[go: nahoru, domu]

Jump to content

User talk:Calmer Waters: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
MiszaBot III (talk | contribs)
m Robot: Archiving 2 threads (older than 30d) to User talk:Calmer Waters/Archive 5.
Line 80: Line 80:
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! <small>If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from [[Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send]].</small> [[User:J Milburn|J Milburn]] ([[User talk:J Milburn|talk]] • [[Special:Emailuser/J Milburn|email]]) and [[User:The ed17|The ed17]] ([[User talk:The ed17|talk]] • [[Special:Emailuser/The ed17|email]]) 00:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
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! <small>If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from [[Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send]].</small> [[User:J Milburn|J Milburn]] ([[User talk:J Milburn|talk]] • [[Special:Emailuser/J Milburn|email]]) and [[User:The ed17|The ed17]] ([[User talk:The ed17|talk]] • [[Special:Emailuser/The ed17|email]]) 00:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
<!-- EdwardsBot 0453 -->
<!-- EdwardsBot 0453 -->

== Please take a look at this article ==

I reviewed your vast experience and wanted to contact you about helping to resolve a dispute. I'm being teamed up against by a group of self-avowed libertarians. I don't care that they are libertarians (or if you are) except for the fact they are using their ideology to skew the Koch Industries article. When I post positive things about Koch, they don't blink an eye, but if I ''dare'' put up anything critical, it gets deleted and frowned upon without balance. I'm trying to round up some disinterested third party input so I'm not getting steamrolled by biased editors. My goal is to make the article more informative and encyclopedic and that's it. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Koch_Industries#Does_this_article_need_a_criticism_section.3F Here's the current critical part of the Talk Page.] Thank you. [[User:Cowicide|Cowicide]] ([[User talk:Cowicide|talk]]) 20:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:30, 21 February 2013

Archive 1 (June 2009 - December 2009)
Archive 2 (December 2009 - April 2010)
Archive 3 (April 2010 - June 2011)
Archive 4 (June 2011 - Current)

AFC Backlog

Articles for Creation urgently needs YOUR help!

Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 1034 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our Help Desk.

Do you have what it takes?
  1. Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
  2. Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not?
  3. Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions?
  4. Are you autoconfirmed?
  5. Can you review submissions based on their individual merits?

If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions.

PS: we have a great AFC helper script at User:Timotheus Canens/afchelper4.js which helps in reviewing in just few edits easily!

We would greatly appreciate your help. Currently, only a small handful of users are reviewing articles. Any help, even if it's just 2 or 3 reviews, it would be extremely beneficial.
On behalf of the Articles for Creation project,
TheSpecialUser TSU

September 2012

Hello, Calmer Waters. You have new messages at JohnInDC's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Holiday cheer

Holiday Cheer
Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be a newbie, a good friend, someone you have had disagreements with in the past, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS

Madonna

WikiCup 2013 January newsletter

Signups are now closed; we have our final 127 contestants for this year's competition. 64 contestants will make it to the next round at the end of February, but we're already seeing strong scoring compared to previous years. Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) currently leads, with 358 points. At this stage in 2012, the leader (Irish Citizen Army Grapple X (submissions)) had 342 points, while in 2011, the leader had 228 points. We also have a large number of scorers when compared with this stage in previous years. Florida 12george1 (submissions) was the first competitor to score this year, as he was last year, with a detailed good article review. Some other firsts:

Featured articles, portals and topics, as well as good topics, are yet to feature in the competition.

This year, the bonus points system has been reworked, with bonus points on offer for old articles prepared for did you know, and "multiplier" points reworked to become more linear. For details, please see Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. There have been some teething problems as the bot has worked its way around the new system, but issues should mostly be ironed out- please report any problems to the WikiCup talk page. Here are some participants worthy of note with regards to the bonus points:

  • United States Ed! (submissions) was the first to score bonus points, with Portland-class cruiser, a good article.
  • Australia Hawkeye7 (submissions) has the highest overall bonus points, as well as the highest scoring article, thanks to his work on Enrico Fermi, now a good article. The biography of such a significant figure to the history of science warrants nearly five times the normal score.
  • Chicago HueSatLum (submissions) claimed bonus points for René Vautier and Nicolas de Fer, articles that did not exist on the English Wikipedia at the start of the year; a first for the WikiCup. The articles were eligible for bonus points because of fact they were both covered on a number of other Wikipedias.

Also, a quick mention of British Empire The C of E (submissions), who may well have already written the oddest article of the WikiCup this year: did you know that the Fucking mayor objected to Fucking Hell on the grounds that there was no Fucking brewery? The gauntlet has been thrown down; can anyone beat it?

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 (talkemail) and The ed17 (talkemail) 00:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at this article

I reviewed your vast experience and wanted to contact you about helping to resolve a dispute. I'm being teamed up against by a group of self-avowed libertarians. I don't care that they are libertarians (or if you are) except for the fact they are using their ideology to skew the Koch Industries article. When I post positive things about Koch, they don't blink an eye, but if I dare put up anything critical, it gets deleted and frowned upon without balance. I'm trying to round up some disinterested third party input so I'm not getting steamrolled by biased editors. My goal is to make the article more informative and encyclopedic and that's it. Here's the current critical part of the Talk Page. Thank you. Cowicide (talk) 20:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]