Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2009/11

Statement

The judges are expected to keep the participants both within the letter and spirit of the rules.

At the moment, the rules seem to be getting bent left and right.

I have made every attempt to participate ethically, take only such credits as I feel I deserve, and expected other participants to hold themselves to similar rules.

Requests to claim points from May in the final round (accepted until I, having noticed the start of the discussion, but not the approval, made a fuss here), done behind other contestant's backs; multiple passes over large sets of articles to add categories individually, and other such things are not in the spirit of the rules.

I can accept that there may be a few more tenuous connections. However, it now appears the judges are encouraging attempts to try claiming things under whatever grounds you might want. I myself, after discussing what I thought was a fair retribution for work (3 out of 9 FSes in a set I did massive documentation work on) have been told to take all 9.

I'm having extreme doubts about the cup, and would like assurance from the judges they intend to scrutinise all contributions - including mine - ask questions, and make decisions, not by the letter of the rules, but the spirit.

Otherwise, I would ask to be withdrawn. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 17:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

In my mind, everything you just said should be pipelinked to User:IMatthew. I'm sorry that you feel I've let you down. Like I said above, it's hard to make these kind of decisions alone. That's why I'm not the only judge, to allow more opinions in and feedback. Unfortunately Sasata, I won't be allowing you to take credit for the GA from May. When you asked me about taking credit for something you hadn't submitted yet, I wasn't aware you meant from May. For the remained of the competition, I promise I will keep a close eye on submissions. The final four, just know that you may only take credit for Good/Featured content that you contributed to, for it to pass it's nomination. Creating an article for an image or sound to go in doesn't count. If you contributed to the image or sound before it was featured, you receive credit. If not, you don't. Sorry, Shoemaker and everyone else. iMatthew ^talk at 19:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Top 4 has become a Top 5

Due to the fact that Theleftorium removed items from his submission page that he did not significantly work on, he has dropped to only 4 points below Durova. He offered his spot to Durova, to which it seems she accepted. However, after talking with Garden, we agree it's not very fair to eliminate Theleftorium due to a 4 point difference! We're going to allow both Durova and Theleftorium compete in the final part of the round. Good luck to all! iMatthew ^talk at 19:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed the validity of this message...  GARDEN  20:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful! Thanks all. :) Durova³²⁰ 21:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, good call, and I tip my proverbial hat to Lefty. Game on! Sasata (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Winter WikiCup permission

Hi, I'm here tyo ask permission to create the Winter WikiCup a WikiCup created for the winter. It'll have the same rules as the WikiCup, but will operate on November 23 through January 15 (or October 21 through December 25). The reason I'm asking for permission is to help those who want to do the WikiCup all year and to know I can create it with the judges agreeing on it. So what do you think? Please respond ASAP.Secret Saturdays (talk) 00:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh, no. The point of not having the WikiCup all year round is to give users a break from the editing. If we held this all year long, we would burn out our contestants to the point where some of them might even leave. It's a terrible idea, IMO. iMatthew ^talk at 00:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Halloween DYKs

Some of the fungal DYKs I've written are being sequestered for use on Oct 31st. Just letting everyone know, I plan to take "early credit" for these, once they have been approved. Sasata (talk) 16:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

If they're used on the 31st, add them then. No earlier. The round doesn't close until the last minute of that day, so you can add it after it's appeared on the main page. iMatthew ^talk at 18:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Sasata (talk) 19:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Should I claim?

Both were fairly easy documentation tasks, little more. My inclination is not to claim them, but I might rescind on this if everyone else is claiming similar. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 213 FCs served} 04:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

New Judge!

Hey guys. In light of Garden and THO's absences, and the likelyhood that THO will not return to judging next year, the three of us have agreed on User:J Milburn as our newest judge. J has agreed to join our team, so make him feel welcome; and just know that if you need help with something, and the rest of us aren't around, he can help you. :) iMatthew ^talk at 19:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

*waves* J Milburn (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

...Sound of large crowd booing...

I mean, welcome! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks J... apologies to everyone for not being able to judge as much as I'd like... I'm sure J will be a fitting replacement for us though :P  GARDEN  19:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Newsletter wot I prepared

I thought we ought to have a newsletter. There was a half-completed one I discovered (didn't have jumps finished, etc),which was never released. I've finished it up below. The judges may feel free to copy-paste this into Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/33 (replacing the half-finished one, and have it distributed.

It's as accurate as I could make it, which, given the number of apologies we've had over mistakes in the newsletter, is probably as good as the judges could do. =P Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 213 FCs served} 20:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

FP freebies

When the WikiCup began I made a commitment not to claim points for any images I nominated unless I had actually edited them. Shoemaker's Holiday made the same commitment also. It is possible to gain nominator credits for "freebies": FP quality images from other websites that require no other effort than upload, captioning, and nomination. If Shoemaker and I had done that we would be several thousand points ahead of everyone else, but the Cup wouldn't have been very sporting.

There could be reasonable exceptions such as translation for a text FP nomination. If anyone wants to try here's a newspaper cover from the Mexican revolution.[1]

Today I was going through historic archives and located a two sided campaign button from the US Presidential campaign of 1860. It was the sort of thing that could have been restored, but in relation to the text at a photography article it was better not to.

Similar questions have arisen before, and I haven't wanted to cause strife by pointing any fingers, but it appears that one editor who had points subtracted for "freebie" FPs before is again nominating and claiming point credit for that type of material. Am I mistaken? And can we have a clear statement on this please?

I am perfectly willing to not claim credit for the Lincoln and Hamlin campaign button; it was something that turned up in passing during a search for other content. But we deserve a level playing field. On the whole, it would be better if the Cup finals were decided upon something other than one's vigor at archive-delving and the patience of uninvolved FP reviewers. Durova³²² 19:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with Durova as far as Featured pictures are concerned (though it took me a little bit to decide on a strict no credit: At first, I considered claiming 1/2 of them, but stopped that by the end of round 1), I have some featured sounds where I primarily served in a role of researcher, figuring out documentation for a poorly-documented file (and sometimes locating and uploading it as well) in order to allow it to be effectively used on Wikipedia. To whit:

• File:Jeanette Ekornaasvaag - Jules Massenet - Werther - "Va! laisse couler mes larmes".ogg - Found sound, researched to discover which opera it was from, uploaded to Wikipedia.
• File:Giovanni_Giuseppe_Cambini_-_Quintet_No._1_in_Bb_major,_movement_1.ogg (and 8 others in the set) - researched the files, set up the file description page, found information on dates of composition, etc. Switched to better filenames (we were using a duplicate set with appallingly bad naming schemes), copied over information about performers, removed copyvio from new file description page, found sources describing them. I asked for three credits from this set, was told to take all 9.
• File:Ludwig van Beethoven - Paul Rosenthal - Edward Auer - Violin Sonata No. 8 in G major - 3. Allegro vivace.ogg‎ (and two others in set) - Spotted false identification of files in this set as three different compositions, when it was, in fact, three movements of one composition. Research to assure I was getting identification right (mainly checking against a score), reuploaded with correct identifications, documentation, fixed usage of files, general work in that line.

I am happy to retract or take only partial credit for all such points, I merely ask someone say which ones, and state why. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 21:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Only claim credit for FPs that you edited and worked on before you nominated it for FPC. Any freebees shouldn't be counted, IMHO. Shoemaker, with that set of 9 FSs, I think it'd be most fair if you didn't take credit for any of them, being that you didn't work on any of the sounds, just the description pages. Sorry if that's not the answer you were looking for, iMatthew ^talk at 16:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll remove the set of 9 as soon as A. other people have the freebies remove. B. You make up your damn mind,as that's the third completely different decision you've made on it. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 213 FCs served} 17:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

You were the one who suggested I tighten up the requirements to claim credit. Now I do that, and you get upset? iMatthew ^talk at 17:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I asked for you to make sure that the contest is judged fairly. Tightening it up for me and me alone, by removing all credit for something on a highly neglected process that needs more participants, which I spent over 6 hours on documenting, which I was only able to document well because I'm actually quite good at that task, and which you've given two other answers on already, while leaving every fucking other person's score untouched does not promote fairness, it just means that perhaps I was wrong to presume the judging problems had actually been fixed. Rules are still being applied willy-nilly. It's interesting that a thread on featured pictures (a well-apportioned process) ended up with you deciding to attack Featured sounds (a process in desperate need of participants), and you removing points from me, who has been nothing but open about his work, before looking at a single other person. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 213 FCs served} 17:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Infact, as we speak, I'm going through every submissions page and making a list of the items that I'm not so sure should be counted. iMatthew ^talk at 17:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

So why on earth did you onl announce the one thing? Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 213 FCs served} 17:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about all of the delays

Hi guys, Garden and THO have notified me that they're really busy IRL and have become increasingly inactive. Being that I have a life as well, things are going a lot slower (newsletter for example) than usual. It's likely I'm going to ask someone to step in and help out while the other two judges are away. Cheers, iMatthew ^talk at 21:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed. I'll likely be replacing Wikipedia with folio-making over the next like 5 months. Fun.  GARDEN  21:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah well. Good luck with all that (I'll reply since I'm passing as they're probably all very busy). --candle•wicke 20:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Could we have an answer to the question above about FP freebies? Durova³²² 16:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup mentioned at AN/I

We're at AN/I. Don't worry, it's not a bad thing, and this is by no means "canvassing" (there really isn't anything to canvass). Opinions welcome.  GARDEN  21:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Heyyy, we're at AN too. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#DYK_and_Stakhanovite_editing —Ed (talk • contribs) 01:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

I'd like to throw out an idea... How about we declare this competition a 5-way tie, with Wikipedia as the ultimate winner? I can see several advantages:

1. eliminates petty squabbling about points
2. makes life easier for judges, and contestants
3. would be in line with the "spirit" of the friendly competition this was supposed to be
4. we could then focus energies on hammering out a much tighter set of rules for next year's event, which will be larger and even more competitive

Am I missing anything? Sasata (talk) 18:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Nah, I'd rather see this competition finish before we start working out the next one, and I'd like to see this one finish it's course. iMatthew ^talk at 18:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me this would be a way to make this competition finish rather quickly, and eliminate the arguing that's bound to happen as a result of the post below :) Sasata (talk) 18:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not looking for arguments below. I'm looking for explanations, in the interest of a decrease in arguing and an increase in fairness. iMatthew ^talk at 18:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

For the competition to have truly been "fair", the rules should have been more explicitly defined at the start, and adhered to consistently throughout the duration of the competition. Obviously, if we make these point adjustments you're suggesting now, less than three weeks prior to the end this will leave Shoe at a severe disadvantage. I'm offering a way for us all to shake hands, say "good game", and walk away feeling good about the astounding amount of effort we have all put into improving the encyclopedia. Do other competitors have an opinion about this? Sasata (talk) 18:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Why should you get credit for these?

Hi guys. To make sure this final part of the round is completely fair, I went looking through all of your submissions. I've compiled individual lists of the items I found on your pages that I'm not sure of why you deserve credit for them. Below my lists, please explain why you deserve credit for them. Note that nomination somebody else's work, even if it passes, is not an acceptable reason

Durova

• DYK: Randall's Thumb - This seems to be all you did with the article. That's not enough to claim credit for writing or expanding it.
• DYK: Hymn Before Sunrise - I don't see that you've done anything by looking at the history.
• DYK: Bartolommeo Coriolano - Same as above.
• FP: File:Walter Johnson and Calvin Coolidge shake hands FINAL.jpg - Same as above.
• FP: File:Ed Walsh portrait 1911.jpg - Same as above.

No objection to subtracting credit for the three DYKs. The two FPs, though, were both extensive labor and it's an unpleasant surprise to see them challenged. Blogged about both of those restorations, including the prescient words "One of my biggest worries with image restoration is that somebody will come along and assume the whole thing was done in fifteen minutes with a couple of filters and plugins."[2][3] Durova³²² 18:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright thank you. I will remove the DYKs, and due to your explanation, I'll allow you credit for the FP's. iMatthew ^talk at 18:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima

• FP: File:Our New First Lord at Sea.png - It looks like Shoemaker did the work, and you only nominated it.

It was a previous nominee that failed. It failed over encyclopedic value. I redid the caption, clarified where it was produced, and worked on the encyclopedic article. The image was not a photograph or a portrait, but an image from a periodical. They are accepted based primarily on their encyclopedic merit than their actual looks. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, anyone can remove this if they want. I don't really mind. I only nominated it and worked on it to try and entice Shoemaker's Holiday back into working on images, as he felt that some of his images were being neglected or failed or bad reasons. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Sasata

• FP: File:Yellow mite (Tydeidae), Lorryia formosa.jpg - Working on the article the image goes in doesn't replace working on the image itself. Did you touch the image at all?

Nope. Sasata (talk) 18:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to remove it, in that case. Thank you. iMatthew ^talk at 19:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Theleftorium

• I don't see anything alarming here.
  • Does that mean I win? ;-) Theleftorium 18:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
    • No, silly! :P iMatthew ^talk at 18:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

In conclusion

So like I said, it would be very helpful if you guys could give an explanation as to why I shouldn't remove these items from your submission pages. I'm sorry I did this, but I want to keep this completely fair, especially in the last round. iMatthew ^talk at 18:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Sasata has two images at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Submissions/Sasata that they did not edit themselves (which is clear from comparing the originals to the uploaded version). Do these count or do these not? Ottava Rima (talk) 21:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see, these should not be counted. I will contact Sasata and double check. J Milburn (talk) 21:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

They've been simply uploaded and nominated from a different website. They can't possibly be counted.  GARDEN  21:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, no one made any response to my statement about the image I proxied for Shoemaker's Holiday. As I said, I have no problem if people remove it. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 21:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Now to clarify, if I crop and do a color adjustment or brightness adjustment on the next FP submissions, is that enough for you guys? How many photoshop manipulations are required for a FP to qualify? Sasata (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The modified files going through FPC are generally rejuvenations or restorations. This takes a lot more work than uploading from some website. I appreciate the effort to find these was likely quite high too, but the photos going through FPC are usually the work of Wikipedians and not uploaded under the CC. (Imagine getting a Flickr image through FPC? It's the same idea.)  GARDEN  21:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I see. It would have been rather nice to have been apprised of this "rule", say 9 months ago, rather than 2-weeks prior to the end of the competition. Thanks for the clarification. Sasata (talk) 21:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it was ever written anywhere (I don't actually know if we have a rulebook...) but I thought it was always known- there were long discussions about "drive-by nominations" counting for nothing, and this is comparable. J Milburn (talk) 22:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Perhaps, but the fact that I had several "upload-only" FP submissions from previous rounds and they were never questioned or challenged led me to believe that they were ok; now, suddenly, they aren't. But as I said in my deleted conversation with Durova, the points don't really matter, so... back to work. Sasata (talk) 22:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I really don't like to do stuff like this to anyone, particularly this late on, but you must realise where we're coming from? The rules hopefully will be a lot better defined for next year's contest. I really do apologise profusely for the obvious anger felt here.  GARDEN  22:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Not anger, annoyance. There's far more important things to get angry about than imaginary points in an internet contest. :)

Yeah, you got what I meant though. Sorry.  GARDEN  22:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

5 or 4

Hi, are these newsletter refs to a top 5: "In this round of the WikiCup, the bottom three contestants of the top eight were eliminated on September 30th, while the top five are continuing for an additional month. On October 31, a winner will be announced.

Top 5" Room for a late late wild card?

ϢereSpielChequers 20:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

There was a top 5. Shoemaker dropped out making it a top 4. iMatthew ^talk at 20:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Add "Upload Picture" as a way to earn points.

I propose that we could add "Upload Pictures" as a way to earn points but have that points low (such as 1-2.5) and that pictures from our sister projects won't be allowed. Please respond ASAP. Secret Saturdays (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

No. That's just a bad idea. (This a fast enough reply for you?) :-) iMatthew ^talk at 21:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry SS but iMatt's right. This would just be asking for copyvios.  GARDEN  22:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

In all fairness... how is it any different than offering points for DYKs? People could just as easily copy and paste stuff and call it an article. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, free images should almost all be uploaded at Commons, and most of the images on Commons are not used on Wikipedia- this would mean we were giving points for something that does not improve Wikipedia. If you're uploading images directly to Wikipedia, they're probably non-free, and if there's one thing we should not be encouraging, it's uploading non-free content. Basically, no, points for uploading images is not a good idea. Many articles are already over-illustrated anyway- we could easily upload a load of images of where we live, a garden snail, grass or sparrows. Not useful. J Milburn (talk) 22:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

This was suggested before, I believe. You can get your .1 of a point by adding your picture uploaded at commons into an article. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 23:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Randolph Caldecott

Another Cup finalist has challenged my illustration restorations, so posting proactively regarding a project currently underway. Awedewit, who is writing a doctoral dissertation on children's literature, is planning to use three of my restorations for a class she is teaching. Wikipedia currently has no featured picture of Randolph Caldecott's work, so I am restoring this image as a courtesy to her. When completed this will run at FPC, but if the judges object to awarding Cup credit for this that's okay. Durova³³¹ 02:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I am concerned that picture book illustrations are specifically being highlighted as somehow not requiring the same amount of work as other kinds of images to restore. This seems to be perpetuating the false notion that picture books are somehow "simple" because they are associated with children (see The Norton Anthlogy of Children's Literature, "Picture Books", for an extensive explanation of why this is not the case). Considering that 3 of the 6 19th-century images I am using in my introductory lecture on picture books tomorrow have been restored by Durova, I think we can say that she is providing an invaluable service to the encyclopedia that goes beyond "pictures for Wikipedia". She is also providing excellent files that can be used in other contexts. Awadewit (talk) 02:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Possibility of limiting WikiCup members

I propose that we should creat a limit to how much members will sign up. It's clear that we have more participants than before, so we should limit it between 165-200. Secret Saturdays (talk) 02:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• No. Another bad idea, quite frankly. Where would that even begin to make sense? iMatthew ^talk at 02:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The idea of the Cup is to inspire more content work, so more people is a good thing. Durova³⁴⁰ 05:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Judge needed for 2010

Hi everyone. Due to the large amount of competitors we have next year, we're looking for at least one, if not two more judges for the WikiCup. As I've mentioned, Thehelpfulone will not be returning next year, and we've hired J Milburn to take his spot for the remainder of this year as well as next year. But, we still would like to expand our team to four. Anybody that's interested in helping out next year by judging can leave a message here or on my talk page. Regards, iMatthew ^talk at 18:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I really would like to nominate myself for the job. It would be easier for me than competing. I am strong on editing contributions and feel my opinion would be useful. I don't mind if I get opposed, but I'd love to be a judge for 2010.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 18:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, I start my 2nd Semester of college on January 25, so it wouldn't be fair that I have to fight 100 people and make classes.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 18:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm intersted in being a judge but I want to participate, so how about when I drop out, I can judge. Secret Saturdays (talk) 18:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not think you are quite ready to be a judge at the moment- it's possible that there will be some difficult decisions to make, and I'm not certain you're up to it. Maybe in 2011. J Milburn (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. Signing up with your sockpuppets and lying about it shows me I can't really trust you. I'm sorry, but like J said, maybe in 2011! :) iMatthew ^talk at 19:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll help as well, if needed. I'm fairly likely to withdraw my name from next year's participation list anyway. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

So... I haven't caught you on IRC since, iMatt. Is JC going to be the final judge, or do you still need someone? —Ed (talk • contribs) 05:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

We're still considering different options. However we're focusing more on discussing closing this round before we finish discussing the new judge. iMatthew ^talk at 10:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Eh, so I am invisible, Ed? :P Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 12:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

iMatt: gotcha, sounds good.

Mitchy: No, I didn't read the entire thread (only iMatt's opening and JC's last). :P —Ed (talk • contribs) 13:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The juggernaut

... of FP points cometh... it is unstoppable. A early congratulations from me on your Wikicup victory Durova (although it was Wikipedia who was the real winner, dontcha think?). I am now returning to "regular" editing, and look forward to next year's cup, and Durova's retirement :) Sasata (talk) 03:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh...and I was looking forward to getting killed by an onslaught of exotic toadstools. Looked like it'd be a rush to the finish. Especially because I kinda slagged off at the end to make textile arts stuff. Durova³⁴⁰ 05:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The time of the end of the Round and Contest...

Just to remind you all, the round ends tonight at 0:00 (UTC). You may not submit any content after that time, even though the bot doesn't update until an hour later. iMatthew ^talk at 19:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Over!

The 2009 WikiCup is now over! As soon as the bot makes it's next update, you'll see a new announcement. Awards and the final newsletter will be given out tomorrow, so get ready! Congratulations to all! iMatthew ^talk at 00:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I should win the award for top user with the numbers "0422" in their name. -- No TV and no beer make Scorpion0422 something something 00:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I like Juliancolton0422 deserves that award. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 00:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Durova wins!

Congratulations to Durova, 2009 WikiCup Queen! :) iMatthew ^talk at 00:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Durova³⁵¹ 01:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there was ever any doubt. Congratulations. -- No TV and no beer make Scorpion0422 something something 01:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations Durova, you truly deserved it! :) Theleftorium 09:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Lot of congratulations for winning!!!!!!!!!! (are you mexican?) - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 12:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. :) No, I'm not Mexican. Just live next door (San Diego). Durova³⁵¹ 15:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Literature is the greatest ever!

Redirect to clown? ;) Durova³⁵¹ 01:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Literature beat Mushrooms, Storms, Roads, Wrestling, Simpsons, etc etc etc. Woooooooo! Ottava Rima (talk) 01:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• A picture is worth 1000 words, and that's easily 4 or 5 points worth of mainspace edits. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • If you want to talk about words, find, give her 50,000 words. My articles combined were far more than that. 7 FAs (almost 8), 27 GAs (almost 31) and 61 DYK (almost 70) are definitely over 100,000 words total. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 01:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Your work has been outstanding, Ottava. 'Scuse me while I scuffle up a barnstar to express it. Durova³⁵¹ 01:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
      • LOL, it better not be clowns. I would create a barnstar for you but I am technologically inept and things don't like to work for me. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Congratulations to you too Ottava! Theleftorium 09:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
          • Congrats again. --Yowuza yadderhouse |meh 12:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Mexico flag officially retired

In Durova's honor, we're retiring the Mexico flag. The Mexico flag will never again be used by another WikiCup contestant. Congratulations again Durova! iMatthew ^talk at 01:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Awards/Newsletter coming soon, New Judge announcement!

• As the title suggests, the awards and newsletter are coming out soon (hopefully by tonight).
• We mentioned a few threads up that we were looking for a new judge for 2010. We really appreciate the offers placed by those above, and Garden, J Milburn, and I have come to agree on User:the ed17 as our fourth and final judge for 2010 (THO is not returning, as I've previously mentioned). Welcome Ed! :) iMatthew ^talk at 20:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Source of stubs the need creation, possible WikiCup points?

I am currently working to improve the dermatology-related content on wikipedia, and thought maybe those of you who are looking to score points in the next session of WikiCup could help yourselves and the dermatology task force at the same time. Currently, we at WP:DERM are working on the Bolognia push 2009, and there are still a lot of stubs to be made. Perhaps some of you would consider helping us with this effort, edits which I am sure could count towards your WikiCup standings? Just an idea I thought I would through out there. ---kilbad (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)