User talk:Tomcat7/2013/July

WikiCup 2013 June newsletter

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.

Round 3 saw a number of contributions of note. 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 Hawkeye7 (submissions) 102 and 72 points respectively, while 72 points were awarded to 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, Casliber (submissions) and Sasata (submissions) being awarded 180 points each for their featured article on Boletus luridus.

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) 10:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Fyodor Dostoyevsky

Hi. As there is some discrepancy between the sources and the article I have put a "disputed accuracy" tag on the article, and put the review on hold. If you feel you can clean up the article in a reasonable space of time (and I will help out when I can), then I am OK with keeping the review open. But if you'd prefer to take a bit more time, then I'll close the review as not listed, and you can renominate it when the work has been done. Let me know what you want to do. Regards SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi again. I has closed the review as not listed. I have also replaced the accuracy disputed tag, as the accuracy of the article has not been checked and improved. I understand that you are not comfortable with this, and I emphathise with your situation; however, the tag is designed to be helpful both to readers and to the general improvement of the article. It is not intended to be a slur on your work, and should not be taken that way. I respect and admire what you do, and it discomforts me not to be able to take the article all the way to Good Article status. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Kovy and SKA

Please don't add unsourced, premature information info a bio like that.--Львівське (говорити) 14:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Precious again

goals for fungi and great Russians
Thank you for creating and expanding articles to quality, on topics as diverse as a cathedral and an athlet, in addition to your series of fungi and some of the greatest Russians, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 189th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Otis Redding2.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Otis Redding2.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 07:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Gregory of Nyssa

I noticed you reversed my minor changes to the Gregory of Nyssa article. It's not standard practice in English to use capitals for pronouns that refer to God. You find it in some devotional works, but it has no place in an encyclopedia. And the use of the term "the Nyssen" to refer to Gregory also strikes me as obscure, and more appropriate to an ecclesiastical publication. DTOx (talk) 14:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Tomcat,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Vasily Perov - Портрет Ф.М.Достоевского - Google Art Project.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on August 14, 2013. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2013-08-13. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:33, 27 July 2013 (UTC)