Misplaced Pages

User talk:Wilhelmina Will/18: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< User talk:Wilhelmina Will Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:57, 22 November 2015 editMarc Kupper (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers10,447 edits →Your signature: new section← Previous edit Revision as of 23:13, 22 November 2015 edit undoWilhelmina Will (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers348,342 edits →Your signatureNext edit →
Line 656: Line 656:
* A distracting, confusing, or otherwise unsuitable signature may adversely affect other users. For example, some editors find that long formatting disrupts discourse on talk pages, or makes working in the edit window more difficult. * A distracting, confusing, or otherwise unsuitable signature may adversely affect other users. For example, some editors find that long formatting disrupts discourse on talk pages, or makes working in the edit window more difficult.
There's also ] though while your signature I suspect it's nowhere as long as whatever triggered the addition WP:SIGLENGTH. If band-aid opera is very meaningful to you then an alternative is to add something on your user page about that topic. Thanks. --]&#124;] 22:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC) There's also ] though while your signature I suspect it's nowhere as long as whatever triggered the addition WP:SIGLENGTH. If band-aid opera is very meaningful to you then an alternative is to add something on your user page about that topic. Thanks. --]&#124;] 22:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
:Duly noted, Mr. Kupper. ] (]) 23:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:13, 22 November 2015

Archiving icon
Archives

Each archive consists of roughly 100 messages, by header. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17


The Signpost: 15 July 2015

Sincere condolences.

Dear Mimi,
I am sure that, like me, all your Wikipedian friends will keep you and your family in their hearts and kindest thoughts at this difficult time for you. Remember that our nearest and dearest continue to live forever in the tender and loving care of our memories.
With love and kindest regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee. 18:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Patrick. Thank you very much. :) 1,2,3,4; Likely that you'll edit more; 5,6,7,8; Find you've stayed up really late! (talk) 23:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 July 2015

The Signpost: 29 July 2015

2015 GA Cup - Round 2

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - Round 2

Greetings, GA Cup competitors!

Wednesday saw the end of Round 1. The Rambling Man, who was eliminated during the first round in our last competition, earned an impressive 513 points, reviewed twice as many articles (26) as any other competitor. It was a tight race for second for first-time competitors BenLinus1214 and Tomandjerry211, who finished second and third with 243 and 224 points, respectively. Close behind was Wugapodes, who earned 205 points.

The change in our points system had an impact on scoring. It was easier to earn higher points, although the key to success didn't change from last time, which was choosing articles with older nomination dates. For example, most of the articles The Rambling Man reviewed were worth 18 points in the nomination date category, and he benefited from it. BenLinus1214 reviewed the longest article, A Simple Plan (at 26,536 characters, or 4,477 words), the 1994 film starring Bill Paxton, Billy Bob Thornton, and Bridget Fonda and directed by Sam Raimi, and earned all possible 5 points in that category.

After feedback from our participants, the judges slightly changed the rule about review length this time out. Shorter reviews are now allowed, as long as reviewers give nominators an opportunity to address their feedback. Shorter reviews are subject to the judges' discretion; the judges will continue their diligence as we continue the competition.

Despite having fewer contestants at the beginning of Round 1 than last time, 132 articles were reviewed, far more than the 117 articles that were reviewed in Round 1 of the inaugural GA Cup. All of us involved should be very proud of what we've accomplished thus far. The judges are certain that Round 2 will be just as successful.

16 contestants have moved onto Round 2 and have been randomly placed in 4 groups of 4, with the top 2 in each pool progressing to Round 3, as well as the top participant ("9th place") of all remaining competitors. Round 2 has already begun and will end on August 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 2 and the pools can be found here.

Good luck and remember to have fun!

Cheers from Dom497, Figureskatingfan, 3family6 and Jaguar, and MrWooHoo.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Gelechiidae tweaks

Hi Wilhelmina, as you might have noticed I didn't have much wiki-time last week, but I am now catching up with the articles you created. I have encountered a small problem in your template: you have 'Acrophiletis' in the name field of the taxobox for all new species you have created. Could you make sure you delete that from the next batches? Furthermore, would it be okay to make new species according to subfamily > tribe instead of alphabetical order of all Gelechiidae genera? That would make expanding them easier for me, since I wont have to jump from one end of the family to the other.. :) I was working on Coleotechnites (subfamily Gelechiinae; tribe Teleiodini) before you became active again. If you wouldn't mind continuing from there, that would be great..! Ruigeroeland (talk) 14:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, just noticed: if there is a genus which states: 'Selected species', the list of species is incomplete! You can find all (or most) species on funet. This is also the case for Aristotelia (moth), which is missing most of the described species. Ruigeroeland (talk) 14:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 August 2015

About Anguilla nebulosa page

Hi, glad to talk with you. I saw that you have created the page Anguilla nebulosa. But, I saw some revisions of this page that this article should be merged with Anguilla bengalensis. Fish Base stated that the species is A.nebulosa, but recent 2015 IUCN Red List stated that it is a synonym of A.bengalensis. I pasted article on A.nebulosa with A.bengalensis, but did not merge it. So it is up to you to further revised it. Thank You...

(talk) 08:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Hope this kitten cheers you up!

Hello there! Just passing by to offer you my condolences and hopefully cheer you up a bit! Let me know if there's anything I can do for you. Kindly,

FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 16:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, so very much! If only there was a worthy joke about a band-aid attending the opera... (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 August 2015

GOCE August 2015 newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors August 2015 Newsletter

July drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 24 people who signed up, 17 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

August blitz: The one-week April blitz, targeting biographical articles that have been tagged for copy editing for over a year, will run from August 16–22. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the article list on the blitz page. Sign up here!

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators, Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, KieranTribe, Miniapolis, and Pax85.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
sent by Jonesey95 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 August 2015

August 2015 GOCE blitz barnstar

The Minor Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to Wilhelmina Will for copy edits totaling between 1 and 1,999 words during the GOCE August 2015 Copy Editing Blitz. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! :) If only there was a worthy joke about a band-aid attending the opera... (talk) 03:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Gelechiini

Slowly working my way through the Gelechiini species. I added species to Prolita, would you mind making articles for those and then wait until I finish off the last batch? Should be done by tomorrow. Thanks! Ruigeroeland (talk) 12:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure thing! :) If only there was a worthy joke about a band-aid attending the opera... (talk) 09:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Wilhelmina, noticed your new batch. I will start on them as soon as possible, but I am currently sick (the flu I think). Could you wait until I catch up? Thanks! Ruigeroeland (talk) 12:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 August 2015

Potential admin

Hi, I notice you're on Misplaced Pages:List of administrator hopefuls. Misplaced Pages would benefit from more admins. If you have been editing for more than 12 months (preferably 24+ months), and have been editing fairly consistently for the past 6 months (preferably 12+ months) with at least 100 edits a month (this tool will help) - or an explanation for any gaps, and haven't been blocked in the past three years - or a good explanation for a recent block, don't have a recent history of edit warring or arguing with other editors, feel you can explain why you wish to be an admin, can demonstrate some understanding of Misplaced Pages's procedures and processes, or know where to go for guidance, and are confident enough to go through a RfA, please get in touch with me. We can talk about it some more, and if all looks OK, I'll nominate you. SilkTork 09:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so very much, but I really haven't felt up to such an adjustment in many years. Frankly, the only the reason I haven't ever removed myself from that list is because I may change my mind at some point. I'm grateful for your offer, nonetheless. :) If only there was a worthy joke about a band-aid attending the opera... (talk) 16:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
No worries. If you do change your mind, get in touch and we can have a chat. SilkTork 09:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 September newsletter

The finals for the 2015 Wikicup has now begun! Congrats to the 8 contestants who have survived to the finals, and well done and thanks to everyone who took part in rounds 3 and 4.

In round 3, we had a three-way tie for qualification among the wildcard contestants, so we had 34 competitors. The leader was by far Scotland Casliber (submissions) in Group B, who earned 1496 points. Although 913 of these points were bonus points, he submitted 15 articles in the DYK category. Second place overall was Philadelphia Coemgenus (submissions) at 864 points, who although submitted just 2 FAs for 400 points, earned double that amount for those articles in bonus points. Everyone who moved forward to Round 4 earned at least 100 points.

The scores required to move onto the semifinals were impressive; the lowest scorer to move onto the finals was 407, making this year's Wikicup as competitive as it's always been. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:

  1. Belarus Cas Liber (submissions), who is competing in his sixth consecutive Wikicup final, again finished the round in first place, with an impressive 1666 points in Pool B. Casliber writes about the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. A large bulk of his points this round were bonus points.
  2. Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points), second place both in Pool B and overall, earned the bulk of his points with FPs, mostly depicting currency.
  3. Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions), first in Pool A, came in third. His specialty is natural science articles; in Round 4, he mostly submitted articles about insects and botany. Five out of the six of the GAs he submitted were level-4 vital articles.
  4. Somerset Harrias (submissions), second in Pool A, took fourth overall. He tends to focus on articles about cricket and military history, specifically the 1640s First English Civil War.
  5. Washington, D.C. West Virginian (submissions), from Pool A, was our highest-scoring wildcard. West Virginia tends to focus on articles about the history of (what for it!) the U.S. state of West Virginia.
  6. Somerset Rodw (submissions), from Pool A, likes to work on articles about British geography and places. Most of his points this round were earned from two impressive accomplishments: a GT about Scheduled monuments in Somerset and a FT about English Heritage properties in Somerset.
  7. United States Rationalobserver (submissions), from Pool B, came in seventh overall. RO earned the majority of her points from GARs and PRs, many of which were earned in the final hours of the round.
  8. England Calvin999 (submissions), also from Pool B, who was competing with RO for the final two spots in the final hours, takes the race for most GARs and PRs—48.

The intense competition between RO and Calvin999 will continue into the finals. They're both eligible for the Newcomers Trophy, given for the first time in the Wikicup; whoever makes the most points will win it.

Good luck to the finalists; the judges are sure that the competition will be fierce!

Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs), Miyagawa (talk · contribs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 11:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Gnorimoschemini

Hi Wilhelmina, I nearly finished your last batch. I added a large amount of missing species to Microlechia and especially Gnorimoschema. If you start the next batch, could you start with these? Thanks! Ruigeroeland (talk) 14:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure thing, Ruigeroeland! If only there was a worthy joke about a band-aid attending the opera... (talk) 16:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
@Ruigeroeland:  Done Also, I intended to fill in the species for the whole Gnorimoschemini tribe, but it turns out there are way more than I anticipated, and I kind of burned my moth engine out. So please don't panic when you see that colossal list of pages; I'm more than happy to sit by and wait! If only there was a worthy joke about a band-aid attending the opera... (talk) 22:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Have a great day!

Safety Cap (talk) 16:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Aw, thank you! Hope you do too! :) If only there was a worthy joke about a band-aid attending the opera... (talk) 16:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back!

Welcome back!
Dear Mimi,

I was a bit worried about you, and I am glad you're back!
Please keep well and joyful, and don't work too hard...
With kindest regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee. 19:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Patrick! :) If only there was a worthy joke about a band-aid attending the opera... (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 September 2015

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - Round 3

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - Round 3

Greetings, all! We hope that everyone had a nice summer.

Saturday saw the end of Round 2. Things went relatively smoothly this month. The top 2 from 4 pools, plus the top participant (the wildcard, or "9th place") of all remaining competitors, moved onto Round 3. We had one withdrawal early in Round 2, so he was replaced by the next-highest scorer from Round 1. Round 2's highest scorer was Pool D's Tomandjerry211, who earned an impressive 366 points; he also reviewed the most articles (19). Close behind was Zwerg Nase, also in Pool D, at 297 points and 16 articles. The wildcard slot went to Good888. Congrats to all!

Round 3 will have 9 competitors in 3 pools. The key to moving forward was reviewing articles with the longest nomination dates, as it has been in every round up to now. For example, 2 competitors only needed to review 2 articles each to win in their pools, and each article were either from the pink nomination box (20 points) or had languished in the queue for over 5 months (18 points). The GA Cup continues to be a success in many ways, even with fewer competitors this time. For some reason, the competitors in the 2015 GA Cup have reviewed fewer articles in Round 2, which has made the judges scratch their head in confusion. We've speculated many reasons for that: the summer months and vacations, our competitors are saving their strength for the final rounds, or they all live in the Pacific Northwest and the heavy wildfire smoke has affected their thinking. Whatever the reason, Round 2 competitors reviewed almost 100 articles, which is a significant impact in the task of reviewing articles for GA status. We've considered that the lower participation this competition is due to timing, so we intend to discuss the best time frame for future GA Cups.

For Round 3, participants have been placed randomly in 3 pools of 3 contestants each; the top editor in each pool will progress, as well as the top 2 of all remaining users. Round 3 will start on September 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on September 28 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 3 and the pools can be found here.

Good luck to the remaining contestants, and have fun!

Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6 and Jaguar, and MrWooHoo.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

Delivered on behalf of WikiProject Good articles by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 September 2015

The Signpost: 16 September 2015

The Signpost: 23 September 2015

Progress

Hi Wilhelmina, it seems the current batch of species has many online sources, which is slowing me down quite a bit (since I am trying to add description to all of them, if I can find them). I am nearing the end of the latest batch (although I still need to expand quite a bit). I added species to three genera you already covered, these are: Anacampsis, Stomopteryx and Syncopacma. I you are anxious to start the following batch: could you start with these and perhaps also add the species for the few remaining Anacampsinae genera you didn't do already? I will be unable to edit Misplaced Pages from 2 October until 11 October. If you make only the species for the Anacampsinae subfamily and then take a break? I will try to clean the backlog before the 2nd of October. Thanks! Ruigeroeland (talk) 14:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure thing! :) If only there was a worthy joke about a band-aid attending the opera... (talk) 16:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

2nd Annual GA Cup - Round 4

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - Round 4

GA Cup competitors and observers: Happy Fall! Get ready, we're about to move into the finals of the second-ever GA Cup!

Monday saw the end of Round 3. Out of the 8 contestants in the semi-finals, 5 have moved to the finals. The semi-finals were competitive. Our semi-finalists reviewed a total of 61 articles, or a grand total of 1,151 points. If you were to lump the top winners from each of the three pools together, it'd be a close horse race; they were within 35 points of each other, which can only mean that the finals will be an exciting race. Tomandjerry211, our top scorer in Round 2, again earned the most points in the semi-finals, with 288 points and 16 articles reviewed. Johanna came in second overall, with 251 points and 13 articles reviewed; Sturmvogel 66 came in third overall, with 221 points and 16 articles. Rounding out our wildcard slots are Zwerg Nase and The Rambling Man. These contestants were very strategic in how they reviewed articles. Like every other round in the history of the GA Cup, success depended upon reviewing oldest-nominated articles. For example, Johanna reviewed 5 articles that were worth the highest possible points. Congrats to all our finalists, and good luck!

Stay tuned to this space for more information about the 2nd GA Cup, including overall statistics and how this competition has affected Misplaced Pages. We regret to inform you that Dom497, one of our original judges and co-creator of the GA Cup, has stepped down as a judge. Dom, a longtime member of WP:WikiProject Good articles, is responsible for the look of the GA Cup and has been instrumental in its upkeep. We wish him the best as he starts his university education, and are certain that he'll make an impact there as he has in Misplaced Pages.

The finals started on October 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and will end on Ocober 29 at 23:59:59 UTC with a winner being crowned. Information about the Final can be found here.

Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6 and Jaguar, and MrWooHoo.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

Guild of Copy Editors September 2015 Drive Awards

The Minor Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to Wilhelmina Will for copy edits totaling between 1 and 3,999 words during the GOCE September 2015 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2015

Disambiguation link notification for October 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cyrtinus hubbardi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guadelupe (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) 11:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 October 2015

F1 Challenge '99-'02. Edit war, spam and vandalism.

Hello, good afternoon there. I'm here for request a protection for the "EA Sports F1 Series" article (https://en.wikipedia.org/EA_Sports_F1_series).

On the last days, there were an edit war. This is because there is a user that doesn't stop spamming on the page, by dint of using Misplaced Pages as a sponsorship page for his Facebook page, for get people to download his multiple mod F1 Challenge 1988-2014. The afromentioned mod is composed by an amount of leeched stuff from their original authors (there are no 2012, 2013 and 2014 mods made from scratch, 1988 mod uses Dudi stuff, 1989 uses David Marques, Cheery, BMCM3 and MonteSky stuff, 1995 and 1996 uses CrashKing stuff, etc.) Since September, I'm restauring the article deleting spam daily. He even distorted on one ocassion a link referenced of the article I'm talking about.

(One more thing, you reverted one time his changes. Thank you for that.

Please, protect the page if you can. Banning the user solves nothing, because he utilises a dynamic IP.

Kins regards, --84.125.220.68 (talk) 15:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, page protection can only be done by administrators. I apologize for this. If only there was a worthy joke about a band-aid attending the opera... (talk) 06:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2015

Enough for a few weeks

Hi Wilhelmina, I see you created an enormous amount of pages the last few days. If you could take a break soon, because there are more than enough pages to expand to keep me busy for two to three weeks at least...! Ruigeroeland (talk) 13:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and FYI: I wont have time to edit wikipedia tomorrow, but will pick up the article expansion later this week. Ruigeroeland (talk) 13:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, I was planning on finishing up the species-level coverage of Anomologinae, and then putting things on hold, but I'm fine with taking a break at this point if you'd rather. If only there was a worthy joke about a band-aid attending the opera... (talk) 01:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, did not catch your response... Finishing Anomologinae is fine by me if you prefer it, might add another weeks work depending on the remaining number of species though.. :) Ruigeroeland (talk) 13:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015 Guild of Copy Editors blitz barnstar

The Minor Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to Wilhelmina Will for copy edits totaling between 1 and 1,999 words during the GOCE October 2015 Copy Editing Blitz. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 October 2015

October 2015 GOCE newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors October 2015 Newsletter

September drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 25 editors who signed up, 18 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

October blitz: The one-week October blitz, targeting requests, has just concluded. Of the nine editors who signed up, seven copyedited at least one request; check your talk page for your barnstar!

The month-long November drive, focusing on our oldest backlog articles (June, July, and August 2014) and the October requests, is just around the corner. Hope to see you there!

Thanks again for your support; together, we can improve the encyclopedia! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, KieranTribe, Miniapolis and Pax85.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

5 million articles

                                                  We've reached five million!!                                                  

The English Misplaced Pages now has over 5,000,000 articles! Woo-hoo!

Feel free to pass this message on! You can never celebrate too much. 5 000 000

Eman235/talk 18:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 October 2015

2015 GA Cup Wrap-Up

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - Finals/Wrap-Up


The second-ever GA Cup is now over! The competition officially ended Thursday. Congrats to everyone who participated, and especially to our finalists.

The winner of the 2nd GA Cup is Zwerg Nase! He earned 408 points, over 100 points more than he earned in all previous rounds. He tied with our second-place winner, Sturmvogel 66 with 367 points, in number of articles reviewed (24), and they earned almost the same points for reviewing articles that were in the queue the longest (Zwerg with 322, Sturmvogel with 326). Basically, they tied in points, but what made the different for Zwerg was the advantage he had in reviewing longer articles. It seems that the rule change of earning more realistic points for longer articles made a difference. All of our contestants should be proud of the work they were able to accomplish through the GA Cup. Congrats to these worthy opponents!

Our third and fourth place winners, Johanna and Tomandjerry211, also ran a close race, with 167 points and 147 points respectfully. We had one withdrawal; we found it interesting that competitors dropped out in Round 2 and 3 as well. One of the original judges and co-creator of this competition, User:Dom497 stepped down as judge during Round 3; as stated previously, we will miss his input and wish him the best.

The judges were pleased with our results, even though fewer users competed this time compared to our inaugural competition. We recognize that this might be due to holding the competition during the summer months. We intend on looking more closely when we should conduct this contest, as well as other aspects of the GA Cup. We've set up a feedback page for everyone's input about how we should conduct the contest and what rule changes should be made. If you have any ideas about how we can improve things, please visit it and give us your input.

Again, thanks to all and congratulations to our winners! Please stay tuned for the start of GA Cup #3.

Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar and MrWooHoo.

Nearly done

FYI: I nearly finished your last batch. I added species to a number of the genera you already covered, i.e.: Eulamprotes, Metzneria, Monochroa, Pyncostola. Cheers! Ruigeroeland (talk) 15:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 November 2015

WikiCup 2015: The results

WikiCup 2015 is now in the books! Congrats to our finalists and winners, and to everyone who took part in this year's competition.

This year's results were an exact replica of last year's competition. For the second year in a row, the 2015 WikiCup champion is Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points). All of his points were earned for an impressive 253 featured pictures and their associated bonus points (5060 and 1695, respectively). His entries constituted scans of currency from all over the world and scans of medallions awarded to participants of the U.S. Space program. Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came in second place; she earned by far the most bonus points (4082), for 4 featured articles, 15 good articles, and 147 DYKs, mostly about in her field of expertise, natural science. Belarus Cas Liber (submissions), a finalist every year since 2010, came in third, with 2379 points.

Our newcomer award, presented to the best-performing new competitor in the WikiCup, goes to United States Rationalobserver (submissions). Everyone should be very proud of the work they accomplished. We will announce our other award winners soon.

A full list of our award winners are:

We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, and all are welcome to participate. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2016 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.

Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · logs), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · logs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · logs) 18:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup Award

Awarded for participating in the 2015 WikiCup. Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs), Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 19:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Next family

Hi Wilhelmina. Might I suggest we tackle the family Autostichidae next? This family was formerly included in the Gelechiidae, but is now considered a valid family. This family is also covered in detail at funet, see: . The family does not have a page yet, but the Autostichinae subfamily does. I will make pages for the higher taxons (family and subfamilies) when I finish your last batch of Gelechiidae species. Cheers! Ruigeroeland (talk) 09:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! If only there was a worthy joke about a band-aid attending the opera... (talk) 04:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
@Ruigeroeland: On the Gelechiidae species; I went over the genera listed in the subfamily pages and the main page in order to make sure the species had all been covered, before we move on. On top of what was left of the last batch, it isn't that much, but I did find and make about 10-odd more. Just so you know. If only there was a worthy joke about a band-aid attending the opera... (talk) 05:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Marie Serneholt

If you want to, please take a look at the article Marie Serneholt, which is this weeks TAFI article. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 20:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 November 2015

Redirect loops

Hello, Wilhelmina Will, you reverted some of my requests for speedy deletion on redirects to Blattisocius. The article Blattisocius contains a list of species of the mites in the genus Blattisocius. All of the blue wiki-links there are redirects, that immediately link to the list in Blattisocius itself. So no new information can be gained by this loop. On the other a blue link suggests, that there were many written articles about those species. That such articles do not exist is blurred by the fact, that there are red wiki-links too in the list, showing that no article exists about these species. In my opinion all links have to be blue or better, like in lots of other articles with lists of species, should show blue links only, if there is a real article and not a redirect to the list in the article of a taxon of higher level. We could redirect millions of species names to generic names without writing any articles. That's not how redirects should work. So please stop looping redirects. --Regiomontanus (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Except, anyone who searches the species name will find nothing, unless it's redirected to the genus page, because no content has been added to them. If you want to do something useful, I highly suggest you try adding content to the pages instead. Otherwise, please leave well alone. If only there was a worthy joke about a band-aid attending the opera... (talk) 02:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
You can find the article Blattisocius even if you type in Blattisocius tarsalis in the search field of wikipedia or google. Its not true, that there is "nothing", please give it a chance. I came to the problem while trying to add content to Blattisocius tarsalis. The blue wikilink with content cannot be distiguished from a senseless looping link. --Regiomontanus (talk) 02:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Look, all you have to do is remove the redirect formula and put in the content. Deletion is completely unnecessary. Please stop trying to destroy my contributions. If only there was a worthy joke about a band-aid attending the opera... (talk) 07:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
There, see? That is all you need to do. If only there was a worthy joke about a band-aid attending the opera... (talk) 07:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
None of them are redirects any more. You can go ahead and add the content now, if you still wish. If not then I can add them to the list of pages I'm already working on right now. Just please, don't do this anymore. If only there was a worthy joke about a band-aid attending the opera... (talk) 07:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
And why did it need my effort and a lot of discussion to convince you that it is the better way to provide content from the first moment on instead of creating loops? Just please, don't do this anymore. --Regiomontanus (talk) 07:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I did what I did many years ago, as a result of being intimidated out of making the pages, but still yearning to contribute to the coverage of the topics. It didn't seem like it was doing harm, and the pros as I outlined them earlier in this discussion made sense to me. It's been a long time, but I can't stand it when anyone threatens a contribution I've made to Misplaced Pages, especially when it wouldn't be hard to just change the redirect into a content page the way I did just now. I'm sorry. If only there was a worthy joke about a band-aid attending the opera... (talk) 07:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Ok, if it is that useful then change all the species lists in wp to redirects, you will earn a lot of edits in your list with these contributions. If it is a threat to your contribution to make a better suggestion (I have seen it in many articles using the species lists according to WP:REDLINK), I will leave you alone. I'm sorry. --Regiomontanus (talk) 07:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I think I will step in here, I agree with Wilhelmina Will, deletion of redirects is not the way to proceed. If you delete the redirect then users will not find the genus when they type the species name in nearly as easy. It a very common practice to redirect sub-stub taxa to the next level up article until someone come along and expands it, and its been shown that expansion is much more likely to happen then creation of a fully new article.--Kevmin § 16:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 November 2015

Your signature

I found your signature quite confusing as I thought it was related to what you were writing about such as on Talk:Zach Hughes. It seems to be at odds with the WP:CUSTOMSIG guideline, specifically the

  • A customised signature should make it easy to identify the user name, to visit the user's talk-page, and preferably user page.
  • A distracting, confusing, or otherwise unsuitable signature may adversely affect other users. For example, some editors find that long formatting disrupts discourse on talk pages, or makes working in the edit window more difficult.

There's also WP:SIGLENGTH though while your signature I suspect it's nowhere as long as whatever triggered the addition WP:SIGLENGTH. If band-aid opera is very meaningful to you then an alternative is to add something on your user page about that topic. Thanks. --Marc Kupper|talk 22:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Duly noted, Mr. Kupper. Now I feel like a total sellout. (talk) 23:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)