argentines and (Northern) Irish Argentines.

The fine line by distinguishing between “English” and “British” is often diluted and is erroneously and interchangeably used around the world, and alas is done in this article as well.

The sections about World War 2 and the Falklands War were also relevant to the other nationalities originating from the United Kingdom, and not just English Argentines.

I suggest creating a “British Argentine” article with subjects that are relevant to all these nationalities of the United Kingdom who have immigrated to Argentina. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.224.148.111 (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have contributed to the Newco Rangers article so I thought yuou should be made aware that an attempt is being made to undermine this article by pushing through a 'same club' approach despite many of us believing this is heavily biased and very selective use of the sources. You may wish to follow what is proposed at the Talk:Rangers F.C/Sandbox. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 12:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, it was unsubstantiated gibberish. As a life-long supporter of Barnet, I also watch the page.

The last time we played Watford, in the FA Cup, you had 2 idiots who tried to start trouble in the Barnet end, but we just ignored them and a steward threw them out. UKPolice 23:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by UKPolice (talk • contribs)

Hey WFC, looking forward to tomorrow night? I'm not. But onto more important things.... last Monday's TFA scored about 6k views fewer than our TFL. We must be doing something right. I know I've said it before, but I really think we'd be capable of two days a week. Like a Monday and a Thursday? I know you had some good ideas about how best to run TFL effectively, and I'm sorry I didn't have the time (at that time) to get you proper feedback. Given where we are now, what do you think? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quality, quantity and interest wise I agree, TFL is ready for a second day. Even ignoring the big-hitters – which for me is anything over 10,000 page views – the sort of interest less prominent lists are getting has increased substantially. I would have a weak preference for Friday over Thursday because that would give us better coverage of weekends, but I don't think there's much in it.

I'm actually having second thoughts about changing things around too much. While I'm definitely right about TFLS running at a similar speed to continental drift, it does result in lists getting improved at a faster rate that we are posting them onto the main page. Besides, given the current drama surrounding TFA, I think this would be a risky time to change the way we do things too much. The featured lists processes moving slowly, while of course not something to celebrate, probably prevents the sorts of problems editors at TFA/FAC are facing.

As for your original question, no I'm not. Even if we do win, and we certainly have a potential match winner or two, I fear that the headlines will be about Watford fans giving a player stick that he didn't deserve. —WFC— 19:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, more about TFL in days to come then, I think. I'm genuinely still staggered how smoothly (after the initial RFC at main page) we integrated to the big time. As for tomorrow, apparently the Hornets are now the bogey team; the Tractor Boys' opening game was full of boo-boys trying once again to get Steve Kean sacked, despite only being ten minutes into the season. Which player is in the firing line, if you don't mind me asking? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An Ipswich player. One who probably kept us up in his first full season. —WFC— 19:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Odd decision by Zola et al to let him go for biscuits, but hey, he's a lifelong Tractor Boy. I remember we did it for Neil Alexander, he just wanted to "go home" and left a Championship club and walked into Champions League football. Odd times... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Glossary of association football terms, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indoor football (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) 12:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You recently participated in an informal discussion here on reforming the recent deaths section of ITN. The old discussion has been closed, and a more formal proposal has been made as an RfC. Please feel free to add your vote and comment to the new section, and, if you support, please indicate whether you prefer bare links or one-word blurbs. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 04:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that you are main person behind awesome Watford FC related articles, I want to give you heads up, that List of players with less than 50 appearances for the club might still be missing some players. For example, I noticed that full Latvian international Aleksandrs Cauņa is missing from the list, still remember him scoring a goal against my beloved Saints, grrr. Cheers. Utinsh (talk) 11:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest in the list Utinsh! I've added Cauņa for now, and will go over the Brendan Rodgers season later tonight to make sure the list hasn't missed anyone else. I think there are some other players missing (those whose surnames begin with the letters T-Z and only played for the club before 1996), but I haven't got the book handy. —WFC— 16:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Completely forgot about this for a couple of months, but better late than never. Basically by doing some basic research, I found out there are plenty of loanees missing from earlie 00's like Chopra, Carl Fletcher, Jason Norville and numerous other internationals and lesser players (though I'm not saying that only loanees are missing, but borrowed players are a pattern here). I remember catching this by simply noticing that there are virtually no handful (>10 games+ appearance makers on the list from 1999-2005, which, knowing how often team's have players on a month loan, felt really weird. I could make a list if I had some solid source, but all I have is wikipedia at my disposal. Cheers. Utinsh (talk) 13:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia talk:Consensus

Done - And as an aside, I wanted to offer kudos for attempting to take positive action to try to move things forward. - jc37 22:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pretend you're viewing some garish looking talkback template : ) - jc37 16:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably just a mind burp on my part, but when I read your comment, I first thought it was your reply to someone else's unsigned oppose, because of the paragraph break. Maybe replace the paragraph break with a dash or "..."? I don't know. - Dank (push to talk) 16:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. I changed the line break into a few dashes, to signify that to all intents and purposes it's a separate paragraph. —WFC— 16:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 18:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One question added after your vote. When we put the RfC together, one thing we were all agreed on was that it should run a week, so that it didn't take too much time away from more central questions ... but we decided not to put that in the RfC, I think because we didn't want to force a cutoff in the middle of a good debate. At this point, I've added that question, if you'd like to vote on that one too. - Dank (push to talk) 15:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	A lovely overhaul and upgrade to List of food preparation utensils, converting it from a plain list of links, into a useful and informative wealth of information, and defining its future growth. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! —WFC— 04:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey WFC, do you fancy helping me draft out a Talk:Main page opening statement, perhaps at WT:TFL? I've seen you've done some stats work on page views etc, and I think that'll weave nicely into our justification for more exposure, along with the ample number of lists waiting to be listed, and a bumper month of more than one promotion a day... Whaddyareckon? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I'll post a first draft at WT:TFL after the parade, and then we can go from there I suppose. In the meantime it might be worth dropping Edokter a line, for a brief explanation of the technical side of things. If I remember correctly it should be pretty simple, as most of the coding was done with a view to expansion. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 12:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I'd already tested the water with Edokter regarding this, apparently the technical changes are trivial so I've asked him for a statement to that effect...! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On a related topic, this is extraordinarily low. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 05:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That link doesn't work at the moment, but I'm guessing old Mary didn't fare well on the main page. Too high brow I suppose. Lends weight to your argument that we should feature more pop culture and not be all snobby about it! Anything more to add to the draft proposal? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a bit of tweaking, but the meat and bones is there. In all honesty I was waiting until we work out the reason behind the anomalously low traffic – 1566 hits to be exact. Was there a problem with the pageview tool? Maybe you're right, maybe it was the 'most niche' (is that the right phrase?) list we've ever had? I knew it would be a low one, but I wasn't expecting it to be our lowest ever: I thought that title would remain in 2011. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 08:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, see where you're coming from - it's just that he's mentioned French Wikipedia guidelines before, leading me to believe that's where he's come from. He may be new to en.wikipedia but that does not necessarily mean he's new all over the shop. GiantSnowman 12:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) He's not from fr.wiki – he's never made an edit there anyway. Don't know where he's cropped up from. BigDom (talk) 12:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another (talk page stalker) I thought he was from fr.wiki, and was going to say that the SPA-tag I put was inappropaite, but now I don't know what I think about it. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BigDom - maybe he edits on fr.wiki under a different name? GiantSnowman 15:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I suppose that's possible. BigDom (talk) 15:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the danger of coming across as a schizophrenic, I just can't think of anywhere else to say this that would not result in cries of "yawn... same old", "this is an inappropriate venue" or a quick-closure.

The question of country-specific bias on Wikipedia frequently comes up, and the frequent conclusion is that it's an invalid criticism. And often it is.

But in the light of the non-posting of Hillsborough at ITN, I have to ask this. Where there is evidence of quite a significant inconsistency, is it still invalid to raise this concern? Does having a POV invalidate your view, even if you can back it up? I'm not going to try to suggest that I have attempted to start a cold, dispassionate discussion on this subject. But if I were minded to, would it be inherently disruptive to ask whether or not Wikipedia is factionalised, and whether or not this has a knock-on effect on our output? Is there a hope in hell of having a mature, sitewide discussion on it (and if there isn't, would there be any benefit in trying to have one anyway)? Thoughts of any kind welcome. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 10:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this particular nomination really is representative of the country-specific bias that has been a problem at other times. Much of the opposition seems to be coming from UK editors.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to your update message for this page; as you can see, I still have more to complete, but I just thought I would give you a heads-up.--Soulparadox (talk) 06:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you got an6y sources that ne reliabke i have been lookimg for information prior without much luck i can get the one before murray but his reignAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see you reverted my assessment [2], however according to the guidelines, football-related lists are all low-importance. I will leave this with you, as I imagine you have a better understanding of the guidelines than myself. Thanks Cloudz679 18:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a tribute.

Anyway. You're getting this note because you've participated in discussion and/or asked for updates to either the Article Feedback Tool or Page Curation. This isn't about either of those things, I'm afraid ;p. We've recently started working on yet another project: Echo, a notifications system to augment the watchlist. There's not much information at the moment, because we're still working out the scope and the concepts, but if you're interested in further updates you can sign up here.

In addition, we'll be holding an office hours session at 21:00 UTC on Wednesday, 14 November in #wikimedia-office - hope to see you all there :). I appreciate it's an annoying time for non-Europeans: if you're interested in chatting about the project but can't make it, give me a shout and I can set up another session if there's enough interest in one particular timezone or a skype call if there isn't. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what this was about? As there was an article when you closed it..(Lihaas (talk) 08:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)).[reply]

Hey all :). Just a quick note to say we'll be holding office hours in #wikimedia-office at 21:30 UTC this Thursday (the 29th) to show everyone the additional tools we're thinking of working on. All attendence and feedback is appreciated :). Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I understand your reasons for reverting my edit, but I still think the extra row is unnecessary, its hardly going to stop people incorrectly updating the page. Especially when at the top of the page, there is a disclaimer stating the award no longer exists. The row also interferes with the sorting of the table, remember this is a featured list, so there should be no issues with the sorting. I'm not going to revert your revert, but hopefully you could reconsider your position. NapHit (talk) 03:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If sorting is the main issue, I'm certain that it is technically possible to fix that, based on my previous work at List of Watford F.C. seasons (not easy, but possible). I'll have a go at it one this discussion has concluded. My position on the row is that it is a proportionate measure for as long as the page is not protected. While it won't stop those who refuse to accept the status quo, it will at least stop those who believe they are updating in good faith – we can confidently assume that those who edit in spite of it are wilfully ignoring the row. The ideal solution would be semi-protection, but this is regularly asked for and regularly declined. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 07:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could be worth dropping User:Mark Arsten a message. He extended the original protection and if I recall correctly said he would extend it again if the editing persisted after the block's expiry. NapHit (talk) 01:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all :).

I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :).

You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at okeyeswikimedia.org and I'll set you up with an account :).

If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an office hours session on Monday 17 December at 23:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office ^connect. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WaitingForConnection. You are invited to join WikiProject Brands, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of brands and brand-related topics. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be useful if you could find time to post your views on this thread at Footy relating to how we should be wording stub tags, as it could do with more input really before changes are made to a lot of articles. Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 10:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC for TAFI is nearing it's conclusion, and it's time to hammer out the details over at the project's talk page. There are several details of the project that would do well with wider input and participation, such as the article nomination and selection process, the amount and type of articles displayed, the implementation on the main page and other things. I would like to invite you to comment there if you continue to be interested in TAFI's development. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 02:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	Hello, WaitingForConnection. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's article for improvement. If you're interested in participating, please add your name to the list of members. Happy editing! Northamerica1000(talk) 23:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion ongoing at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors#Errors in In the news. GiantSnowman 09:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. There are several threads at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy that might interest you including Newyorkbrad's suggestion that temporary page ban may be a better option than blocking for 3RR, SlimVirgin's suggested process for community removal of the block button (and other buttons) from admins where appropriate, and Pesky's proposed expunging of bad blocks from victims' block logs. If you know anyone else who might be interested, please let them know. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Understand I'm not really making a recommendation, whatever people want in an RfC is fine ... but can you be more specific (here is fine)? Would there be a downside to getting consensus (for instance) that, whatever else Jimbo does, we don't want him to handpick admins, or handpick people who will pick the admins? - Dank (push to talk) 21:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. As big as this issue is, as controversial as those specific prospects are, and as significant any decision Jimbo might take could prove, the very decision to take unilateral action trumps all of that. We have always known that he reserved the right to step in if consensus proved incapable of solving something central to the way we operate, but assumed that day would never come. Should he cross that line, he must have an entirely free hand, because once he takes matters into his own hands, he has no option but to succeed. If he fails once, our emergency override in the event of paralysis might be gone forever. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 23:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not questioning, I just don't understand what you're saying. If it's incredibly important that he not fail, shouldn't we help him not fail? - Dank (push to talk) 00:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of unilateral action is to say "community consensus has failed, this is the last resort". If things have got to that stage, I don't understand the logic of trying to bind him – guide him if you prefer – by traditional measures of consensus. In those circumstances a free-for-all, such as the one we have now, is the correct approach. If he is determined to put his wiki-neck on the line over this matter, he needs to independently weigh up the strength of feeling and reasoning on all of the possible ways forward, alongside how effective he things each method would be, and come to what he thinks will be a workable solution.

If we start going down the road of deciding what Jimbo can and can't do, I'm 100% certain that sooner or later we would get consensus to prevent Jimbo doing anything. That despite a very clear consensus that we must do something, and a widely held view that we are unlikely to do anything. It would admittedly prove what we already know (that the consensus model has failed in this instance), but at the same it would severely weaken Jimbo's hand. 08:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I follow now, but it just underlines for me that if Jimbo steps in, the results will almost certainly be bad. - Dank (push to talk) 12:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all; another newsletter.

• If you're not already aware, a Request for Comment on the future of the Article Feedback Tool on the English-language Wikipedia is open; any and all comments, regardless of opinion and perspective, are welcome.
• Our final round of hand-coding is complete, and the results can be found here; thanks to everyone who took part!
• We've made test deployments to the German and French-language projects; if you are aware of any other projects that might like to test out or use the tool, please let me know :).
• Developers continue to work on the upgraded version of the feedback page that was discussed during our last office hours session, with a prototype ready for you to play around with in a few weeks.

That's all for now! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeking wider input on a proposed redesign of the nomination process over at TAFI. The current method could benefit from some streamlining and usability tweaks. If you feel so inclined, I'd like to hear your opinion on the matter. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 23:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few months ago, you participated in a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Did you know about Gibraltar-related DYKs on the Main Page. I am proposing that the temporary restrictions on such DYKs, which were imposed in September 2012, should be lifted and have set out a case for doing so at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Gibraltar-related DYKs. If you have a view on this, please comment at that page. Prioryman (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, In the past few days, Today's Articles for Improvement has gone through many changes. We have modified the process for adding Nominations, which now uses a template/table format and requires only 3 supports for an article to be selected. There is now a Holding Area, where articles are kept for discussion before being selected for a particular date. The TAFI schedule now involves adding 10 articles weekly, chosen from a variety of topics. We now have an Accomplishments page where we will be highlighting our older TAFI articles which have now become quality articles on the Wikipedia. The Project is almost ready to hit the Main Page, where it will be occupying a section just below "Did you Know" section. Three article from the weekly batch of 7 will be displayed randomly at the main page, the format of which can be seen at the Main Page sandbox. There is also an ongoing discussion at the Main page talk over the final details before we can go forward with the Main Page. If you have any ideas to discuss with everyone else, please visit the TAFI Talk Page and join in on the ongoing discussions there. You are also invited to add new nominations, and comment and suport on the current ones at the Nominations page. You can also help by helping in the discussions at the Holding Area. Above all, please do not forget to improve our current Today's Articles for Improvement Thank you and hoping to have some productive work from you at the Project, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] (From the TAFI team)

Hey all.

As promised, we've built a set of improvements to the Article Feedback Tool, which can be tested through the links here. Please do take the opportunity to play around with it, let me know of any bugs, and see what you think :).

A final reminder that the Request for Comment on whether AFT5 should be turned on on Wikipedia (and how) is soon to close; for those of you who have not submitted an opinion or !voted, it can be found here.

Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Other contributors of note include:

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

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

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

A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 01:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you started the article. I'm starting to work on the match reports. The tables are in the article. Feel free to join in when you have the time. Kingjeff (talk) 04:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it looks like the IP you've sent a warning to is a "shared" one... I'ver just opened Wikipedia without logging in (just to read, as I usually do) and found a "one-time only warning". I don't know who is the subject of the edited biography, and usually logon to edit articles. Please keep in mind that IP addresses as they can be "shared" or allocated dynamically by an ISP, hence blocking them may not be the solution to a "rogue"(non-identified) editor. Kind regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.12.23 (talk) 11:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just listed 2011 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final for peer review in preparation for it to go through WP:FA review shortly after the peer review closes. You've helped with Seattle Sounders FC related articles in the past, so I wanted to contact you. I believe the article covers the subject in a complete manner and is well referenced. My biggest concern is the quality of the prose. So please, if you have a moment, read the article and provide suggestions/feedback on the review page. --SkotyWA^T_C 00:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been that active lately, but just posting to confirm that I've read this message. I'm planning to do a relatively large amount of wiki-work towards the end of next week, so will take a look then. All the best, —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 17:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Thanks for the response and thanks in advance for taking a look at the article next week. --SkotyWA^T_C 21:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you have a good one!! Rooting for ya hornets. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate. I'm crushed, not so much the defeat, but the fact that we were so poor that you'll struggle to find a Watford fan that doesn't think Palace deserved it on the day.

The internet has been a surprising source of comfort since I got back. The various Udinese jibes make me feel better and better about my the future of my club, when I think about the British alternative. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 22:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This week's article for improvement is
Remote sensing
Please be bold and help improve it!

posted by Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an opt-in section for those interested in receiving TAFI notifications on the project's main page, located here. Those that don't opt-in won't receive this message again. Also, a revised notification template has been created, located at Template:TAFI weekly selections notice. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]