User talk:Coemgenus/archive2015-1

WikiCup 2015 launch newsletter

Round one of the 2015 WikiCup has begun! So far we've had around 80 signups, which close on February 5. If you have not already signed up and want to do so, then you can add your name here. There have been changes to to several of the points scores for various categories, and the addition of Peer Reviews for the first time. These will work in the same manner as Good Article Reviews, and all of the changes are summarised here.

Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round, and one of the new changes this year is that all scores must be claimed within two weeks of an article's promotion or appearance, so don't forget to add them to your submissions pages! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs), Miyagawa (talk · contribs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs)
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Solon Chase

Hi there, I've noticed your interest in the Greenback Party (and congratulations your impressive expansion of the 1880 Greenback National Convention article!). I started Solon Chase today and thought you might be interested. Chase was a very influential Greenback that has not received the national coverage in the 20th or 21st centuries that other Greenbacks have, but I have found a significant amount of material in primary sources. Will you take a look and edit as needed?--TM 20:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson Political philosophy and views section summary

Hello Coemgenus...I am currently working on a core summary of Jefferson's Polilical philosophy and views section in the Thomas Jefferson talk page...The orginial section by discussion is to be its own article and replaced by the summary to reduce the size of the article...Any editing help or input from yourself on the core summary in the talk page would be most welcome...Thanks Cmguy777 (talk) 00:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Coolidge Cowboy

Hello,

In regard to Coolidge's well known affinity for cowboy costumes - it is no exaggeration. Nearly every Coolidge biography mentions it, including Bill Bryson's recent book: "America: One Summer 1927".

The amount of resources on the web detailing Coolidge's cowboy dress is beyond plentiful. Even the White House site mentions it: http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/calvincoolidge

I would recommend adding a sentence to acknowledge Coolidge's almost comical indulgence of cowboy outfits.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpenderbrook (talk • contribs) 15:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's discuss at the article's talk page. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Reminds me: I've been meaning to restore an image of Coolidge. Any preference? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I used this in the infobox when it was first featured, back in 2007. People have changed it out since then, but if it could be made less shadowy looking, it might serve. The one in the infobox now is OK, too. I've been meaning to rewrite large sections of the article. It's FA, but it's not up to the standard I like to impose on my more recent FA submissions. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Think the current infobox image would more reward the time - the older one isn't a particularly good reproduction of the underlying photo, so there's only so far you can take it - if you check the LoC site, it's a 1.3 megabyte TIFF, which is tiny. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)

Cool. I defer to your judgment in such things! --Coemgenus (talk) 16:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Coemgenus. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lawrence Wetherby/archive1.
You can remove this notice at any time.

Thanks for the review. Sorry for the delay. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1880 Greenback National Convention

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1880 Greenback National Convention you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I've completed by review here: Talk:1880 Greenback National Convention/GA1. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments in the meantime. Thank you again for authoring a phenomenal article! -- Caponer (talk) 03:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

It is hereby a privilege to announce that this article has been passed to Good Article status! Congratulations on a job well done! -- Caponer (talk) 13:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Kersey Graves and Greenback Party

Hi there, I would like to further commend you for the fine, fine work you've done with the 1880 Greenback Convention article. You have written an article that is interesting and comprehensible on a topic for which sources are not so easy to come by. Great work! I was reading through it and I noticed a name I did not recognize in Kersey Graves. After reading the article for Graves, I have no doubt that he was a Greenback, but I also noticed that there is no mention of it in his article, nor could I find a citation on Google Books. I see that you have access to the book by Mark Lause, so perhaps, could you exapnd Kersey Graves to include information on his participation with the Greenback Party?--TM 12:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Aha, the problem was that it is early in the morning in the eastern United States and I misread his name as Kelsey. I have found multiple citations now. Either way, fantastic work!--TM 12:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, glad you liked it! --Coemgenus (talk) 13:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1880 Greenback National Convention

The article 1880 Greenback National Convention you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:1880 Greenback National Convention for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 13:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Jesse Harper

Hi there, I've been digging deeper into the Greenback Party's leaders and I found Jesse Harper (politician). He finished 2nd for the party's nomination for President in 1884 to Ben Butler. He was also national chairman and 1884 candidate for Governor of Illinois. I found this book. Any help you can give in writing and improving this article is greatly appreciated.--TM 17:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

That's a good source. I hadn't planned on working on Harper for at least a few months, but I'll put it on my watchlist and chip in where I can. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

This wiki-kitten is here to say thank you for your help in bringing Kolbe's article to GA level!

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Rename your file?

I've just been looking at File:Ogallala.JPG, which you uploaded to WP in 2007 and which was subsequently moved to Commons. I'd like to give the file a more specific name; I'm thinking about "Front Street, Ogallala, Nebraska, 2007.jpg". Insufficient specificity isn't listed as one of the reasons for changing a filename at Commons:File renaming, but I think that we'd be better off with a name that describes the content in a little more detail. Would you be willing to go along with this? I've got file-renaming rights, so given your consent, I'll go ahead and do the rename. (I'll watch this talk page, so you can reply here if you'd like). Thanks — Ammodramus (talk) 13:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

That's fine by me. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Done, thanks. — Ammodramus (talk) 21:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Samuel J. Randall, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Silver dollar. 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) 08:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK for 1880 Greenback National Convention

Harrias ^talk 01:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Beautiful Garbage GA

Coemgenus, thanks for reviewing and passing it. Cheers. Lapadite (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Glad to do it. It didn't need much improvement! --Coemgenus (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Version 2.0 RfC

Hi, Coemgenus. If you'd like to weigh in there's an RfC created on this page regarding the critical reception section. --Lapadite (talk) 14:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding GA review of Bharatiya Janata Party

Thank you for your valuable feedback. I was also going through a quick read and found some factual errors, I mentioned one on the talk page. Regards. --AmritasyaPutra^T 19:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Any more questions you have are welcome at the GA review. I know some basics about the BJP, but I'm certainly not an expert. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

James B. Weaver

Congratulations on getting the subject article promoted to FA! Very well done! Sarnold17 (talk) 11:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! And thank you for your help with getting it there. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Ulysses S. Grant

Hello. I've left some commentary here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Tillman

Thanks for the review. A subsequent reviewer has expressed concerns, that I'd be grateful if you'd look over.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Will do. --Coemgenus (talk) 03:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter

One of several of Godot13's quality submissions during round 1

That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. 64 competitors made it into this round, and are now broken into eight groups of eight. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups. Round 1 saw some interesting work on some very important articles, with the round leader Freikorp (submissions) owing most of his 622 points scored to a Featured Article on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, as Godot13 (submissions) had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge, Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) led round 1 with 601 points in 2013.

In addition to Freikorp's work, some other important articles and pictures were improved during round one, here's a snapshot of a few of them:

• Cwmhiraeth (submissions) took Bumblebee, a level-4 vital article, to Good Article;
• AHeneen (submissions) worked-up the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 article, also to Good Article status;
• Rodw (submissions) developed an extremely timely article to Good Article, taking Magna Carta there some 800 years after it was first sealed;
• And last but not least, Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points) worked up a number of Featured Pictures during round 1, including the 1948 one Deutsche Mark (pictured right), receiving the maximum bonus due to the number of Wikis that the related article appears in.

You may also wish to know that The Core Contest is running through the month of March. Head there for further details - they even have actual prizes!

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email)

Thanks for your assistance! Miyagawa (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiCup.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Garfield

If you want to work on it together, I certainly have no objection. Perhaps we could divide work? I've done up to the Civil War, perhaps you could do the military spell, the election of 1880, and a good part of the presidency, while I focus on the congressional career? You've been there what with Blaine. I think it will take both of us to do the assassination part. That's what people are most interested in. That's just offhand, we can work on it however suits.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure! That seems like a good division of labor. I've written about the 1880 election so many times now, I could basically do it from memory. And I have the sources to cover the presidency well enough. I'll be glad to take a crack at it. As to congressional career, I don't know what you've got planned, but I thought organizing it by topic, rather than by election, makes more sense, especially with the elections never really being close in Garfield's district. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree,I was planning to reorganize them. The only close election was 1874, when Garfield was hurt by Credit Mobilier and it was a very bad year for Republicans, and he still got 57 percent. I guess the Democrats never got the chance to mess with his district like they did with McKinley. [later note: they did mess with his district in 1878, he responded with the move to Mentor]I have a couple of books on the assassination. Legacy, we'll muddle through. This article isn't as heavy on trivia and pop culture as some, but what there is should be exported to a sub article.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it's bloated, but not in bad shape. The editor who took it to GA, if I remember, is a good guy, but has been less active of late. Legacy is always tough for Gilded Age guys. It mostly ends with "... and nobody talks about him anymore." The assassination alone makes Garfield prominent to the modern citizen.--Coemgenus (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

It's a decent foundation to work on. I went over to GMU library and got Caldwell, and am reading him on Garfield's congressional career. Also got a copy of Doenecke.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. I have Doenecke, too, and Kenneth Ackerman's book on the 1880 convention. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I have Ackerman's book on the assassination, plus one more on that subject. Kindle.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Are you aware of anything that says definitely that Garfield supported the Coinage Act (Crime) of 1873? The biographers choose to focus on the Salary Grab and Credit Mobilier, and they really pick up the silver question later on.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

If it's not in Peskin, then no. He seemed unusually devoted to gold, for a westerner, so I just assumed he had voted for it. But I'll try to find a better answer than that. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I suspect that he couldn't both have voted against and won the nomination in 1880. I know he voted against Bland-Allison, the refs, both on him and McKinley (who voted for) are clear on that. I'll keep looking too. I'm hoping to wrap up the Congressional stuff in the next few days, and I'll move to the assassination after that. We will have to mention his proof of the Pythagorean theorem somewhere or other.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

This book of legislative history has the bill passing 110 to 13, presumably with many abstentions, but doesn't say who voted which way. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course, there's some doubt that many congressmen understood exactly what effect the act would have ... at least everyone denied afterwards (who had a vote) that they were trying to impose a gold standard.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The Coinage Act of 1873 could probably be a featured article itself, someday. There's a lot there to write about. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Good point, and I have numismatic books on it too.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking about how to organize it ... I think it is worth doing. I'll put it on the to-do list.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm up to 1880. Tomorrow I'm going to start reading about the assassination. The point I left off with, his election to the Senate, seems a logical point for you to pick up.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Great. I have Caldwell now, too, as well as Doenecke, so I'm good for sources. This week looks to be busy at my real job, but I should be able to dive in to 1880 before too long. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Assassination, and legacy sections done. I really chewed the scenery in the legacy section, and if you can think of anything else to add, go ahead. I think we're going to need an aftermath section. With your knowledge of Arthur, I think that's your department, focusing on the Pendleton Act of course. I'm going to take some time away from this to do my promised work on Vonnegut, but I'll be back and probably trim the memorials a bit and we can do the usual to hide the seams between what we've each done and make the lede reasonably attractive to the reader. A few more well-chosen images wouldn't hurt. I think it will be quite good when we've done all that. I was a little worried at first just because there's only so much you can say.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, I don't think Guiteau should be mentioned in the body until we get to the assassination section.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, that sounds like a plan. I hope to finish the presidency in the next week and start making all the references look the same. And I agree about Guiteau. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: I was thinking the "State funeral, memorials and commemorations" section could be trimmed and reorganized. Do you mind if I take a whack at it this week? --Coemgenus (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Feel free.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: in the legacy section, you say that Caldwell said something in 1965. I know his book was written in 1931, but reprinted in 1965. Were the words you reference in a new forward to the '65 edition, or just part of the original work? --Coemgenus (talk) 12:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

That's my goof. Didn't realize it was a reprint. You might want to correct the cite book with an origyear.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'll fiddle with it. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

How are things going on this?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm still not thrilled with the lede, but the main text looks good to me. What do you think? Should we do a peer review, or go straight to FAC? --Coemgenus (talk) 12:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Peer review, I think, but if you want we can skip and go right in. I'll give it a read over later on, and I'll play with the lede.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

No, I agree. PR is good for finding things we've missed. And I'll fiddle with the lede this weekend, too, when I can. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I've had my shot at him (I had to get in line behind this office-seeker). As far as I'm concerned, it's ready for PR or even FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll give it another once-over tonight, but your edits all look fine to me. If you still want to go through PR, that's cool. I have a nom at FAC still, though I think it should pass soon. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Let's just go to FAC. We are allowed a second nomination without leave if it's a joint one, remember.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I had forgotten that. Sure, let's do it. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

There's about three left from the image review I'd be grateful if you could look at. I gather you've done some of Tim's comments, is there anything you need me to do on those?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take care of those tomorrow morning. Sorry to have been AWOL today, work got kind of crazy. I'll let you know if I need anything from your end after I take a pass through the comments. --Coemgenus (talk) 03:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Ulysses S. Grant source review

Hi Coemgenus, I removed your request for a source review for Ulysses S. Grant because it's clear there is still substantive article work going on and fresh commentary coming in as recently as today. As an FAC coordinator, I'd prefer to see the source review when article work is complete as a final step before promotion. As a reviewer, I also would prefer to do a source review when I know things won't change substantively. At the same time, I don't want to see you bumped to the bottom of the waitlist, so please ping me when you feel that article work is complete and I will recuse/do the source review right away. --Laser brain (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the head's up. I hope we'll be finished with it today. I'll ping you back when the dust has settled. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

@Laser brain:: I think it's all settled now. There was comparatively little pushback, so maybe that's a good sign? Thanks for helping out with the source review, I really appreciate it. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm on it! --Laser brain (talk) 16:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Just a reminder: we still need something at TFA to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the end of the Civil War. I see Crisco has already scheduled for April 9 and April 12, the two most likely dates. I'd like to ask him to swap this one in after it clears FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 19:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I hope that works out. I'm getting nervous about it passing, even though there are no explicit opposes. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Stephen D. Dillaye

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

BJP

Greetings, friend. As you might have noticed, I renominated Bharatiya Janata Party at GAN, since the discussions begun by Calypsomusic have gone dormant despite his continued editing at Wikipedia. You had said that you would review it again; if you are still able and willing, I would be grateful. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'll take a look soon, if no one else reviews it first. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Special thanks

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		Congratulations to Coemgenus and Cmguy777 for their extended and arduous efforts in bringing the Ulysses S. Grant biography to Featured Article status. Gwillhickers (talk) 20:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! --Coemgenus (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Today: precious again, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Charles F. Warwick

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Happy Easter!

File:Chocolate-Easter-Bunny.jpg

All the best! "Carry me down, carry me down; carry me down into the wiki!" (talk) 01:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

A question about one of your edits

Curious about one of your edits here. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 22:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! --Coemgenus (talk) 12:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Josephine Witt

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Henry Grier Bryant

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Coinage Act of 1873

If you have any spare time, could you weigh in at the peer review? Your guy Sherman was behind a lot of it, looks like.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Will do! I'll have some time in a few days -- my CLE deadline is Thursday, so I'm doing last minute courses until then. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Been there done that.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Newspapers

If there's anything you would like looked up in newspapers.com, just let me know. It's a worthwhile resource; I don't know if you know about this, but you can request access for yourself at Wikipedia:Newspapers.com. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do that!--Coemgenus (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello from the team at Featured article review!

We are preparing to take a closer look at Featured articles promoted in 2004–2010 that may need a review. We started with a script-compiled list of older FAs that have not had a recent formal review. The next step is to prune the list by removing articles that are still actively maintained, up-to-date, and believed to meet current standards. We know that many of you personally maintain articles that you nominated, so we'd appreciate your help in winnowing the list where appropriate.

Please take a look at the sandbox list, check over the FAs listed by your name, and indicate on the sandbox talk page your assessment of their current status. Likewise, if you have taken on the maintenance of any listed FAs that were originally nominated by a departed editor, please indicate their status. BLPs should be given especially careful consideration.

Thanks for your help! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Please respond at Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/sandbox#Pinging next round; thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 May newsletter

C/2014 Q2 (Lovejoy) is a long-period comet discovered on 17 August 2014 by Terry Lovejoy; and is one of several Featured Pictures worked up by The Herald (submissions) during the second round.

The second round one has all wrapped up, and round three has now begun! Congratulations to the 34 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our second round. Leading the way overall was Cas Liber (submissions) in Group B with a total of 777 points for a variety of contributions including Good Articles on Corona Borealis and Microscopium - both of which received the maximum bonus.

Special credit must be given to a number of high importance articles improved during the second round.

• Coemgenus (submissions) was one of several users who worked on improving Ulysses S. Grant. Remember, you do not need to work on an article on your own - as long as each person has completed significant work on the article during 2015, multiple competitors can claim the same article.
• Cwmhiraeth (submissions) took Dragonfly to Good Article for a 3x bonus - and if that wasn't enough, they also took Damselfly there as well for a 2x bonus.
• LeftAire (submissions) worked up Alexander Hamilton to Good Article for the maximum bonus. Hamilton was one of the founding fathers of the United States and is a level 4 vital article.

The points varied across groups, with the lowest score required to gain automatic qualification was 68 in Group A - meanwhile the second place score in Group H was 404, which would have been high enough to win all but one of the other Groups! As well as the top two of each group automatically going through to the third round, a minimum score of 55 was required for a wildcard competitor to go through. We had a three-way tie at 55 points and all three have qualified for the next round, in the spirit of fairness. The third round ends on June 28, with the top two in each group progressing automatically while the remaining 16 highest scorers across all four groups go through as wildcards. Good luck to all competitors for the third round! Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) 16:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

New question raised regarding Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request

Some opposers of this move have now contended that there is a "Critical fault in proposal evidence", which brings the opinions expressed into question. Please indicate if this assertion in any way affects your position with respect to the proposed move. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia email re Newspapers.com signup

Hello, Coemgenus. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

HazelAB (talk) 22:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Boyle v. United States

Hello! Your submission of Boyle v. United States at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: I think I cleared up the problems you noted. If not, please let me know what else needs to be done. Thanks for the review. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Infobox linking RfC

Since you commented on the recent FDR infobox linking, there is a broader based RfC going on at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC concerning the infobox linking of all political offices. Please comment if it is of interest to you. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject United States Constitution!

Welcome to WikiProject United States Constitution! If you'd like, you can add the WP United States Constitution userbox to your user page using this code: {{User WikiProject United States Constitution}}. Check out the ongoing and archived discussions at WT:COTUS and be sure to add the page to your Watchlist. If you are new to Wikipedia, it's a good idea to browse through the core principles of Wikipedia as well. The project home page at WP:COTUS has many useful links to get you started. Welcome!

CookieMonster755 (talk) 03:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Boyle v. United States

Harrias ^talk 07:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Grant

Now he want's to go - he will 'consider their suggestions' he says - perhaps mediation is the only way to actually communicate - if you do move for mediation please insist that we need a go between solely to help us communicate, recognize compromise, etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Ulysses S. Grant". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 5 June 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 19:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Ulysses S. Grant, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ulysses S. Grant, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

DYK for South Carolina v. North Carolina

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK for John Weaver (mayor)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Warren G. Harding

Would you have time for the peer review? We are fresh out of Gilded Age presidents!--Wehwalt (talk) 22:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I'll be glad to take a look. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Philadelphia municipal election, 1951

Materialscientist (talk) 13:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Your thoughts?

Timeline of Philadelphia has a discussion about selection and inclusion criteria. Two editors are discussing it, but we have divergent views. More opinions would be helpful. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Trent Kelly (politician)

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

List of Presidents rewrite

Hello Coemgenus,

I wanted to know about one of your sandboxes: User:Coemgenus/Sandbox3. It's an interesting idea. I'd love to help, or even finish it myself if you are not up for it. Thoughts? Thank you, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 00:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ceradon: Sure, I'd be glad for the help. I was going for something like List of Prime Ministers of Canada or List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, which are both featured lists. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Excellent. I'll probably start filling in information on the various Presidents tomorrow. Cheers, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 03:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

GA Cup

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - June 2015 Welcome to the GA Cup! The competition is about to begin! Before you all start reviewing nominations and reassessments we want to make sure you understand the following: This is a friendly competition so we don't want any cheating/breaking of the rules. However, if you do believe someone is going against the rules, notify the judges. All the rules are listed here. If you are a new editor or new to reviewing Good article nominations, it is imperative that you read the 4 essays/guides listed under FAQ #4. If you do not understand something, ask a judge for clarification ASAP! The competition is not entirely about who can review the most nominations. Per the "Scoring" page, there is different criteria in which you can earn more points. Theoretically, you could review 10 nominations and have 80 points but another user could have reviewed 5 nominations and have 100 points. Yes, we want you to review as many nominations as you can as this will greatly increase the number of points you earn, but you must also keep in mind that every single review will be looked over by a judge. If we find that you are "rubber-stamping" (in other words, the review is not complete but you still passed/failed the article) you may be disqualified without warning. The same applies with reassessments. If you just say that the article should be delisted or kept with no explanation, points will not be awarded. Remember, to submit Good article reviews and reassessments on your submissions page (Some of you have not created your submissions page yet. Only reviews/reassessments submitted on your submissions page can earn points. If you participated in the 2014-2015 GA Cup, you still need to re-create your submissions page.). Detailed instructions on how to submit reviews and reassessments can be found under the "Submissions" page. Ask a judge if you need clarification. Also, rather than creating a long list on what to remember, make sure you have read the "Scoring", "Submissions", and "FAQ" pages. Now some of you are probably wondering how on earth the rounds will work. The rounds will work in a similar fashion as the previous competition, with the exception of the first round. Round 1 will have everyone compete in one big pool. Depending on the final number of participants after sign-ups close, a to-be-determined number of participants will move on (highest scorers will move on) to Round 2. We guarantee that the top 15 will move on (this number may change), so make sure you aim for those top positions! Moving on to Round 2, participants will be split into pools. The pools will be determined by a computer program that places participants by random. More details regarding Round 2 will be sent out at the end of Round 1. It is important to note that the GA Cup will run on UTC time, so make sure you know what time that is for where you live! On that note, the GA Cup will start on July 1 at 0:00:01 UTC; Round 1 will end on July 29 at 23:59:59 UTC; Round 2 will commence on August 1 at 0:00:01 UTC. All reviews must be started after or on the start time of the round. If you qualify for Round 2 but do not complete a review before the end of Round 1, the review can be carried over to Round 2; however that review will not count for Round 1. Prior to the start of the the second round, participants who qualify to move on will be notified. Finally, if you know anyone else that might be interesting in participating, let them know! Sign-ups close on July 15 so there is still plenty of time to join in on the action! If you have any further questions, contact one of the judges or leave a message here. After sign-ups close, check the Pools page as we will post the exact number of participants that will move on to the next round. Because this number will be determined past the halfway mark of Round 1, we encourage you to aim to be in the top 15 as the top 15 at the end of the round are guaranteed to move on. Cheers from 3family6, Dom497, Figureskatingfan, 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, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--Dom497 (talk) 22:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)