| Revision as of 07:52, 4 July 2011 editJason Quinn (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators43,658 edits →Deletion of: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:12, 8 July 2011 edit undoMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Archiving 1 thread(s) (older than 7d) to User talk:Diego Grez/Archive 29.Next edit → | ||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
| {{TOCright}} | {{TOCright}} | ||
| ⚫ | == Deletion of == | ||
| == WikiCup 2011 June newsletter == | |||
| ] | |||
| We are half way through 2011, and entering the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; the semi-finals are upon us! Points scored in the interim (29/30 June) may be counted towards next round, but please do not update your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. 16 contestants remain, and all have shown dedication to the project to reach this far. Our round leader was {{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant2|Casliber}} who, among other things, successfully passed three articles through featured article candidates and claimed an impressive 29 articles at Did You Know, scoring 555 points. Casliber led pool D. Pool A was led by {{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant2|Wizardman}}, claiming points for a featured article, a featured list and seven good article reviews, while pool C was led by {{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant2|Eisfbnore}}, who claimed for two good articles, ten articles at Did You Know and four good article reviews. They scored 154 and 118 respectively. Pool B was by far our most competitive pool; six of the eight competitors made it through to round 4, with all of them scoring over 100 points. The pool was led by {{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant2|Hurricanehink}}, who claimed for, among other things, three featured articles and five good articles. In addition to the four pool leaders, 12 others (the four second places, and the 8 next highest overall) make up our final 16. The lowest scorer who reached round 4 scored 76 points; a significant increase on the 41 needed to reach round 3. Eight of our semi-finalists scored at least twice as much as this. | |||
| No points were awarded this round for featured pictures, good topics or In the News, and no points have been awarded in the whole competition for featured topics, featured portals or featured sounds. Instead, the highest percentage of points has come from good articles. Featured articles, despite their high point cost, are low in number, and so, overall, share a comparable number of points with Did You Know, which are high in number but low in cost. A comparatively small but still considerable number of points come from featured lists and good article reviews, rounding out this round's overall scores. | |||
| We would again like to thank {{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant2|Jarry1250}} and {{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant2|Stone}} for invaluable background work, as well as all of those helping to provide reviews for the articles listed on ]. Please do keep using it, and please do help by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. | |||
| Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen and ], for those interested, though it appears that neither are completely accurate at this time. As ever, questions are welcome on ] and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! <small>If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from ].</small> ] and ] 23:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- EdwardsBot 0154 --> | |||
| ⚫ | == Deletion of |
||
| You proposed that ] be deleted. This is a sourced article and an on-going event. A Google search finds numerous sources that could be included. I'm curious why this considered an uncontroversial deletion? If you thought that it was non-notable — despite the article passing the usual Google search litmus tests — why not initiate a discussion on the talk page first to allow a few days for editors to respond? The deletion process has become perhaps the most off-putting aspect of Misplaced Pages to new editors. I've been around here for a while so a proposed deletion of my articles, like this one, doesn't phase me. But if this article had been created by a new editor, it certainly would have contributed to the harmful and popular idea that Misplaced Pages is controlled by a few editors and perhaps resulted in that new editor not contributing further. People at the ] keep wondering about editor retention and keep assuming that a gender bias, blah blah blash, is the reason all the while ignoring obvious problems like deletionism. Please keep in mind ]. Having articles on smaller topics doesn't hurt anything. ] (]) 07:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC) | You proposed that ] be deleted. This is a sourced article and an on-going event. A Google search finds numerous sources that could be included. I'm curious why this considered an uncontroversial deletion? If you thought that it was non-notable — despite the article passing the usual Google search litmus tests — why not initiate a discussion on the talk page first to allow a few days for editors to respond? The deletion process has become perhaps the most off-putting aspect of Misplaced Pages to new editors. I've been around here for a while so a proposed deletion of my articles, like this one, doesn't phase me. But if this article had been created by a new editor, it certainly would have contributed to the harmful and popular idea that Misplaced Pages is controlled by a few editors and perhaps resulted in that new editor not contributing further. People at the ] keep wondering about editor retention and keep assuming that a gender bias, blah blah blash, is the reason all the while ignoring obvious problems like deletionism. Please keep in mind ]. Having articles on smaller topics doesn't hurt anything. ] (]) 07:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 14:12, 8 July 2011
User:Diego Grez/Navbar User:Diego Grez/Chile User:Diego Grez/format
.jpeg){kind=small} | Beware! This user's talk page is patrolled by talk page stalkers. |
| vn-1 | This editor's user page, talk page, or subpages have been vandalized 1 time. |
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
 |
Please leave a new message. I answer posts on the same page. |
Deletion of
You proposed that Guy-Greenbrier earthquake swarm be deleted. This is a sourced article and an on-going event. A Google search finds numerous sources that could be included. I'm curious why this considered an uncontroversial deletion? If you thought that it was non-notable — despite the article passing the usual Google search litmus tests — why not initiate a discussion on the talk page first to allow a few days for editors to respond? The deletion process has become perhaps the most off-putting aspect of Misplaced Pages to new editors. I've been around here for a while so a proposed deletion of my articles, like this one, doesn't phase me. But if this article had been created by a new editor, it certainly would have contributed to the harmful and popular idea that Misplaced Pages is controlled by a few editors and perhaps resulted in that new editor not contributing further. People at the Strategy Wiki keep wondering about editor retention and keep assuming that a gender bias, blah blah blash, is the reason all the while ignoring obvious problems like deletionism. Please keep in mind Misplaced Pages:NOTPAPER. Having articles on smaller topics doesn't hurt anything. Jason Quinn (talk) 07:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)