User talk:Tempodivalse/Archive 11

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to: navigation, search
Navigation

<-- Archive 10
Archive 12 -->
Go to active talk page

Archive 11


Please do not edit the contents of this page, it is intended for historical reference only.


Signature[edit]

You seem to have good experience with signatures. Can you help me or give me some advice as to how to make a customised signature? Ideally, I would like to write my user name and then put this image in for the link to the talk page - Smiley kabelsalat.gif

What do you think? Can you please help me? Thanks, Rayboy8 (talk) 19:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC) Smiley kabelsalat.gif

Hmm. I'm assuming you know how to use basic wiki-markup (like <font color="blue"> and stuff like that) to change text colour and font? In any case, it's generally discouraged to insert images into your signature, as it kind of disrupts spacing on a talk page and can be distracting as well. I suppose it would be acceptable though, if the image were no taller than the height of the text around it (so as not to disrupt spacing), and wasn't too flashy, like this: "Rayboy8 (talk) Smiley.png". (user:Bawolff used to have a signature like this, and it was considered acceptable.) However, i'd suggest not using an animated image (like the one you chose) because they can be quite distracting. You might want to check out w:Wikipedia:Sig#Customizing your signature for more info and tips. Hope this helps. Cheers, Tempodivalse [talk] 19:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Accreditation request[edit]

Can you please help me with my request for accreditation? I don't understand what I've done wrong and I don't seem to be getting any votes. :( Rayboy8 (my talk) 07:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I tried poking the users in the chat room to vote, maybe that'll get some people to comment. I also asked you a question on the page, although it probably won't affect my vote. Smile.png Cheers. Tempodivalse [talk] 14:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It says..[edit]

"Generally, small whole numbers - 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are spelled out in long form: zero, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine and ten. Where numbers are in the "teens" it is generally preferred that the number be spelled out, but above that, actual digits, like 42, should be used." --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 22:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Tempodivalse [talk] 22:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Regading FRRFP[edit]

Sir, what has happened to the FRRFP I contested? It has been open for more than 48 hours. So, is it waiting for more responses? And the proposal I made on WN:WC about WN alias of Wikinews. How do I close it? Srinivas 09:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes, FRRFPs will remain open for longer than 48 hours, in order for consensus to become clear - in this case support isn't unanimous, so i think it's better to wait a bit longer for a few more votes to determine which way to close it. But someone should get around to close it soon (and i'll close it if no action is taken in the next few days). Also, in order to implement the alias feature you requested at the water cooler, someone will need to file a request at bugzilla:Main Page for the developers. Tempodivalse [talk] 13:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
As I said, I knew that my FRRFP would fail, so I stopped the process. As I said, I will request in December only. Nextly, I do not have an account in Bugzilla, so could you please do that for me? Srinivas 12:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Too bad you didn't pass your editor request. I was pretty confident you'd pass, but it looks like that wasn't the case ... sorry. I'd suggest you try again in a few weeks, you'll probably do better then. As for Bugzilla, someone else seems to have filed it already. Cheers, Tempodivalse [talk] 14:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

New category[edit]

How does one go about creating a new 2009 Iranian presidential elections category, along the lines of the Afghan category? I'm surprised it doesn't exist already, given the number of articles about the subject! Regards --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It's easy - all you have to do is to create the page Category:2009 Iranian presidential election, and then add that category to relevant articles to populate it. I'll create the page momentarily. Tempodivalse [talk] 21:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Tempodivalse, I had no idea it was so simple! --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome. If you see any archived pages where that category would be appropriate, make a note of it on the talk page with {{editprotected}} and someone will get around to adding it. Tempodivalse [talk] 21:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite annoyed[edit]

Tempo, can you explain to me what was going on? I was writing what would've been a breaking news story. I was nearly finished creating the article, when I press the "Save changes" button and suddenly all the text I've written disappears, and the format reverts back to the way it was at the start, with that message that basically says, "Don't violate copyright". I'm quite annoyed, especially as I was so close to finishing the article. Can you please explain to me why this happened? :( Rayboy8 (my talk) 17:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I've no idea what could have caused that, nothing like what you described ever happened to me. Perhaps it was a bug in the program or something. Are you sure that you hit the "save page" button and didn't somehow back out of the editing window to an earlier page before saving? That could sometimes erase the text in the editing window. To avoid losing your work like this future, my suggestion would be to write up your articles in an external, off-line text editor or word processor (like w:Wordpad if you have Windows), periodically save it, and copy it into the wiki when you're done. That way, if the text somehow disappears in the wiki editing window, you'll have a backup in the text editor and can simply copy it again, without having to write the article all over again. (P.S.: You might want to bring this up at the Water cooler, perhaps someone can help you troubleshoot this particular problem.) Tempodivalse [talk] 18:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Dupe[edit]

Hi there, I'm afraid you're duping your efforts with something I already wrote - see China offers Africa financial aid including $10 billion in loans. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Uh-oh. It's just my luck that this is the one time I forgot to check the newsroom before writing up an article. Could you possibly help me merge the two articles with info not found in yours? I don't have too much time ATM to do it. Tempodivalse [talk] 18:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Sure. I think someone is reviewing mine right now, when that's done I'll take a look. If nothing else, I saw a quote I'd like to use in yours. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Tempodivalse [talk] 21:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Sure. Dunno if you saw, but merge edit was here. That comment from the AU's head was good to get, an important detail which I missed. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Yep, i noticed that. The extra info makes the article more in-depth, great work. I'll see if I can add some extra details too, this seems like an interesting piece. Tempodivalse [talk] 21:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This article's not appearing[edit]

This article here has passed its review and has now been published, but for some reason it doesn't seem to be appearing on the list of recent articles on the main page. Can you help me with this please? Thanks, Rayboy8 (my talk) 23:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

That was because the reviewer forgot to "sight" the article, which is one of two actions needed to get an article to display on the main page list (the other being that the article has {{publish}} on it). I've now sighted the article for you, it should be on the main page list. In the future, if someone publishes an article but it doesn't appear on the main page, ask on IRC for an Editor to sight the page for you, or alternatively ask at WN:AAA. Tempodivalse [talk] 23:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm... Lazy peer review usually does the sighting for you. It worked on the other articles I reviewed. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 23:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Usually it does, but I've noticed that on the odd occasion the widget gives an "API error" and doesn't auto-sight. This might be something to bring up with user:Bawolff. In the meantime, I'd suggest checking to make sure the page really is sighted after doing a review. Tempodivalse [talk] 23:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. odd - it seemed to sight the google redirect fine [1]. Yes - definitly tell me if it doesn't auto-sight. (and any errors if that happens). Bawolff 12:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry[edit]

Sorry, I forgot to add an image to the lead. My bad. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 02:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries, no harm was done. Smile.png Tempodivalse [talk] 02:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thousands to celebrate twenty years since 'Fall of the Wall'[edit]

I can't get anyone in IRC to answer my requests for review and this article is going to go stale in a few hours :( This is a plea for help... Regards --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll see if I can take a look at the article in a moment. Tempodivalse [talk] 18:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Reviewed and published. Don't forget you can use {{breaking review}} in the future to mark articles that are especially time-sensitive and need quick review. Tempodivalse [talk] 18:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I didn't think—at the time—that it warranted a breaking review, but in hindsight. I have returned the favour btw. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 18:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Re:Regarding {{publish}}[edit]

Oh, okay, thanks. Sorry, I'm a noob at this. :P SuperFlash101 (talk) 23:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries. :-) Tempodivalse [talk] 23:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. The separate article has been created at New promotional events set for Disney's "Phineas and Ferb's Christmas Vacation" if you'd like to review it. SuperFlash101 (talk) 04:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, i was offline for the last couple of hours, but it looks like someone else already got around to reviewing it. Tempodivalse [talk] 15:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

re:Welcome[edit]

Thanks for the message! I really hope that I will be able to contribute here productively.--Benny the mascot (talk) 23:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Smile.png Tempodivalse [talk] 00:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Could you please take a look at Benet Academy students raise money for leukemia patient and advise me on what I can do to improve the article? Benny the mascot (talk) 03:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, let me see. While I see you've done a great job of writing in "news" style, and have adhered to WN:NPOV well, I see a fundamental problem: the article is of questionable newsworthiness. While we encourage local news, especially if it includes original reporting, micro-local (of little relevance outside a very specific/narrow topic or area) news might not be appropriate for Wikinews. In this case, this seems sort of borderline; it doesn't seem to be especially significant, even at the local level. I tend to agree with the two users who failed the review of the article previously as far as newsworthiness is concerned. You might want to ask about this on the article talk page, to get the opinions of other users. Hope i helped. Cheers, Tempodivalse [talk] 03:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice! I've left a note on the talk page as you suggested. Benny the mascot (talk) 04:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
So...what's going to happen to the article??? Benny the mascot (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, if an article isn't edited for several days, it usually gets tagged as {{abandoned}} and {{stale}}, and gets deleted through proposed deletions within a few days if it's not edited/improved. I'm really not sure what can be done, at this point, to rescue the article or make it more newsworthy - while your recent efforts to make it more noteworthy/significant were good, i'm not sure it's enough. Tempodivalse [talk] 21:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh well...thanks for your advice! Just out of curiosity, what effect (if any) did the info I added about local churches' mass intentions have on the article's newsworthiness? Benny the mascot (talk) 01:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I think the extra information you added did make the article somewhat more significant/relevant to a larger audience; unfortunately, even then, I think it's sort of borderline as far as newsworthiness is concerned. But don't let this discourage you from contributing in the future - I think you've gotten most of our stylistic and NPOV policies down well, it's just that the newsworthiness aspect was questionable. (This might be partially the project's fault, as we don't have a very clear definition of what qualifies as "newsworthy" - WN:CG only says "News should be relevant" - which is rather ambiguous and subjective. Might be something to bring up on the water cooler.) Cheers, Tempodivalse [talk] 02:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I've already started another article. DuPage County jury sentences Brian Dugan to death is currently in the reviewing queue, and I can't wait to see what the result is for that! You are right about the lack of a clear policy; I actually wrote the Benet article once I read the policy and found no rules regarding the "audience" of the event. In fact, I thought that ANY news was welcome here. Perhaps posting a note on the water cooler might be a good idea. Benny the mascot (talk) 02:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I started a thread at the WC about this, Wikinews:Water cooler/policy#Newsworthiness - how to define it.3F. Comments and suggestions welcome. Tempodivalse [talk] 03:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for helping me out with all of this; I really appreciate it! Benny the mascot (talk) 03:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome. If you ever need help again, please don't hesitate to ask me. :-) Tempodivalse [talk] 03:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is there no Glenn Beck's appendix article?[edit]

I like writing about Glenn Beck! That wasn't supposed to be in the sandbox, it was verified! What's the dealio? Love, Glenn Beck

Um, no. That article was patent nonsense and met speedy deletion criteria. We don't take jokes like that very well here, and you might be facing a block if you create disruptive/nonsense pages again. Tempodivalse [talk] 03:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

No seriously, where's my Glenn Beck article? I'm so mad that communism lives in the internet and now in the USA. Just kidding, I love this democratic country. Are you a democrat? I would love to know!

Please stop these comments. Wikinews is not a forum for random conversation. Are you here to contribute constructively to the project, or to talk nonsense? If it's the latter, please go away, or else be blocked. Tempodivalse [talk] 03:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Como usas underline?[edit]

¡Yo nessicito ayuda con mi pagina de web! Yo voy escribar para mi madre.

Lo siento, pero no puedo hablar espanol muy bien. Puede Ud. hablar ingles? Además, esto es Wikinoticas Ingles. Si usted quiere un sitio Wikinoticas donde la gente puede hablar español, ver este. Tempodivalse [talk] 03:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

EmBOTellado[edit]

Thank you very much, Best regards!!! --Ezarate (talk) 19:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! :-) Tempodivalse [talk] 19:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

re: date[edit]

Thanks for letting me know! Benny the mascot (talk) 16:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem, you're welcome. Tempodivalse [talk] 17:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Benet article[edit]

I'd like to be able to work on my Benet article a bit longer. Should I keep it where it is right now, or should I move it to a user subpage? Benny the mascot (talk) 16:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

It depends. If you think it might be a few days before you can re-request review, it might be safer to move it to userspace, as the article could be tagged with {{abandoned}} and deleted by WN:PROD after a few days. If you can get it up for review within the next day or two, however, you can probably let it stay as-is without fear of it being deleted. Tempodivalse [talk] 17:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Google redirects[edit]

You were very close with the redirect. It also needs {{Google News}} on it [2]. Cheers. Bawolff 02:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that's right. I thought I was forgetting something but couldn't remember what. Smile.png Thanks. Tempodivalse [talk] 02:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank You[edit]

Thanx for your welcome I hope to be able to contribute. --Mlpearc (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! Smile.png Tempodivalse [talk] 17:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Ireland requests replay of FIFA World Cup play-off with France[edit]

Ireland requests replay of FIFA World Cup play-off with France Could someone please review new changes. thanks Mrchris (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Tempodivalse [talk] 15:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Factors in reviewing articles[edit]

Hi Tempodivalse! I've had an article in line for review for over a day (Central Michigan quarterback sets passing record, becomes finalist for award), yet it seems that other articles are being reviewed a lot quicker than mine. In your experience, what factors affect a reviewer's decision to review an article? Is there anything I should be worried about if my article sits in line for a while? Benny the mascot (talk) 03:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

A lot of factors could play into what articles a reviewer decides to look at - the biggest on is probably size, if an article is too long or contains too many sources, some people might not have the time or energy to go over them. (That's probably not an issue in this instance.) The reason your article hasn't been reviewed quicker, I think, is because it has some technical stuff in it, and some people tend to avoid reviewing articles with complex sports terms because they're frequently unfamiliar with them, and might not be able to completely understand them. Don't worry though - someone should get around to it soon. You can always try asking for someone to do a review in the chat room, that works sometimes. (I'd review the article myself right now, but I don't have a lot of time. If it's not reviewed by tomorrow, I'll try to have a look at it.) Cheers, Tempodivalse [talk] 04:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Looks like someone already reviewed and published it, while I was away. Tempodivalse [talk] 15:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but thank you for the advice! I'll definitely keep that in mind in the future. Benny the mascot (talk) 15:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

British_Climatic_Research_Unit's_emails_hacked - thank you![edit]

The article has been published. Thank you for your collaboration! Gryllida (page, talk, contributions) 00:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome ... although i actually only made one minor edit to the page. :-) Thanks anyway. Tempodivalse [talk] 02:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

Hey there, hope you are doing well. :) Senator Xenophon of Australia calls for criminal investigation into Scientology - it appears you placed the archive template on this, but did not full prot it? Cirt (talk) 03:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Cirt (talk) 03:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing that out, I must have missed that one. Cheers, Tempodivalse [talk] 03:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
No worries! Cirt (talk) 03:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You're amazing![edit]

A barnstar for you.

Hello Tempodivalse! I, Benny, award you the All-Around Amazing Barnstar, since you are truly amazing in the work you do throughout the entire project. Benny the mascot (talk) 20:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Yay, a barnstar! Thanks so much. Smile.png Tempodivalse [talk] 20:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Writing comp[edit]

I saw the points about another writing competition; I'd like to see the next one a success, and have a few ideas. This, actually, makes it better holding off until post-holidays/fundraiser. Can you drop me an email about this? It is a bit of planning work, and I would hope to persuade some people to put up $$$ for prizes. If done right, it could also net the project some publicity, so are sensitive issues I'd prefer to keep off-wiki until the ideas are more firmed up. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Could we perhaps use Wikinewsie as a venue for this instead? Holding a prolonged discussion by email is a bit messy, imo, and Wikinewsie seems like a private enough place for sensitive stuff. If not, I'll send you my email address. Tempodivalse [talk] 00:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Sure, I'm still trying to get together the right people for this. Once it's done that's probably the best idea. The idea at the moment is to start a competition post-fundraiser, and 2-3 weeks after most schools start back after holidays. Then have a competition of around 3 months, use a points system, and introduce WN:OR in the last month. Yes, do total new recruits and disallow anyone with more than a certain number of articles. I think contacts can be made to get prizes and publicity in the available timeframe. What is important is the form of the competition. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
So ... you're suggesting we make it a competition between new users only? No regulars allowed? I would think it's better to allow anyone to participate, we'd produce more articles the more users there are. Tempodivalse [talk] 01:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
The difficulty is that well-established users have a serious head start on any newcomers; plus a potential conflict of interest if they have Editor rights and can judge other's entries. I would like well-formed competition rules, cash prizes, and a splash of publicity to attract new contributors. They would see those who've already authored dozens of article as having a head start. --Brian McNeil / talk 01:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Good point. Here's another idea: we could have two separate contests, one for newbies, and one for the more established editors. Most of the focus would be given to the newbie group, but the regulars can have their fun too, and add a boost to article production. Tempodivalse [talk] 01:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
<unindent> Quite difficult to do the two in parallel, but if it can be worked out somehow I don't see why not. There does - as I see it - have to be some sort of line drawn on main namespace edits. Below it, you opt-out of using Editor if you have it; above, attempts are made to persuade you to judge rather than beat any potential new recruits. There are a lot of conflicts around people who've been on the projects for a good length of time — a need to be seen to not favour each other like a clique, and to be sharing experience instead of using it to win. --Brian McNeil / talk 01:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. A few of my random musings/questions on this:
1. What if we separate the two groups into users with Editor status and those without it? That would pretty much remove any COI associated with being able to review others' articles, at least in the newbie group. I think splitting the contest into two groups will work out without too much difficulty, it just takes more coordinating.
2. Then there's the question of what rules we should use for the competition: should it be an elimination contest (i.e. where people must produce a certain amount of articles in a given time or else be eliminated) or should contestants be allowed to compete to the very end of the race? I'd like something that isn't too hard to keep up with, but that encourages as many articles to be written as possible.
3. We probably should have judges to oversee the competition in case of a dispute.
4. What's the best way to publicise the competition elsewhere? Obviously, a watchlist template and sitenotice will spread the word locally, but is there a way to advertise this outside of Wikinews? Strategy wiki might work, but i'm not sure whether it's appropriate to promote the contest on other projects.
5. Where are we going to get prize money? Some of the regulars here could offer some, but would it be enough?
Open to thoughts. Tempodivalse [talk] 03:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
When I read your original proposal, I immediatly thought of a single elimination tournament with weeklong one on one contests. A person who has the editor tool could look over each of said contest.
Also, count articles from the contests beginning--RockerballAustralia (talk) 04:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Some random suggestions:
  1. I would prefer two groups (newbies and established editors) as (i) it is unfair to lump them someone who has never written an article with someone who has 100+ articles published under their belt (ii) it would be a shame not to include 'established editors'. Don't ask me where the 'bright line' should be drawn though (I wrote 30+ in one month: does that make me a newbie as I recently joined or established because of the number of articles published?) NB: I will no longer be 'new' by any stretch of the imagination by the time the contest starts, but there could easily be someone else in a similar situation.
  2. I think that an uneven number of jurors should oversee the allocation of points (three seems a good number to me). I'd happily act as juror to whichever group I am not in.
  3. Concerning reviewing, editors who choose not to participate should be encouraged to make an extra effort to review articles. Editors from the 'established' group can naturally review the 'newbie' group.
  4. One point per article is a little unfair: a three paragraph article that just passes requirement for publication is not the same as an in-depth piece, let alone OR which takes much longer to prepare. I'd set up a points system (which the jury would apply), based on various criteria: length, bonus for particularly pertinent images, OR. I'd happily work with a group of you to write the rules.
  5. An elimination contest on points seems OK to me, maybe with number of weeks reducing as the contest progresses. The first round would allow more time, especially for the newbies, to get the hang of it. Maybe three rounds (3 weeks, 2 weeks, 1 final week—to be tweaked could be 2 weeks, 1.5 weeks, 1 week). Have a set limit of people passing to the next round with the jury able to select by vote one or two of those who didn't make it to continue (à la Eurovision Song Contest semi-finals). Being knocked out in the first week, especially in the 'newbie' category, is going to be very disheartening, and it only takes a contributor to be away for a long weekend to effectively scupper their chances. If I knew that I was likely to make it to the final, I'd make sure I was available, so fair's fair for the last week. Besides, the longer this goes on (but not eternally), the more articles Wikinews will have to publish!
  6. I'd prefer products and/or services rather than cash donated by companies as rewards for the winners (screams "paid editing!" a tad). That said, it's a preference and I'll not refuse $, € or dirhams.
  7. We could use the Wikipedia Signpost to publicise this. They recently advertised the results after announcing the start recent WikiCup and reporting on progress (can't be bothered to find the links for the latter).
  8. We should take note of the lessons learned at this year's WikiCup. The most important lesson I can see is the importance of getting the rules agreed upon from the start, and not changing them as the competition progresses.
  9. I'm not convinced that we should require OR in the final round, but if we adopt the points allocation system I suggest, it would de facto encourage it.
Voici my musings du jour. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 08:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
On the points side of it, I think there should be
  • a point per atricle
  • one and a half if it incorporates OR with referenced sources
  • two if it's all OR
  • half a point for every third paragraph from the sixth onwards.--RockerballAustralia (talk) 09:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Since this was tending to run away here, I've expanded on my ideas a great deal back at the water cooler. The only thing I'll add here is; can we run a handicap system for established editors? If so, I think we should explicitly exclude established contributors from initial review of any competition entries. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)