Knowledge talk:WikiCup/Archive/2010/3

2171:(EC) Semi-neutral two cents here, as this is my first year participating. When I signed up, I presumed the points carried all year round and never even noticed that they reset with each round. As such, I was aiming to get a lot of good stuff done earlier in the year, knowing I'd be pretty much DoA for editing towards the end of the year. Knowing now that the points will reset, I've wondered/debated with myself if I should do much as Nergaal said, hold off releasing stuff from my sandbox into the wild until the next round to ensure I get some points then, since I'll lose what I already have. To go with a more common, if less fitting example, its kind of like if every week, your grade in school reset. In the end, you just need to get passing to keep going, then in the last week would be the only time you really have to push to work. Having the points reset seems to me to encourage that sort of spirit. Don't worry too much beyond keeping in the game most rounds, then for the last round throw out everything you've had time to cultivate over a year. I'd see not resetting the points as encouraging all participants to do their best the whole event, rather than just getting by until it counts. For myself, I'll probably just keep going along like I would have if the points were not reset, because it just works best for me and this is just a bit of fun (if I "win", awesome", if not, the articles I worked on still benefit), but I suspect not all participants have such a view. -- 2027:

competition while the winners in the other one start with an automatic bonus of unused noms. Thirdly it creates a more continuous flow of noms that I believe will produce less "rush hour" periods at GAN, etc. Fourthly, people like AnmaFinotera and probably even me won't have to decide to withhold nominations for later if timing constraints would make it better to take care of the nom sooner just to not feel penalized that others were more willing to wait. Finally, if one is actually interested in contributing, having say one FAC at a time one after another, rather than cramming them after a specific deadline, ought to actually produce more articles sent to FAC/GANs in the long run as mixing article building while fixing some comments, I find (for me at least) to be more productive than building articles, then just concentrating on fixing comments due to multiple GANs/FACs/FLCs opened at the same time due to timetable constraints.

1998:

were started. What I am saying is that in the end, the people that will be at the top (those that really care) will have figured out how to optimize their perspective (i.e. points in the long run) based INCLUDING on circumventing the rules. I want contributions to be encouraged, but what this format only rewards best planners. And giving names is not the best idea but I think in this case would clarify my argument: in the 3rd round (2 full months) Durova submitted 8 FPs, while one week into the fourth one she already had 10 FPs; I am sure she wasn't the only one with this pattern, but in the end she won by doing this.

1834:

round essentially nobody was still nominating as the spots were pretty much decided, while once the fourth month began a ton of nominations suddenly appeared. While these were the rules last year I still think we should find some that do enforce a less ridiculous behavior and favor contributions over a specific pattern of editing. Right now, there is absolutely no incentive to get more than 3 DYKs in the first round, while I bet that some of the top editors now will burn out in the second or third, even though they would be among the highest contributors overall.

1954:

technically true because by the beginning of that round over half of the participants will have already finished "FAing" several articles in their own userspace/offline space. Users who should have benefited from the reset and restart with equal chances won't actually because people can nominate 100 GANs the first day of the second round and that would be equivalent with not reseting the counter at the beginning of the round. So arguing that all the counts be reset at 0pts, in the end only penalizes users that

31: 1122:"Speaking as a director, I would appreciate it if all nominators would disclose their participation in the WikiCup. Similarly, if reviewers could disclose that they are in the WikiCup when they are reviewing WikiCup nominations that would be nice as well. No obligation, but that would make things a bit easier. Thanks, 3415:

starting to look like a long list of things to fix, Oppose the article, suggest it be renominated, and help the nominator with the aspects of the article that need improvement on the article talk page. Support the article if you think it would be a good addition and would be pleased to see it on the main page.

3408:

If you nominate an article as part of the WikiCup, please indicate that in your nomination. If you are a reviewer and a participant in the Wikicup, indicate that as well. I'm AGFing that all of you reading this are decent, honest, and hardworking Wikipedians, who would never ever let the outcome of a

2119:

We discussed lots of different awards at the end of last year- the problem with that is that it's pretty much guaranteed to go to one of the final 8/4. I imagine we will be giving awards for "most points in round X" though. Frankly, I don't think the awards matter so much- I certainly didn't mind not

1997:

I am not trying to go into game theory, but to look at what happened in the past. Have you been around last year? If yes, then you definitely remember the quietness at GAN/FLC/FPC when the rounds were close to the end, and the sudden (incredibly suspicious) outburst of noms right after the new rounds

1897:

of the final competitors. And discount Ottava (banned) and Shoemaker (Wikibreak) many of the Final 8 are right in the front again here in the 2010 first round (Sasata, Leftorium, Candlewicke, Julian, Mitch all have 50 or more points, Sasata/Left/JC all above 100). If the Cup is, by your claim, won by

325:

Most people use GA as a step towards FA. For one, it's a way to get someone to carefully review an article, which makes it better-prepared for the FAC process. It's also a way to get a review of something that isn't quite FAC-ready. Almost everyone benefits if they leave their own work alone for a

105:

No. We discussed the possibility of points for reviews, but it came to nothing. It is certainly something to consider for next year. I suppose if you were to review something at GAC, then work on the article yourself, dragging it to FA status, you could gain points for the FA, but if you were to only

3398:

Please do not approach your review of an article as a participant of this contest, supporting or opposing based on where your place is--or your friends' places. Base your review on your knowledge of what constitutes a high-quality article. Review to the best of your ability. You do not have to be an

2817:

Sorry, I thought I'd actually already answered this question. Here's my thoughts- the points should be removed for now, in the same way that a delisted/deleted GA would be removed. We're not really awarding points here for it appearing on DYK, but for it being recognised as "DYK worthy". However, if

2152:

Garden, one of the judges, is pretty good with image editing software, so we designed lots of pretty barnstar-esque things for various categories last year. We'll be doing the same this year- it is by no means a winner-takes-all situation. Even if it was, I don't think there are gonna be many people

1818:

If you nominate in a previous round (even if most of the work is done in a previous round) you can still claim points. Don't let the WikiCup dictate when you should and should not be nominating. If there are outstanding GA nominations that require immediate reviews, I'd be happy to lend my services.

1751:

I don't think this is a good idea, because of the other side of that same coin... Editor A, who does a whole ton of work in round 1, can do absolutely nothing in round 2 without concerns of being dropped... whereas, Editor B, who barely squeaked by in round 1 still has to work their butt off to try

134:

We are not going to change the rules now that the competition has begun. In any case, awarding points for reviews will change the feel of the game somewhat. I agree this would be a nice change for the future, but there are several things to be considered. (FAC, GAC, FXC, PR, T:TDYK, XPR... What gets

1924:

and to go back to your World Cup comparison to see how completely unrelated the two cups are: when was the last time an elimination-phase game started with 10 penalty kicks for one of the sides? At the present state, this cup is setup that instead of starting such a game with 10 goals for one team,

1380:

The flags are pretty, but they have certainly caused a lot of drama this year- free and non-free, real locations and not real locations, already taken, inconvenient shapes wholly inappropriate choices... The constant rejigging of the poster was also rather irritating from the judges' point of view.

1982:

to see which we should go with... It seems to me that if you take your argument to its logical conclusion, we should do away with rounds altogether. This would mean the competition would be pretty much over already, which would hardly encourage contribution. It is encouraging quality contribution,

1766:

That's why having some sort of capping process (say up to 50% of the current round's points) would be appropriate. Say an editor gets 10 FAs in the first round, he would still have to get 4 FAs in the second round to beat somebody who barely passed with a GA in the first round but got 6 FAs in the

1581:

Agreed- equally, I'm not wild about ITN points. For ITN and SA, it's very much the subject of the article that is recognised, rather than the article itself. With good and featured content, as well as VP and DYK, it's much more down to the quality of the article, picture, topic or whatever itself.

639:

I've just bagged my first 40 points (subject to the judges okaying it ;) ). To be honest I don't think that leaves me safe. Everyone who scored points before the 13th was either prolific at DYK, or got unusually fast reviews at GA (they have to have been nominated in 2010, right?). When the points

1953:

Let me try again: any user can develop an article in their own userspace, or even offline. The system now rewards WHEN the users nominate not when the users actually do the work. You are saying that it is fair that everybody starts from 0 pts in the second round, but I am arguing that that is not

1395:

Done. Just thinking about this (while I should be thinking about Shiva...) and a thought occurred to me- allow people to use the same flag as another contestant. This would cut down on a lot of drama, as the majority of people would probably happily choose the flag of their home nation. Yes, we'd

3139:

Is it OK to add the DYK-, GA- and FAC-points I got at the last day of the round to my submission page? I would think this makes it hard for the others to follow my ways and it might trick somebody to think he is in front, but at the last day I put in the 100 points for a FAC I got weeks ago, but

2355:

Thanks. Yes it is the second most popular tourist attraction in Chicago. I am please that I was able tofind co-authors who shared my vision for the topic. Unfortunately, first round topics like this are a waste. The points will be lost. I will be struggling to keep it featured on September 1,

2026:

First of all the winner will be more clearly deserving. Secondly, if one group ends up by accident being verry competitive, while another one gets somehow very relaxed, people from the first group won't have to be penalized for having to burn out their list of contributions just to remain in the

1833:

I am trying not to talk about myself. As about dictating the nominations, I cannot possibly agree with this reasoning. For example last year, the cup itself was essentially decided based on how many nominations were withheld from the third round into the fourth one. In the last part of the third

1668:

Yes. Any article can become a DYK, GA or FA, but only very specific articles can ever hit ITN. It shares some aspects with DYK (both have to be worked on at speed, in many ways) but it is by no means part of the ordinary process. In any case, there's no need to turn this thread into a discussion

3457:

It may be worth having a periodic reminder both to review, and to disclose in the featured processes. Maybe once a month here, and/or whenever it is that we send wikicup updates? My skills are more suited to helping with comprehensiveness and structure, which is more a GA/PR/FLC thing. But when

1641:

You can, although what you possibly mean is that you are limited by what is happening at ITN but can submit what you wish to DYK? However, a good quality article is also needed at ITN and if not properly updated with the recent new information someone will also find a way to object. So the same

1848:

And if points were carried over, there would be no motivation for the final round, as the places would still be "pretty much decided". As for the lack of motivation to get more than 3 DYKs- I suppose that's true, if getting through to the second round of the WikiCup is your sole motivation for

309:

Would it be possible to get directly 140 pts for non-GA articles promoted to FA? Right now everybody is squeezing the 40 pts from getting the GA first, even though they plan to get them to FA right after. Asides from increased the GAN backlog, the present situation also forces the user to risk

288:

Plus two things. First, at least for the first round, I'd say pretty much if you score points you've got a decent chance of getting through. But beyond that, the newsletter keeps you up-to-date for the most part anyways. Worst case maybe add a note about the cut-off in/out score at the time of

3414:

FAC is not Peer Review. If you are new to FAC, or even have a couple already, please seek a GA or PR before nomination. I cannot give better advice than that; I have a few FAs myself and I always seek GA and PR for each article. If you are reviewing and the problems you find in an article are

2452:

This seems legit- the topic has been promoted from a good topic to a featured topic. As long as there was some work on the topic as a whole this year, he's allowed to claim point for every article within that is "his"- this is a wholly legitimate way to claim 150 points (or whatever it is)- a

1803:

The difference is that the WC does NOT have four rounds of groups stages. There is one, followed by elimination games. If this would have perhaps even two such group spates then it would be similar, but instead every round is two months and each GAN takes on average way more than one month.

2433:

Oh wow, yeah, Tony, you can only claim credit on things worked on and promoted from Jan 1, 2010 onwards. So like if you worked on upping GA to FA articles in there you can claim FA credit, and I guess if you added stuff could claim FT credit, but you definitely don't get ALL that credit.

872:

It really is a bit late. I hoped we could have drawn our line in the sand, but we have not. I am inclined to say that it would be perhaps best to do away with the flags and poster and such as it simply causes too much bother, and leave people free to join until the end of round one...

1958:

have submitted their stuff and does not help those the present rule would have wanted to. In the end this competition should reward those that would have contributed the most, not those who would have taken advantage the best from the loopholes in the (otherwise well-intended) rules.

3169:

It is up to date for a long time! I used my self as an example, because I noticed somebody having several DYK but no points. This person will overtake several others in the final of this round. I see from your reaction that this is a questinable, but not forbidden method in the Cup.

987:

Feel free to code a new bot! I will not do it, because I have not the slightest clue how to do it! My manual update will work for a few days now and what comes after that should be a bot!! I did what I am capabele of and the rest is for the people who now what a bot looks from the

1151:

This is something that came up last year, as well. I appreciate that this may suggest there is some kind of suspicion, but on the plus side, when the numerous high quality articles are nominated, I'm sure people will be reassured of the positive intentions of Cup participants.

1734:

I am not keen on changing the rules mid-competition. The trouble with carrying points is that it means that the second round results are already pretty much predetermined- this way, everyone is in with a shot, making it more fun and encouraging people to work on more content.

1597: 2993:. It is telling that none of the GACs were this year, I see no reason to assume that this could not have been promoted last year. I would be inclined to say congratulations for the nice topic, but that points cannot be claimed. I will notify Sturmvogel of this thread. 1973:

So, what you're saying is that, if we assume bad faith, restarting does not start people on a level playing field- some people will be ahead, while the majority will be level. If we assume good faith, restarting reward those that would have contributed the most

3335:

In answer to one- yes, as long as "significant work" has taken place on the article this year, preferably before as well as during the FAC. In answer to the second, yes, but it may well receive more scutiny regarding whether you have a right to claim points.

333:

Yes, you pay a penalty in time. That in itself is a reason to award extra points. (If you skip GAN you save a week or several, but you pay a penalty in points). But, perhaps more importantly, it also reduces the burden the Cup places on FA reviewers.

3209:

You know that one of the over 100 participants is a genetic clingon, with the word today is a good day to die on his lips. It might be the case that the person I have in mind simply has not thought about the underlaying problem of the notsubmitting

1863:

But what is the difference between starting the last round with 1000 points versus starting the last round with 10 FACs? Even if apparently everybody starts from zero, a huge amount of work is done before the scores are set to zero, so in practice

2070:

The fundamental problem with this is that when someone who has already demonstrated capability starts with an advantage, that hardly motivates the people who finished lower. "They beat me first time round, and now they already have an advantage?"

845:

considering the thread directly above this, I'd be in favor of adding you. No harm in IAR'ing every so often. I need to discuss this with another judge first though, not in the least because I am not 100% sure on the procedure to add someone. ;)

2516:

You can claim 15 points for every article within the topic which is "yours", yes, providing you've done some work on the topic this year, which, with three passes, you clearly have. A featured topic is clearly an achievement.

2041:

Wait, sorry, you're also proposing doing away with groups? You may have noticed I am having a hard time following your suggestions. Could you possibly start a new subsection and clearly lay out what you are proposing here?

1538:

Something that can be discussed next year. My initial reaction is that I don't like it. Perhaps I should create a list somewhere of topics raised so that they can be discussed for next year later on in the competition?

3318:

If an article was written before the competition timeframe, but went through FAC during the competition (sometimes a process that requires hundreds of edits and tweaks), is it possible to get any points at all for the

1669:

about ITN, I was merely trying to use it to illustrate a point- the rules concerning them certainly won't be changing this year but, as with anything else, it is a possible topic of discussion before next year's Cup.

2790:

I find it hard to fathom how a non-notable SNG poker gadget will ever merit an article, but if you can do it, more power to you. My opinion on your main question is that the points should be removed, and if you

758:

Between each round there seems to be about two days that are excluded. What is the point eligibility of articles promoted in the two days that are between rounds and articles that appear on DYK and ITN between

1381:

This is something we can discuss closer to the time, I suppose (or we could babble on about it here a little longer...). Back on topic, I'm switching out the non-free flags, and have contacted the users.

1181: 660:

Hi, Does anybody know what the time delay between the addition of new stuff to the submission page and when the points are counted in the list? For me its now 24 hours an no points show up in the list.

2551:(Outdent) I mean I asked earlier if I could lay claim to topic credit for a couple other articles in the MLB awards topic which were written pre-Jan. 1, but the topic itself hadn't seen promotion yet. 1783:

That would be like saying that teams making it out of the Group Stage in the World Cup, who won their group, would start with a lead in their second round games. That's just not how competitions work.

1719:

I know it is kind of late, but it is pretty stupid for somebody who does 10 FAs in the first round to get removed in the next round because of RW issues preventing steady contributions. Any thoughts?

1328:

There were, they have been removed by a bot. This is a little irritating. I was sure I'd checked them all. I think next year it may be worth doing away with the flags. I will look into solving this.

2962: 2138:

set of rules. The simplest fix I guess is to give some sort of token of appreciation (barnstar or something) for the top player or the top three in each round and another for what Sasata suggested.

1166:

There's a problem with lack of reviews in general at FLC. I think by asking for reviewers to disclose, they're trying to see if it's a case of wikicup nominators only reviewing wikicup nominations.

3090: 3173:

It's not forbidden, but it's not smiled upon either. C'mon guys, this is supposed to be a fun game that increases the quality of Knowledge's articles, not a full-blown competition complete with

1715:

either of those, capping the amount to whatever amount gained during the running round (so it won't more than double the points); alternatively cap to a % of the points during the current month.

1567:

I've made this point before in relation to another segment of scoring, and was largely ignored. But why overly reward getting an article onto the main page? It's very much a reward unto itself.

3443:

Thank you for this reminder- these are all points to consider. I freely admit I have not been reviewing myself, instead focussing on GAC. I will do my best to review some in the coming days.

1978:

start people on a level playing field. When we do not restart, whether we assume good faith or not, people are not started on a level playing field. I don't think you need to be an expert in

1649: 412: 1627:

I appreciate that, but I can't just write a new article and say "I guess I'll nominate this for ITN" in the same way I can for DYK, GA or FA. Do you not see where I'm coming from here?

189:

Is there any way to either add a column that is non-sortable, labeled 1 to 64, or a shading of the top 64 slots, that would indicate where the cutoff line for round 2 qualification is?

958:, because the bot which updates the wikicup frontpage is not working since 13.1.2010. Should we point this out above the list or should we substitute the robot list by a manual one? -- 72:. I have found myself making significant edits. I do not know how much I will be involved in editing as this proceeds, but is it possible to earn points for editting as a reviewer?-- 2486: 1877:

is NOT the player who contributes the most but the one who piles on nominations into the last round while squeezing in with the least points allowed by the other group members

3409:

competition eclipse your goals of creating and supporting high quality content. Ever. But indicate just in case. It helps the delegates close nominations more proficiently.

3266:

I will ask the only one I noticed. But it might be that he is unaware and has lost the Cup slip from his focus and that all happened without aiming for a certain purpose.--

2818:

you do recreate the article and it again appears on the MP (or is specfically refused the main page because it has already appeared) then you may reclaim the points later.

3387:

FAC is sorely lacking in quality reviewers. This competition generates volume at FAC. This is a request for the participants of this competition to review articles at FAC

3031:

Again, it's not formatted in the standard way, but I'll be buggered if I know how the bot works. I believe it's the same build as last year, with a few points changes.

3382: 2471:

So wait, you can promote an entire topic to good topic status, then improve the one or two articles you currently need to push it to FT, and claim the points again?

1439:

I don't see any problems with letting multiple people use the same flag, multiple people compete in the olympics, or any other competition, under the same flag... -

1396:

probably get a lot of US and UK flags, but perhaps that would help stop us taking the flag issue so seriously... Something to think about. And now, back to Shiva...

3437: 348:

We discussed this a while back. The response from J Milburn and Ed was that they saw no reason not to give points in that circumstance, but that FAC would take a

2276: 1657: 420: 1161: 1146: 918: 3472:

We (the judges) will hopefully be sending monthly newsletters, and so I will make a note of that on the first newsletter, which will hopefully be very soon.

2779: 1270: 268:

I believe that was only after the round had finished. A separate table could be created alongside the current one, but I'm not personally up to coding that.

2914: 2640: 2560: 2406: 2383: 2346: 2320: 2288: 562: 2859: 2827: 2810: 2744: 2708: 2693:

If you recreated the article later this year, it would probably be speedy-deleted, as a substantially similar recreation of a previously deleted article.

2526: 2507: 1284: 1217: 801: 115: 3374: 3360: 3112: 2929: 2604: 2578: 2480: 2462: 2414: 2227: 1879:. It is foolish to believe that the cup will be won by somebody who would have started the last round with zero points and zero amount of previous work. 1678: 1663: 1448: 1422: 967: 298: 3481: 3467: 2426: 1609: 1591: 1462: 1337: 1175: 1086: 576: 375: 361: 2443: 2188: 2104:<- Why not just keep the rules as they are this year, and have an extra, equally shiny award for most points accumulated for the whole competition? 1907: 1644: 1533: 1405: 1193: 1131: 676:

We just have to wait for the bot to update. It seems to want to update every six hours, but misses a lot... It updated last at 12:45, 13 January 2010.

534: 516: 490: 440: 426: 407: 3204: 3126: 3040: 3026: 3002: 1776: 1761: 1576: 1390: 277: 172: 2162: 2147: 2080: 2065: 2051: 2036: 2021: 2007: 1992: 1968: 1948: 1888: 1858: 1843: 1828: 1813: 1798: 1744: 1705:

I think some points from the previous round should be carried into the next round, or otherwise this round will end up pretty crappy. Possibilities:

1642:

amount of work applies, if anything you have more freedom with DYK and can plan in advance whereas you have to apply your work at random with ITN. --

1636: 1622: 1562: 1351: 1104: 1058: 1038: 649: 590: 343: 144: 129: 3424:. Any one of the hundreds of editors who watch that page would be happy to answer your question, no matter how silly or stupid you are afraid it is. 2129: 1548: 1375: 1072: 912: 903: 882: 818: 467: 239: 225: 3452: 3289: 3275: 3261: 3233: 3164: 1934: 1474: 1011: 997: 982: 949: 939: 865: 835:

is being mostly ignored, is it ok to sign up late, even with the disadvantage? I have loads of free time in my hands because of my illness. Thanks

741: 727: 699: 685: 263: 3219: 607: 453: 2899: 832: 1116: 3247: 2990: 1322: 2950: 99: 2056:

Neah, I am not against groups, but against people who contribute more during the first round to start leveled with those that barely passed.

1045:

The bot does not work and X! is out of business due to hardware problems! If you want to have the right counts go to the manual updated list

786: 3007:

Um, I wasn't talking about that, I was asking why the bot wasn't picking it up. :/ I actually did not look to see when work had been done. —

135:

points, what doesn't, what counts as a review, do they all get the same points... All discussions for when we work out next year's rules.)

670: 390:

Just wondering what the procedure would be in the event that fewer than 64 contests actually accrue points by the end of the first round.

2269: 472:

That'd be quite a shootout if there is going to be a few dozen editors with 0 points at the end of the round. I'm bringing the popcorn.

2356:

because the threshold goes from 1/3 to 1/2 of the articles needing to be featured. This means I need to improve three more articles.--

3079: 2212: 1728: 1046: 955: 3345: 2113: 1614:

ITN articles are required to be at main-page quality, too. They are not just posted because they simply happen to be in the news.

1237: 3330: 2984: 2334: 1893:

The practical results belie your claim. Durova, last years champion, was a constant and great source of content creation as were

184: 326:

while, and then look over it with fresh eyes. Going through GAN almost always means that the article you submit to FAC will be

106:

start work on something after it had already been nominated, I don't think it's consistent for you to be gaining points for it.

3052:(Day 3) If anyone knows how to format a FT that was promoted from GT without a new discussion, I would appreciate assistance.-- 839: 2687: 1303: 3155:

Erm, I'd rather you didn't... It would be best if you could update your submissions page as soon as the content is promoted.

1515: 366:

We didn't really come to a final decision concerning the issue- there were both advantages and disadvantages to skipping GA.

319: 3086: 399: 3149: 2714: 2660:

has been delisted. Do I lose DYK points? If I recreate the article later this year is it eligible for DYK points again?--

633: 507:

37 users have points after 2 weeks. My bet is that the threshold for getting into the next round will be around 100 pts.

207: 3062: 2955: 2882: 2842: 2762: 2727: 2670: 2623: 2366: 2303: 2252: 2184: 1498: 1253: 1098: 769: 558: 82: 1470:

I am personally offended by the flag of New Brunswick sitting higher than the Canadian flag. Can this be addressed? —

545:

I suspect probably some are like me...waiting for it to get reviewed because poor DYK is seriously backlogged. :-P --

2867: 1308: 655: 525:

I would be very very surprised if it's that high. I imagine quite a few people will crawl in with just a DYK or two.

2937:

I'll be honest, I don't do the technical side, but I believe you are still formatting the entry contrary to how our

310:

waiting a huge amount of time before getting to FAC, for those articles that may appear less interesting to review.

3394:

A good ratio for one nominated article is three to five reviews of other articles at FAC. Some things to remember:

3174: 3066: 2886: 2846: 2766: 2731: 2674: 2627: 2370: 2307: 2256: 1502: 1257: 891:

I'd be inclined to agree. The poster, as a side, has plenty copyright-replaced images for some reason or another.

773: 621:

I'm actually thinking this is a real possibility... Although I imagine at least 64 will be able to sneak a DYK in.

86: 1939:

I know little about sport so I'm not following the analogy that well, I'm afraid. I can't really comment on this.

1049:

or code a bot or repair the bot of X! or contact X! in a way that he gets the message even without an computer. --

2717:

for detail. When I recreate it, it will be a keeper. The question is how is the scoring for the cup affected.--

1298: 59: 2938: 1868:. The only thing that happens is that it clogs the FAC, etc at set periods in time with multiple nominations 1063:

I'm sure we'll get by with a bit of lag for now. We've got six weeks before we need to worry about accuracy.

753: 2337:

and for that and the NL list to get through FLC you might be the only person with a topic this round. :)

1142: 1983:

not a plan to "reward those that would have contributed the most" that is this competition's real aim.

38: 3085:

Tony, I'll repeat basically what J already said, but this time I will spell it out for you. (1) go to

2613:

There is no nomination when a topic goes from good to featured. It was promoted yesterday, however.--

1925:

the game is started with 10 penalty kicks for that one, while the other team is not allowed a goalie.

2566: 2233: 973:

Ideally, we'll get the bot fixed, or get a new one coded... I don't like the idea of manual updates.

352:

dim view of an article being nominated "to save time", unless it was clearly at or near FA standard.

640:

start to trickle through for slower reviews, I'm sure the bar will be higher than a couple of DYKs.

1700: 715: 3458:

gently reminded of the backlog at FLC (where I'm becoming a regular) I'm always happy to chip in.

3351:

Note: I collaborated with Durova on the Pittsburgh Pirate image, but I did a load of the work.

3058: 2878: 2838: 2758: 2723: 2666: 2619: 2497: 2362: 2299: 2248: 2178: 2153:

who are looking to abuse the system in order to get a pretty picture to put on their userpage.

1494: 1249: 1233: 1138: 765: 552: 78: 47: 17: 1898:

conniving strategists and not by consistent content creators, how do you explain these users?

1849:

editing Knowledge... Plenty of people seem quite content to continue to layer on nominations.

3356: 3314:

I am sure the first question has been addressed in the past, but I could not find an answer.

3309: 2910: 2600: 2556: 2476: 2439: 2402: 2342: 2284: 2207: 1903: 1418: 1213: 1034: 1029:

And again, can someone talk to X? I'm getting the correct points, but in the incorrect area.

826: 530: 294: 1356:

Well, it's one thing when you have 54 flags (2009). It's another when you have 152 (2010). —

1208:

I try to review anything I feel comfortable with the format of, particularly if it's older.

1022:

The bot just updated, doesn't seem to understand that I have an FP in this round, not an FS.

732:

I contacted him, but there is only a little chance that he will answer in the near future.--

3463: 3178: 2963:

Knowledge:WikiCup/History/2010/Submissions/Sturmvogel 66#GT: 10 points per article in topic

2194: 1757: 1605: 1572: 1444: 1318: 1171: 1112: 1068: 645: 357: 231:

I think this was raised last year, and the bot doesn't really like that for some reason...

3252:

If you don't want to let us know, perhaos you could have a quiet word with them yourself?

3091:

Knowledge:WikiCup/History/2010/Submissions/TonyTheTiger#FT: 15 points per article in topic

1804:

Technically it means that all of the work needs to be done in the previous round anyways.

8: 3477: 3448: 3370: 3341: 3285: 3257: 3229: 3160: 3122: 3036: 2998: 2946: 2925: 2823: 2801: 2699: 2574: 2522: 2458: 2223: 2158: 2125: 2076: 2047: 2017: 1988: 1944: 1854: 1824: 1789: 1740: 1674: 1632: 1587: 1544: 1471: 1458: 1401: 1386: 1333: 1280: 1157: 1082: 1007: 978: 878: 797: 723: 681: 586: 483: 463: 371: 339: 273: 195: 140: 111: 1002:

I am sadly also unable to script a bot for this job- my bot does much simpler things...

3421: 3192: 3134: 3100: 3014: 2972: 2333:

Hopefully it works. Sweet topic though! Depending on how long it takes me to finish up

2012:

Alright, let's get to the nitty gritty. In what way do you feel your format is better?

1363: 1223: 1189: 1127: 927: 853: 304: 251: 160: 3070: 3053: 2890: 2873: 2850: 2833: 2770: 2753: 2735: 2718: 2678: 2661: 2631: 2614: 2492: 2422: 2374: 2357: 2311: 2294: 2260: 2243: 2172: 2143: 2134:

The more I think of this, the more I realize that a truly fair system would become a

2061: 2032: 2003: 1964: 1930: 1884: 1839: 1809: 1772: 1724: 1558: 1506: 1489: 1347: 1261: 1244: 1229: 777: 760: 572: 546: 512: 395: 385: 315: 125: 90: 73: 3352: 2906: 2905:

Also, as long as we're discussing bot flaws, it still thinks I have a FS not a FP.

2596: 2552: 2472: 2435: 2398: 2338: 2280: 2200: 2109: 1899: 1524: 1414: 1209: 1030: 894: 809: 624: 598: 526: 290: 232: 1553:

It doesn't appear like mmuch content building, but something like 1pt could work.

3459: 3433: 3400: 3271: 3243: 3215: 3145: 2135: 1753: 1654: 1601: 1568: 1440: 1314: 1167: 1108: 1064: 1054: 993: 963: 737: 695: 666: 641: 417: 353: 150: 3093:

and convert your entry into the formatting you saw in step one (1). Thank you. —

2872:

I thought I had reformatted my topic correctly. My points did not accumulate.--

2392:

Meh, that's still 300 points out there within this topic (and assumedly GA-: -->

1410: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

3473: 3444: 3366: 3337: 3322:

Are collaborations on pictures acceptable just like collaborations on articles?

3281: 3253: 3225: 3156: 3118: 3074: 3032: 2994: 2989:

Of questionable legitimacy... The only real work on any of those this year was

2942: 2921: 2894: 2854: 2819: 2796: 2774: 2739: 2694: 2682: 2652: 2635: 2570: 2518: 2454: 2378: 2315: 2264: 2219: 2154: 2121: 2120:

winning one last year, I enjoyed taking part and was proud of what I achieved.

2072: 2043: 2013: 1984: 1940: 1850: 1820: 1784: 1736: 1670: 1628: 1583: 1540: 1510: 1454: 1397: 1382: 1329: 1276: 1265: 1153: 1078: 1003: 974: 874: 793: 781: 719: 677: 582: 474: 459: 367: 335: 269: 190: 136: 107: 94: 1228:

I would like to withdraw from the competition. May the best Wikipedian win! --

3327: 3198: 3187: 3106: 3095: 3020: 3009: 2978: 2967: 2657: 1479: 1369: 1358: 1293: 1185: 1123: 933: 922: 859: 848: 257: 246: 166: 155: 69: 1872:

of having a continuous, healthy flow of nominations. Right now the ultimate

690:

Is there a way to kick the bot into action? Or has sombody to restart it? --

2920:

X! is not active at the moment. I will contact him regarding these issues.

2418: 2239: 2139: 2057: 2028: 1999: 1960: 1926: 1880: 1835: 1805: 1768: 1720: 1616: 1554: 1485: 1343: 709: 568: 508: 433: 391: 311: 214: 121: 65: 2795:

able to recreate an article that will stick, you should earn points then.

1342:

Do away with the flags? But I liked having the US flag two years running.

2489:

when it passes its GTC, even though only 3/24 articles passed this year?

2105: 1979: 909: 836: 447: 2832:

I have tried to comment out the DYK, but the bot is still counting it.--

3429: 3365:

If Durova is happy with you claiming some of the points, then so am I.

3267: 3239: 3211: 3141: 1050: 989: 959: 733: 691: 662: 1077:

Agreed. No urgency. I suppose I could add a note on the front page...

3182: 1275:

Alright, I'm pulling you out of the list and adding someone else.

705: 2487:

Knowledge:WikiProject The Simpsons/Featured topic Drive/season 2

1180:

I don't really expect any WikiCup problems, but we did have a

445:

Dueling. Appoint seconds, walk ten paces. Epistles at dawn.

3280:

Of course. I suspect this is more likely than any foul-play.

792:

I'd be inclined to say they're eligible for the round after.

3185:. Enter all your articles in as you do them, and have fun. — 2485:

I think that's a bit unreasonable. So I can take credit for

149:

I support J in this, but I also want to warn about too much

3399:

expert on the subject, but you should be familiar with the

1596:

Speaking of DYK, I was slightly surprised to discover that

153:

entering the rules; they are complicated enough as it is. —

1752:

to keep up with Editor A who does nothing in round 2... -

2565:

You can, providing they're your work. Take a look at the

1712:

keep all points from the last month of the previous round

567:

Do you get to keep the points between rounds this year?

2591:

Which is precisely my issue here. This topic of Tony's

1184:

last year, so it's better to address the issue now.

3383:Request for participants to review articles at FAC 244:Didn't the boxes get shaded yellow or something? — 2199:Please remove me from the competition, thanks. -- 718:), but he is sadly not too active at the moment. 3140:fully compliant with the rules, in that round.-- 1313:Why are there 2 copyvio images in the poster? - 2453:featured topic is hardly a light undertaking. 3087:Knowledge:WikiCup/Submissions#Featured topic 1484:Was there ever any discussion of including 3117:If that doesn't work, I'll poke X! again. 2713:Dude, I know the rules on recreation. See 1047:Knowledge:WikiCup/History/2010/Standings 956:Knowledge:WikiCup/History/2010/Standings 950:Knowledge:WikiCup/History/2010/Standings 2335:List of American League pennant winners 1243:I don't think I will win, but thanks.-- 14: 3089:and observe the formatting. (2) go to 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 3420:If you have questions, please ask at 1709:keep 1/2 of the previous round points 3389:especially if you have one nominated 2397:bad). Don't think of it as a waste. 25: 3238:Come on! Squeal is not an option!-- 208:Knowledge talk:WikiCup/History/2010 23: 24: 3497: 2991:the addition of a small paragraph 2750:Did the judges see this question? 29: 1103:I've copied Dabomb's note from 185:Question about table formatting 3401:criteria of a featured article 2413:But this topic was promoted a 13: 1: 1600:wasn't a wikicup nomination. 581:I'm not aware of any change? 204:18:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC) 3482:13:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC) 3468:03:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC) 3453:19:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC) 3438:17:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC) 3375:19:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC) 3361:19:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC) 3346:12:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC) 3331:07:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC) 3290:19:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC) 3276:19:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC) 3262:16:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC) 3248:15:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC) 3234:12:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC) 3220:11:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC) 3205:08:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC) 3165:22:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC) 3150:20:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC) 3127:12:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC) 3113:08:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC) 3080:07:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC) 3041:23:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC) 3027:23:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC) 3003:23:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC) 2985:22:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC) 2951:22:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC) 2930:11:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC) 2915:08:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC) 2900:06:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC) 2860:07:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC) 2828:21:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC) 2811:19:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC) 2780:19:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC) 2745:03:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC) 2709:23:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC) 2688:16:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC) 2641:18:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC) 2605:18:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC) 2579:18:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC) 2561:17:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC) 2527:17:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC) 2508:16:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC) 2481:15:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC) 2463:13:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC) 2444:06:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC) 2427:06:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC) 2407:04:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC) 2384:04:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC) 2347:04:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC) 2321:04:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC) 2289:03:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC) 2270:03:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC) 2228:13:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC) 2213:03:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC) 2189:23:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC) 2163:00:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC) 2148:00:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC) 2130:00:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC) 2114:00:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC) 2081:00:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC) 2066:00:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC) 2052:00:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC) 2037:00:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC) 2022:00:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC) 2008:00:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC) 1993:23:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC) 1969:23:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC) 1949:21:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC) 1935:20:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC) 1908:20:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC) 1889:20:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC) 1859:14:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC) 1844:02:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC) 1829:02:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC) 1814:02:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC) 1799:23:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC) 1777:23:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC) 1762:23:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC) 1745:23:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC) 1729:23:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC) 1679:23:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC) 1664:22:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC) 1637:21:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC) 1623:21:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC) 1610:00:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC) 1592:20:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC) 1577:19:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC) 1563:19:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC) 1549:16:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC) 1534:14:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC) 1516:14:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC) 1488:selections in the scoring?-- 1475:22:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC) 1463:20:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC) 1449:16:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC) 1423:02:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC) 1406:19:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC) 1391:18:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC) 1376:18:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC) 1352:18:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC) 1338:18:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC) 1323:05:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC) 1304:02:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC) 1285:13:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC) 1271:16:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC) 1238:02:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC) 1218:15:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC) 1194:16:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC) 1176:15:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC) 1162:12:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC) 1147:06:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC) 1132:18:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC) 1117:20:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC) 1087:02:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC) 1073:02:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC) 1059:21:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC) 1039:20:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC) 1012:19:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC) 998:19:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC) 983:18:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC) 968:11:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC) 940:20:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC) 913:13:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC) 904:09:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC) 883:02:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC) 866:22:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC) 840:21:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC) 819:09:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC) 802:09:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC) 787:06:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC) 742:11:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC) 728:12:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC) 700:12:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC) 686:12:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC) 671:07:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC) 650:18:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC) 634:09:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC) 608:09:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC) 591:21:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC) 577:20:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC) 563:17:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC) 535:17:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC) 517:17:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC) 491:06:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC) 468:12:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC) 454:05:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC) 441:05:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC) 427:05:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC) 400:02:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC) 376:17:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC) 362:16:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC) 344:23:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC) 320:22:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC) 299:23:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC) 278:22:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC) 264:19:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC) 240:19:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC) 226:18:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC) 173:19:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC) 145:16:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC) 130:16:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC) 116:14:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC) 100:14:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC) 7: 10: 3502: 2238:Why did the bot ignore my 1099:Featured list participants 2868:Bot ignored my FT (day 2) 1309:Copyvio images in poster? 656:Time until points show up 289:issuing each newsletter? 806:Round after, indeed. :) 3224:Who is not submitting? 1866:there is no difference 954:I created the subpage 595:Uh, no, you don't. :) 405:Fight to the death? -- 60:Points while reviewing 18:Knowledge talk:WikiCup 908:So I could join now? 754:Interround promotions 206:originally posted to 42:of past discussions. 2961:J, will you look at 2595:nominated in 2010. 2415:veery long time ago 1411:The League#Episodes 704:You'll have to ask 2275:Try formatting it 1521:No, there wasn't. 1299:Don't wear it out. 831:I noticed that my 3078: 2898: 2858: 2778: 2743: 2715:my best creations 2686: 2639: 2382: 2319: 2268: 2234:Bot ignored my FT 1532: 1514: 1269: 1139:William S. Saturn 902: 817: 785: 632: 606: 210: 98: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3493: 3203: 3201: 3195: 3190: 3111: 3109: 3103: 3098: 3056: 3025: 3023: 3017: 3012: 2983: 2981: 2975: 2970: 2939:submissions page 2876: 2836: 2808: 2799: 2756: 2721: 2706: 2697: 2664: 2617: 2503: 2500: 2495: 2393:FA shouldn't be 2360: 2297: 2246: 2210: 2205: 2175: 1796: 1787: 1701:serious proposal 1662: 1660: 1652: 1647: 1619: 1531: 1529: 1522: 1492: 1374: 1372: 1366: 1361: 1247: 938: 936: 930: 925: 901: 899: 892: 864: 862: 856: 851: 816: 814: 807: 763: 631: 629: 622: 605: 603: 596: 549: 489: 486: 480: 452: 450: 436: 425: 423: 415: 410: 262: 260: 254: 249: 237: 224: 221: 219: 205: 202: 193: 171: 169: 163: 158: 76: 33: 32: 26: 3501: 3500: 3496: 3495: 3494: 3492: 3491: 3490: 3385: 3359: 3312: 3200:majestic titan) 3199: 3193: 3188: 3186: 3179:crying "Havoc!" 3137: 3108:majestic titan) 3107: 3101: 3096: 3094: 3022:majestic titan) 3021: 3015: 3010: 3008: 2980:majestic titan) 2979: 2973: 2968: 2966: 2958: 2913: 2870: 2802: 2797: 2700: 2695: 2655: 2603: 2559: 2501: 2498: 2493: 2479: 2442: 2405: 2345: 2287: 2236: 2208: 2201: 2197: 2173: 1906: 1790: 1785: 1703: 1658: 1650: 1645: 1643: 1617: 1525: 1523: 1482: 1421: 1371:majestic titan) 1370: 1364: 1359: 1357: 1311: 1301: 1292:Dropping out. 1226: 1216: 1101: 1037: 952: 935:majestic titan) 934: 928: 923: 921: 917:Yeah, you're in 895: 893: 861:majestic titan) 860: 854: 849: 847: 829: 810: 808: 756: 658: 625: 623: 599: 597: 547: 533: 484: 475: 473: 448: 446: 434: 421: 413: 408: 406: 388: 307: 297: 259:majestic titan) 258: 252: 247: 245: 233: 222: 215: 212: 196: 191: 187: 168:majestic titan) 167: 161: 156: 154: 120:How about 1pt? 64:I am reviewing 62: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3499: 3489: 3488: 3487: 3486: 3485: 3484: 3426: 3425: 3417: 3416: 3411: 3410: 3405: 3404: 3384: 3381: 3380: 3379: 3378: 3377: 3355: 3324: 3323: 3320: 3311: 3308: 3307: 3306: 3305: 3304: 3303: 3302: 3301: 3300: 3299: 3298: 3297: 3296: 3295: 3294: 3293: 3292: 3236: 3183:blood shedding 3136: 3133: 3132: 3131: 3130: 3129: 3050: 3049: 3048: 3047: 3046: 3045: 3044: 3043: 2957: 2954: 2935: 2934: 2933: 2932: 2909: 2869: 2866: 2865: 2864: 2863: 2862: 2814: 2813: 2787: 2786: 2785: 2784: 2783: 2782: 2654: 2651: 2650: 2649: 2648: 2647: 2646: 2645: 2644: 2643: 2608: 2607: 2599: 2584: 2583: 2582: 2581: 2555: 2548: 2547: 2546: 2545: 2544: 2543: 2542: 2541: 2540: 2539: 2538: 2537: 2536: 2535: 2534: 2533: 2532: 2531: 2530: 2529: 2511: 2510: 2483: 2475: 2466: 2465: 2447: 2446: 2438: 2410: 2409: 2401: 2387: 2386: 2350: 2349: 2341: 2326: 2325: 2324: 2323: 2283: 2235: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2196: 2193: 2192: 2191: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2166: 2165: 2102: 2101: 2100: 2099: 2098: 2097: 2096: 2095: 2094: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2083: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1918: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1913: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1902: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1748: 1747: 1717: 1716: 1713: 1710: 1702: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1695: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1612: 1481: 1478: 1472:Charles Edward 1468: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1453:A good point. 1436: 1435: 1434: 1433: 1432: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1417: 1310: 1307: 1297: 1290: 1289: 1288: 1287: 1225: 1222: 1221: 1220: 1212: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1182:minor incident 1100: 1097: 1096: 1095: 1094: 1093: 1092: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1042: 1041: 1033: 1024: 1023: 1019: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1015: 1014: 951: 948: 947: 946: 945: 944: 943: 942: 906: 886: 885: 869: 868: 828: 825: 824: 823: 822: 821: 755: 752: 751: 750: 749: 748: 747: 746: 745: 744: 657: 654: 653: 652: 619: 618: 617: 616: 615: 614: 613: 612: 611: 610: 593: 538: 537: 529: 522: 521: 520: 519: 502: 501: 500: 499: 498: 497: 496: 495: 494: 493: 431:I second. — 387: 384: 383: 382: 381: 380: 379: 378: 331: 306: 303: 302: 301: 293: 285: 284: 283: 282: 281: 280: 186: 183: 182: 181: 180: 179: 178: 177: 176: 175: 61: 58: 56: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3498: 3483: 3479: 3475: 3471: 3470: 3469: 3465: 3461: 3456: 3455: 3454: 3450: 3446: 3442: 3441: 3440: 3439: 3435: 3431: 3428:Thank you. -- 3423: 3419: 3418: 3413: 3412: 3407: 3406: 3402: 3397: 3396: 3395: 3392: 3390: 3376: 3372: 3368: 3364: 3363: 3362: 3358: 3354: 3350: 3349: 3348: 3347: 3343: 3339: 3333: 3332: 3329: 3321: 3317: 3316: 3315: 3310:Two questions 3291: 3287: 3283: 3279: 3278: 3277: 3273: 3269: 3265: 3264: 3263: 3259: 3255: 3251: 3250: 3249: 3245: 3241: 3237: 3235: 3231: 3227: 3223: 3222: 3221: 3217: 3213: 3208: 3207: 3206: 3202: 3196: 3191: 3184: 3180: 3176: 3172: 3171: 3168: 3167: 3166: 3162: 3158: 3154: 3153: 3152: 3151: 3147: 3143: 3128: 3124: 3120: 3116: 3115: 3114: 3110: 3104: 3099: 3092: 3088: 3084: 3083: 3082: 3081: 3076: 3072: 3068: 3064: 3060: 3055: 3042: 3038: 3034: 3030: 3029: 3028: 3024: 3018: 3013: 3006: 3005: 3004: 3000: 2996: 2992: 2988: 2987: 2986: 2982: 2976: 2971: 2964: 2960: 2959: 2956:Sturmvogel 66 2953: 2952: 2948: 2944: 2941:requires it. 2940: 2931: 2927: 2923: 2919: 2918: 2916: 2912: 2908: 2904: 2903: 2902: 2901: 2896: 2892: 2888: 2884: 2880: 2875: 2861: 2856: 2852: 2848: 2844: 2840: 2835: 2831: 2830: 2829: 2825: 2821: 2816: 2815: 2812: 2809: 2807: 2806: 2800: 2794: 2789: 2788: 2781: 2776: 2772: 2768: 2764: 2760: 2755: 2751: 2748: 2747: 2746: 2741: 2737: 2733: 2729: 2725: 2720: 2716: 2712: 2711: 2710: 2707: 2705: 2704: 2698: 2692: 2691: 2690: 2689: 2684: 2680: 2676: 2672: 2668: 2663: 2659: 2658:SitNGo Wizard 2642: 2637: 2633: 2629: 2625: 2621: 2616: 2612: 2611: 2610: 2609: 2606: 2602: 2598: 2594: 2590: 2589: 2588: 2587: 2586: 2585: 2580: 2576: 2572: 2568: 2564: 2563: 2562: 2558: 2554: 2550: 2549: 2528: 2524: 2520: 2515: 2514: 2513: 2512: 2509: 2506: 2505: 2504: 2496: 2488: 2484: 2482: 2478: 2474: 2470: 2469: 2468: 2467: 2464: 2460: 2456: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2448: 2445: 2441: 2437: 2432: 2431: 2430: 2429: 2428: 2424: 2420: 2416: 2412: 2411: 2408: 2404: 2400: 2396: 2391: 2390: 2389: 2388: 2385: 2380: 2376: 2372: 2368: 2364: 2359: 2354: 2353: 2352: 2351: 2348: 2344: 2340: 2336: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2329: 2328: 2327: 2322: 2317: 2313: 2309: 2305: 2301: 2296: 2292: 2291: 2290: 2286: 2282: 2278: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2271: 2266: 2262: 2258: 2254: 2250: 2245: 2241: 2229: 2225: 2221: 2217: 2216: 2215: 2214: 2211: 2206: 2204: 2190: 2186: 2183: 2180: 2176: 2170: 2164: 2160: 2156: 2151: 2150: 2149: 2145: 2141: 2137: 2133: 2132: 2131: 2127: 2123: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2115: 2111: 2107: 2082: 2078: 2074: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2063: 2059: 2055: 2054: 2053: 2049: 2045: 2040: 2039: 2038: 2034: 2030: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2019: 2015: 2011: 2010: 2009: 2005: 2001: 1996: 1995: 1994: 1990: 1986: 1981: 1977: 1972: 1971: 1970: 1966: 1962: 1957: 1952: 1951: 1950: 1946: 1942: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1932: 1928: 1923: 1909: 1905: 1901: 1896: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1886: 1882: 1878: 1875: 1874:wp:cup player 1871: 1867: 1862: 1861: 1860: 1856: 1852: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1841: 1837: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1826: 1822: 1817: 1816: 1815: 1811: 1807: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1797: 1795: 1794: 1788: 1782: 1778: 1774: 1770: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1759: 1755: 1750: 1749: 1746: 1742: 1738: 1733: 1732: 1731: 1730: 1726: 1722: 1714: 1711: 1708: 1707: 1706: 1680: 1676: 1672: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1661: 1656: 1653: 1648: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1634: 1630: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1621: 1620: 1613: 1611: 1607: 1603: 1599: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1589: 1585: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1574: 1570: 1566: 1565: 1564: 1560: 1556: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1546: 1542: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1530: 1528: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1512: 1508: 1504: 1500: 1496: 1491: 1487: 1477: 1476: 1473: 1464: 1460: 1456: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1446: 1442: 1438: 1437: 1424: 1420: 1416: 1412: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1403: 1399: 1394: 1393: 1392: 1388: 1384: 1379: 1378: 1377: 1373: 1367: 1362: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1349: 1345: 1341: 1340: 1339: 1335: 1331: 1327: 1326: 1325: 1324: 1320: 1316: 1306: 1305: 1300: 1295: 1286: 1282: 1278: 1274: 1273: 1272: 1267: 1263: 1259: 1255: 1251: 1246: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1235: 1231: 1219: 1215: 1211: 1207: 1206: 1195: 1191: 1187: 1183: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1173: 1169: 1165: 1164: 1163: 1159: 1155: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1144: 1140: 1136: 1135: 1133: 1129: 1125: 1121: 1120: 1119: 1118: 1114: 1110: 1106: 1088: 1084: 1080: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1070: 1066: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1056: 1052: 1048: 1044: 1043: 1040: 1036: 1032: 1028: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1021: 1020: 1013: 1009: 1005: 1001: 1000: 999: 995: 991: 986: 985: 984: 980: 976: 972: 971: 970: 969: 965: 961: 957: 941: 937: 931: 926: 919: 916: 915: 914: 911: 907: 905: 900: 898: 890: 889: 888: 887: 884: 880: 876: 871: 870: 867: 863: 857: 852: 844: 843: 842: 841: 838: 834: 827:Joining late? 820: 815: 813: 805: 804: 803: 799: 795: 791: 790: 789: 788: 783: 779: 775: 771: 767: 762: 743: 739: 735: 731: 730: 729: 725: 721: 717: 714: 711: 707: 703: 702: 701: 697: 693: 689: 688: 687: 683: 679: 675: 674: 673: 672: 668: 664: 651: 647: 643: 638: 637: 636: 635: 630: 628: 609: 604: 602: 594: 592: 588: 584: 580: 579: 578: 574: 570: 566: 565: 564: 560: 557: 554: 550: 544: 543: 542: 541: 540: 539: 536: 532: 528: 524: 523: 518: 514: 510: 506: 505: 504: 503: 492: 487: 481: 479: 471: 470: 469: 465: 461: 457: 456: 455: 451: 444: 443: 442: 438: 437: 430: 429: 428: 424: 419: 416: 411: 404: 403: 402: 401: 397: 393: 377: 373: 369: 365: 364: 363: 359: 355: 351: 347: 346: 345: 341: 337: 332: 329: 324: 323: 322: 321: 317: 313: 300: 296: 292: 287: 286: 279: 275: 271: 267: 266: 265: 261: 255: 250: 243: 242: 241: 238: 236: 230: 229: 228: 227: 220: 218: 209: 203: 201: 200: 194: 174: 170: 164: 159: 152: 148: 147: 146: 142: 138: 133: 132: 131: 127: 123: 119: 118: 117: 113: 109: 104: 103: 102: 101: 96: 92: 88: 84: 80: 75: 71: 67: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3427: 3393: 3388: 3386: 3334: 3325: 3313: 3175:backstabbing 3138: 3054:TonyTheTiger 3051: 2936: 2874:TonyTheTiger 2871: 2834:TonyTheTiger 2804: 2803: 2792: 2754:TonyTheTiger 2749: 2719:TonyTheTiger 2702: 2701: 2662:TonyTheTiger 2656: 2615:TonyTheTiger 2592: 2491: 2490: 2394: 2358:TonyTheTiger 2295:TonyTheTiger 2244:TonyTheTiger 2237: 2218:You're out. 2202: 2198: 2181: 2174:AnmaFinotera 2103: 1975: 1955: 1894: 1876: 1873: 1869: 1865: 1792: 1791: 1718: 1704: 1615: 1526: 1490:TonyTheTiger 1483: 1469: 1312: 1291: 1245:TonyTheTiger 1227: 1102: 953: 896: 830: 811: 761:TonyTheTiger 757: 712: 659: 626: 620: 600: 555: 548:AnmaFinotera 477: 432: 389: 349: 327: 308: 234: 216: 198: 197: 188: 74:TonyTheTiger 66:Kate Winslet 63: 55: 43: 37: 3353:Staxringold 2907:Staxringold 2597:Staxringold 2553:Staxringold 2473:Staxringold 2436:Staxringold 2399:Staxringold 2339:Staxringold 2281:Staxringold 1980:game theory 1900:Staxringold 1415:Staxringold 1210:Staxringold 1031:Staxringold 527:Staxringold 291:Staxringold 36:This is an 3460:WFCforLife 3135:Submission 3071:WP:CHICAGO 2891:WP:CHICAGO 2851:WP:CHICAGO 2771:WP:CHICAGO 2736:WP:CHICAGO 2679:WP:CHICAGO 2632:WP:CHICAGO 2567:rules page 2375:WP:CHICAGO 2312:WP:CHICAGO 2261:WP:CHICAGO 2203:Andy Walsh 2195:Withdrawal 1754:Adolphus79 1602:WFCforLife 1569:WFCforLife 1507:WP:CHICAGO 1441:Adolphus79 1315:Adolphus79 1294:CJ Miller. 1262:WP:CHICAGO 1224:Withdrawal 1168:WFCforLife 1109:WFCforLife 1065:WFCforLife 778:WP:CHICAGO 642:WFCforLife 354:WFCforLife 305:GA then FA 151:creepiness 91:WP:CHICAGO 3474:J Milburn 3445:J Milburn 3367:J Milburn 3338:J Milburn 3282:J Milburn 3254:J Milburn 3226:J Milburn 3157:J Milburn 3119:J Milburn 3033:J Milburn 2995:J Milburn 2965:please? — 2943:J Milburn 2922:J Milburn 2820:J Milburn 2571:J Milburn 2519:J Milburn 2455:J Milburn 2293:Thanks.-- 2277:like this 2220:J Milburn 2155:J Milburn 2122:J Milburn 2073:J Milburn 2044:J Milburn 2014:J Milburn 1985:J Milburn 1941:J Milburn 1851:J Milburn 1821:J Milburn 1737:J Milburn 1671:J Milburn 1629:J Milburn 1584:J Milburn 1541:J Milburn 1455:J Milburn 1398:J Milburn 1383:J Milburn 1330:J Milburn 1277:J Milburn 1154:J Milburn 1079:J Milburn 1004:J Milburn 988:inside.-- 975:J Milburn 875:J Milburn 794:J Milburn 759:rounds.-- 720:J Milburn 678:J Milburn 583:J Milburn 460:J Milburn 386:A what if 368:J Milburn 336:Guettarda 270:J Milburn 137:J Milburn 108:J Milburn 3328:Ynhockey 3326:Thanks, 3319:article? 3210:habit.-- 2185:contribs 2136:wp:creep 1767:second. 1186:Dabomb87 1124:Dabomb87 833:question 716:contribs 559:contribs 458:Clever. 3075:WP:FOUR 2895:WP:FOUR 2855:WP:FOUR 2775:WP:FOUR 2740:WP:FOUR 2683:WP:FOUR 2636:WP:FOUR 2419:Nergaal 2379:WP:FOUR 2316:WP:FOUR 2265:WP:FOUR 2140:Nergaal 2058:Nergaal 2029:Nergaal 2000:Nergaal 1961:Nergaal 1956:naively 1927:Nergaal 1881:Nergaal 1870:instead 1836:Nergaal 1806:Nergaal 1769:Nergaal 1721:Nergaal 1618:Spencer 1555:Nergaal 1511:WP:FOUR 1344:Useight 1266:WP:FOUR 1137:Why? -- 782:WP:FOUR 569:Nergaal 509:Nergaal 435:pd_THOR 392:Useight 312:Nergaal 217:Niagara 122:Nergaal 95:WP:FOUR 39:archive 3422:WT:FAC 2653:WP:AFD 2593:wasn't 2209:(talk) 2106:Sasata 1527:GARDEN 1230:Danger 910:Secret 897:GARDEN 837:Secret 812:GARDEN 627:GARDEN 601:GARDEN 449:Durova 328:better 235:GARDEN 211: 70:WP:GAC 3430:Moni3 3268:Stone 3240:Stone 3212:Stone 3194:(talk 3142:Stone 3102:(talk 3016:(talk 2974:(talk 2805:Anode 2703:Anode 2502:orium 2240:WP:FT 1793:Anode 1659:wicke 1486:WP:SA 1480:WP:SA 1365:(talk 1051:Stone 990:Stone 960:Stone 929:(talk 855:(talk 734:Stone 692:Stone 663:Stone 476:Gary 422:wicke 253:(talk 199:Anode 162:(talk 16:< 3478:talk 3464:talk 3449:talk 3434:talk 3371:talk 3357:talk 3342:talk 3286:talk 3272:talk 3258:talk 3244:talk 3230:talk 3216:talk 3181:and 3161:talk 3146:talk 3123:talk 3037:talk 2999:talk 2947:talk 2926:talk 2911:talk 2824:talk 2798:Unit 2696:Unit 2601:talk 2575:talk 2557:talk 2523:talk 2499:left 2477:talk 2459:talk 2440:talk 2423:talk 2403:talk 2343:talk 2285:talk 2224:talk 2179:talk 2159:talk 2144:talk 2126:talk 2110:talk 2077:talk 2062:talk 2048:talk 2033:talk 2018:talk 2004:talk 1989:talk 1976:does 1965:talk 1945:talk 1931:talk 1904:talk 1885:talk 1855:talk 1840:talk 1825:talk 1810:talk 1786:Unit 1773:talk 1758:talk 1741:talk 1725:talk 1675:talk 1633:talk 1606:talk 1598:this 1588:talk 1573:talk 1559:talk 1545:talk 1459:talk 1445:talk 1419:talk 1402:talk 1387:talk 1348:talk 1334:talk 1319:talk 1281:talk 1234:talk 1214:talk 1190:talk 1172:talk 1158:talk 1143:talk 1128:talk 1113:talk 1105:here 1083:talk 1069:talk 1055:talk 1035:talk 1008:talk 994:talk 979:talk 964:talk 920::) — 879:talk 798:talk 738:talk 724:talk 710:talk 696:talk 682:talk 667:talk 646:talk 587:talk 573:talk 553:talk 531:talk 513:talk 485:talk 478:King 464:talk 396:talk 372:talk 358:talk 350:very 340:talk 316:talk 295:talk 274:talk 192:Unit 141:talk 126:talk 112:talk 3067:BIO 2887:bio 2847:BIO 2793:are 2767:bio 2732:bio 2675:bio 2628:bio 2494:The 2395:too 2371:bio 2308:bio 2257:bio 2242:?-- 1895:all 1651:dle 1646:can 1503:bio 1258:bio 774:bio 414:dle 409:can 87:bio 68:at 3480:) 3466:) 3451:) 3436:) 3391:. 3373:) 3344:) 3288:) 3274:) 3260:) 3246:) 3232:) 3218:) 3197:• 3189:Ed 3177:, 3163:) 3148:) 3125:) 3105:• 3097:Ed 3077:) 3039:) 3019:• 3011:Ed 3001:) 2977:• 2969:Ed 2949:) 2928:) 2917:R 2897:) 2857:) 2826:) 2777:) 2752:-- 2742:) 2685:) 2638:) 2577:) 2569:. 2525:) 2461:) 2425:) 2417:. 2381:) 2318:) 2279:. 2267:) 2226:) 2187:) 2161:) 2146:) 2128:) 2112:) 2079:) 2064:) 2050:) 2035:) 2020:) 2006:) 1991:) 1967:) 1947:) 1933:) 1887:) 1857:) 1842:) 1827:) 1812:) 1775:) 1760:) 1743:) 1727:) 1677:) 1635:) 1608:) 1590:) 1575:) 1561:) 1547:) 1513:) 1461:) 1447:) 1413:? 1404:) 1389:) 1368:• 1360:Ed 1350:) 1336:) 1321:) 1302:) 1283:) 1268:) 1236:) 1192:) 1174:) 1160:) 1145:) 1134:" 1130:) 1115:) 1107:. 1085:) 1071:) 1057:) 1010:) 996:) 981:) 966:) 932:• 924:Ed 881:) 858:• 850:Ed 800:) 784:) 740:) 726:) 706:X! 698:) 684:) 669:) 661:-- 648:) 589:) 575:) 561:) 515:) 466:) 439:| 398:) 374:) 360:) 342:) 318:) 276:) 256:• 248:Ed 223: 213: 165:• 157:Ed 143:) 128:) 114:) 97:) 3476:( 3462:( 3447:( 3432:( 3403:. 3369:( 3340:( 3284:( 3270:( 3256:( 3242:( 3228:( 3214:( 3159:( 3144:( 3121:( 3073:/ 3069:/ 3065:/ 3063:C 3061:/ 3059:T 3057:( 3035:( 2997:( 2945:( 2924:( 2893:/ 2889:/ 2885:/ 2883:c 2881:/ 2879:t 2877:( 2853:/ 2849:/ 2845:/ 2843:C 2841:/ 2839:T 2837:( 2822:( 2773:/ 2769:/ 2765:/ 2763:c 2761:/ 2759:t 2757:( 2738:/ 2734:/ 2730:/ 2728:c 2726:/ 2724:t 2722:( 2681:/ 2677:/ 2673:/ 2671:c 2669:/ 2667:t 2665:( 2634:/ 2630:/ 2626:/ 2624:c 2622:/ 2620:t 2618:( 2573:( 2521:( 2457:( 2421:( 2377:/ 2373:/ 2369:/ 2367:c 2365:/ 2363:t 2361:( 2314:/ 2310:/ 2306:/ 2304:c 2302:/ 2300:t 2298:( 2263:/ 2259:/ 2255:/ 2253:c 2251:/ 2249:t 2247:( 2222:( 2182:· 2177:( 2157:( 2142:( 2124:( 2108:( 2075:( 2060:( 2046:( 2031:( 2016:( 2002:( 1987:( 1963:( 1943:( 1929:( 1883:( 1853:( 1838:( 1823:( 1808:( 1771:( 1756:( 1739:( 1723:( 1673:( 1655:• 1631:( 1604:( 1586:( 1571:( 1557:( 1543:( 1509:/ 1505:/ 1501:/ 1499:c 1497:/ 1495:t 1493:( 1457:( 1443:( 1400:( 1385:( 1346:( 1332:( 1317:( 1296:( 1279:( 1264:/ 1260:/ 1256:/ 1254:c 1252:/ 1250:t 1248:( 1232:( 1188:( 1170:( 1156:( 1141:( 1126:( 1111:( 1081:( 1067:( 1053:( 1006:( 992:( 977:( 962:( 877:( 846:— 796:( 780:/ 776:/ 772:/ 770:c 768:/ 766:t 764:( 736:( 722:( 713:· 708:( 694:( 680:( 665:( 644:( 585:( 571:( 556:· 551:( 511:( 488:) 482:( 462:( 418:• 394:( 370:( 356:( 338:( 330:. 314:( 272:( 139:( 124:( 110:( 93:/ 89:/ 85:/ 83:c 81:/ 79:t 77:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

talk:WikiCup/Archive/2010/3 - Knowledge

Index