User talk:TLSuda: Difference between revisions

Archives

Archive 1: Pre-2007 - April 2012 Archive 2: April 2012 - September 2013 Archive 3: October 2013 - November 2013 Archive 4: December 2013 - Present

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

And so ends the most competitive first round we have ever seen, with 38 points required to qualify for round 2. Last year, 19 points secured a place; before that, 11 (2012) or 8 (2011) were enough. This is both a blessing and a curse. While it shows the vigourous good health of the competition, it also means that we have already lost many worthy competitors. Our top three scorers were:

1. Godot13 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer whose high-quality scans of rare banknotes represent an unusual, interesting and valuable contribution to Wikipedia. Most of Godot's points this round have come from a large set of pictures used in Treasury Note (1890–91).
2. Adam Cuerden (submissions), a WikiCup veteran and a finalist last year, Adam is also a featured picture specialist, focusing on the restoration of historical images. This month's promotions have included a carefully restored set of artist William Russell Flint's work.
3. WikiRedactor (submissions), another WikiCup newcomer. WikiRedactor has claimed points for good article reviews and good articles relating to pop music, many of which were awarded bonus points. Articles include Sky Ferreira, Hannah Montana 2: Meet Miley Cyrus and "Wrecking Ball" (Miley Cyrus song).

Other competitors of note include:

• Hahc21 (submissions), who helped take Thirty Flights of Loving through good article candidates and featured article candidates, claiming the first first featured article of the competition.
• Prism (submissions), who claimed the first featured list of the competition with Natalia Kills discography.
• Cwmhiraeth (submissions), who takes the title of the contributor awarded the highest bonus point multiplier (resulting in the highest scoring article) of the competition so far. Her high-importance salamander, now a good article, scored 108 points.

After such a competitive first round, expect the second round to also be fiercely fought. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2, but please do not update your submission page until March (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

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. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down 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), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 00:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TLSuda, I have closed your request for adminship as successful. Congratulations! The administrators' reading list is always worth a read and the new admin school is available if you feel that you require some practice with the tools in a safe environment before applying them for main use. Good luck with your adminship! Acalamari 20:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Acalamari! -- TLSuda (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In light of my recent success at RfA, I want to thank everyone who participated in any form. The process was not nearly as scary as I thought it would be, and that is mostly due to TParis’ help. I want to specifically thank my co-nominators: TParis and Masem. Without your support I would not have put in for the bit. I obviously want to thank all of the editors who supported me and put their trust in me, and I promise to do my best to not let your trust down. I also want to thank anyone who did not support me, as you have given me plenty to think about. There are always methods in which we can improve, and I thank you for helping me see.

As I stated during the RfA, I will leave myself open to recall. Before I take any administrative actions, I will publicly post my recall terms as I specified. I also want to point out that I did say that I would not work administratively in areas that I was not familiar in until I had spent some time as an editor in those same areas. I will publicly disclose this information, and the areas I discussed in my RfA. It is my plan to post all of this information on my userpage. It will take some time to redesign my userpage to be more functional in this regard, so please bare with me. My RfA will stay in my bookmarks so that I can easily go back to see why you put your trust in me and make sure that I am making good on my promises and keeping my word to everyone involved. I’m still honestly shocked that the RfA was successful, and I'm human, so I might make a mistake. If I do, please let me know; I cannot right my wrong if I don’t know. I also ask a bit of patience while I am getting accustomed to the new responsibilities.

Wikipedia is my happy place. I want Wikipedia, my second home, to be the best it can be. I thank you all once again for trusting me to assist in a new way. -- TLSuda (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, here is your new T-shirt! On an unrelated note: Thanks for pledging in 4 cents per each good article review! Awesome users like you are what makes this site wonderful! ///EuroCarGT 00:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Congrats!!!--v/r - TP 00:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Congrats, and good luck! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Congrats! Hope to see you around! :) Connormah (talk) 01:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Congratulations! Epicgenius (talk) 02:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Congratulations!!! --j⚛e decker^talk 18:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• My condolences on becoming an sysop. Mkdw^talk 04:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered who this "TLSuda" was who had sprung from nowhere and was closing the NFCR discussions. Now I've worked it out. Thank you for doing all this, it is very helpful indeed, though it may well be thankless for you. Inevitably, I have looked to see if I agree with your closes and generally I do (that may not be encouraging for you!). I'd like to raise a question about just one, the first close I disagreed with, Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 46#File:Achievement Show 2014.jpg. Did you mean to put "Image is not below TOO in the US"? Stefan2 only raised it as a possibility and Masem said it wouldn't be considered sufficiently original in the US ending up effectively suggesting "keep". Perhaps it was a typo for "Image is not below TOO in the UK" but even in that case deletion was doubtful because neither contributor was very sure and WP is allowed to keep work that is not in copyright in the US. As a guideline "While Wikipedia prefers content that is free anywhere in the world, it accepts content that is free in the United States even if it may be under copyright in some other countries."[1] But I can get stuff wrong so I'd be interested in your reply. Thincat (talk) 11:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Thincat. Thanks for your question and thanks for reaching out to me. First let me say that TOO is tricky. Just because its below TOO in one country, and could therefore be PD, does not mean that it gets the same treatment in another country. The image may be TOO in the UK, but US Copyright law could still offer copyright protection.

In Stefan2's he says that the image fails WP:NFCC#8. He also brings up the possibility that the image could be below the Threshold of Originality (TOO). Between the little bit of consensus there and longstanding understanding of TOO, in relation to US copyright law, the image is past TOO, and therefore non-free. Since it is still non-free, it must meet all of the criteria of WP:NFCC. The image was simply a web banner about an event. There is content in the article about the event, but not the image of the banner. The removal of the banner does not increase the reader's understanding of the event, and therefore it is simply decoration. We do allow non-free content to be kept, but only if it meets all of the criteria of WP:NFCC. Since the image was purely decorative, it fails WP:NFCC#8 and therefore had to go. I hope that answers your question. If you have other questions, please do not hesitate to ask. -- TLSuda (talk) 11:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the image was of any importance at all, not even decorative(!). My understanding is that even slightly fancy logos may be copyright in the UK, but not in the US, see commons:Commons:Threshold of originality. In other words, the opposite of what you say. But I won't pursue this any further. Standards in file deletion/review discussions have, I think, improved substantially above the shockingly poor levels of a couple of years ago when huge numbers of files were being improperly deleted. As well as deletions against strong well-argued consensus, files tagged as orphaned (even those wrongly tagged by a bug-ridden bot) were being deleted on grounds of being of no conceivable use, even when they were PD and in use. Articles with links to these supposedly orphaned files then had these links removed by another bot. Sound files, because they do not appear in "file usage", were particularly vulnerable. I hope those dark days are over. Anyway, enough of all that, best wishes. Thincat (talk) 18:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice choice, pretty uncontroversial space. Hope to see your name pop up in my watchlist for all the right reasons. —Soham (talk) 16:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on your successful RFA and I'm really glad to see someone else helping out in filespace. Have you thought of applying for OTRS access for yourself? it's very useful to be able to check for yourself the status of tickets on either PUF discussions or F11 CSD nominations. Nthep (talk) 09:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nthep: I have thought about it prior to my RfA, but I did not know how useful I would be. I am only a little familiar with the whole concept of OTRS. You make a good point, though, it would be helpful for me to do, and it would be another aspect I could help out in. It would save me and other OTRS volunteers additional time, so I think I ought to apply this afternoon. -- TLSuda (public) (talk) 10:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]