Hi, Cptnono! Thanks for beginning this article. I'm going to revise it, with the input of other stewards and with links to organizational websites. I'll remove the Beacon Alliance of Neighbors link, as the site is no longer active (using Facebook now, Friends of the Jungle), plus do a general update on the material. The Nicole Brodeur piece will be removed, though, as it really isn't about the Jungle, plus she wasn't engaged in the area in the 12 years since the Jungle Project (City of Seattle's caps) began.CraigAThompson (talk)19:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the"autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefitingnew page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the{{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the{{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! HJ Mitchell |Penny for your thoughts?01:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone, and may we wish you all a happy holiday season. As you will probably already know, the 2015 WikiCup begins in the new year; there is still time tosign up. We have a few important announcements concerning the future of the WikiCup.

• We would like to announce that Josh (J Milburn) and Ed (The ed17), who have been WikiCup judges since 2009 and 2010 respectively, are stepping down. This decision has been made for a number of reasons, but the main one is time. Both Josh and Ed have found that, over the previous year, they have been unable to devote the time necessary to the WikiCup, and it is not likely that they will be able to do this in the near future. Furthermore, new people at the helm can only help to invigorate the WikiCup and keep it dynamic. Josh and Ed will still be around, and will likely be participating in the Cup this following year as competitors, which is where both started out.
• In a similar vein, we hope you will all join us in welcoming Jason (Sturmvogel 66) and Christine (Figureskatingfan), who are joining Brian (Miyagawa) to form the 2015 WikiCup judging team. Jason is a WikiCup veteran, having won in 2010 and finishing in fifth this year. Christine has participated in two WikiCups, reaching the semi-finals in both, and is responsible for theGA Cup, which she now co-runs.
• The discussions/polls concerning the next competition's rules will be closed soon, and rules changes will be made clear onWikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring and talk pages. While it may be impossible to please everyone, the judges will make every effort to ensure that the new rules are both fair and in the best interests of the competition, which is, first and foremost, about improving Wikipedia.

If you have any questions or concerns, the judges can be reached onWikipedia talk:WikiCup, on their talk pages, or by email. We hope you will all join us in trying to make the 2015 WikiCup the most productive and enjoyable yet.You are receiving this message because you are listed onWikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.J Milburn (talk),The ed17 (talk),Miyagawa (talk),Sturmvogel 66 (talk) andFigureskatingfan (talk)18:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedSeattle Mardi Gras Riots, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageWashington. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)09:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 namehere. 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 summarisedhere.

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 onWikipedia: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 onWikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck!Figureskatingfan (talk ·contribs),Miyagawa (talk ·contribs) andSturmvogel 66 (talk ·contribs)
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself fromthe mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of allmassmessage mailings, you may addCategory:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)20:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind, indeed I relish the stimulus, of hard challenges in editing from whomever. But that skunk page is getting farcical. Would you do me the courtesy of looking at edits likethis. It is wrong on all technical grounds, invites edit-warring, and is not healthy for the encyclopedia, regardless of POV merits. Of course, a request is not under an obligation, but while I almost never agree with you, your editing is rigorously based on a respect for wiki protocols, and there lies my trust that you can examine that page fairly.Nishidani (talk)19:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani: The level of tagging and adding language that dismisses a source is not good for the article. I think the article could easily be fixed in a way that will satisfy both you and the other editor. I'm not convinced that Who Profits is RS from looking at their about us page. Ma'an has been problematic in the past but looks to be growing into the real deal. I would be surprised if those sources couldn't be replaced with pieces from less biased organizations. I think that other easy ways to reduce the appearance of "propaganda" include:

• Beefing up the lead and product sections with general information
• Trimming the history section of individual incidents. The primary concern is the notion of collective punishment. There is a strong argument that the problem exists and a simple paragraph should be sufficient.

I also do believe the other editor is treading on shaky ground. It is obvious a lack of experience but it is still not acceptable. Is there an admin that can explain possible sanctions while still being diplomatic and understanding of how green the editor is?Cptnono (talk)22:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think my record will show I have steered away from Ma'an, until relatively recently. Reading it now regularly, I find it toned down, fairly focused on names, facts and incidents and quite reliable for them. It also frequently cites the Hebrew Press coverage which is only otherwise available to me in Mondoweiss, Tikun olam, and other websites not deemed generally acceptable. Since NPOV requires both sides, and there is little out there that records things reliably from a Palestinian perspective, I think it qualifies by now.

As to Who Profits, it is a joint Israeli-Palestinian activist research group. We in practice allow a good deal of citation to the IDF, its allied research centres or groups like Israeli Intelligence & Heritage Commemoration Center or the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (2014 Israel–Gaza conflict) etc.etc., but label any research group like this 'activist' and not-usable. I am a contextualist. I read a document thoroughly to see if it is useful, careful, footnoted, regardless of some formal mechanical idea of what is, or is not, RS. The three papers I have read from WPO are all thoroughly sourced and internally verifiable. That does not make them free from accuracy - but our mainstream newspapers never footnote or source themselves. In this case, in the paper we used, we have an academic unhysterical presentation of documented analysis in a field lacking so far good sources. In these cases, one uses such sources, I would think, until better ones, preferably books with a good academic imprint can replace them.

I'm quite happy with your suggestions, which are sensible, and ready to work out a a solution on the talk page. It's hard enough doing these articles when editors don't understand the rules or lack experience. Don't want to drag you there, but if you could briefly outline these and/or other suggestions there, then I'd deeply appreciate it. ThanksNishidani (talk)20:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As to admins, I think they're overworked, and only to be called on when necessity demands it. Ed Johnston obliged when Ashtul was having problems, and a note led to him reverting. I think it too early to bother admins with the other editor. These requests always tend to look like one is using admins to win a point, and are a last resort.Nishidani (talk)20:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited2014 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageMike Magee. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)09:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of2014 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final at theDid You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneathyour nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!Giants2008 (Talk)22:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Giants2008: Thanks!Cptnono (talk)23:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The two articles from Haaretz and the New York Times which I introduced there have really a lot of excellent material on the farming, commercial activities and industries at that settlement. I had that in mind when I read them, particularly the Haaretz article. I hardly have much time for Wikipedia, what time I have is devoured by pointless bickering that eats into productive additions. It was obvious to me in adding the excellent Haaretz article the other day that there was an hour or two of work needed to balance out the article with details on life, work and productivity. But, fuck it, I can't do anything. My real complaint with editors is that when a source like that is used partially, as I did, because of lack of time, they don't study it closely and add everything else in it that balances the perspective. I should do that of course, but every edit I do takes a long while, since I usually check several other sources as well before I do it.The material on the Israeli 'positive' side's there, and should be harvested. If you or anyone has time, they'd save my honour (lack of time these days) by filling it out.Nishidani (talk)22:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Much like on the ground, it is fucked."The only winning move is not to play" it feels like. I'm fortunate that I care more about my local sports team that working towards a good and then featured topic makes editing more enjoyable. I do agree with you that that 0404 publisher looks questionable.

Oh snap... TOUCHDOWN SEAHAWKS.Cptnono (talk)23:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky bastard! My first home was near a golf course, like my second, and I live in a country with none within 30 miles, and even there they charge like wounded bulls. I've just realized that editing Wikipedia was probably a life-choice diotated by the fact that Italy provides me with no golf links, and their soccer is boring. Cheers.Nishidani (talk)23:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we could all just walk around in the the grass for a few hours every week than life would be better. It is a goddamn shame.Cptnono (talk)05:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pal (whoops, no pun in poor taste intended!), I don't walk around in the grass, I smoke it! I commend the sentiment.Nishidani (talk)21:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LOL.. took me a second. It will all work out as we get years of acclimation to this environment. Oddly enough, all I can think of from my most recent AE comment is"the jerk store called and they're running out of you" (or something like that). We need to find golf courses since it will make us happier (I can't smoke on the course because I can barely hit that bastard ball with 2 beers in me).Cptnono (talk)07:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks for accepting to review theYuta Watanabe article. I will try to make the changes when I get the time.Temple of the Mousy (talk)00:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll continue to offer my opinion at AE when I like and won't worry at all about you. If you think I should be topic-banned, then of course it's open to you to make a request about me.Nomoskedasticity (talk)07:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

that isn't what I said. Read the fucking words on your screen.Cptnono (talk)07:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cptnono. You have new messages atWikipedia:Peer review/2008 UEFA Champions League Final/archive1‎.
You canremove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

–PeeJay01:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article2014 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final you nominated forGA-status according to thecriteria. 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 byLegobot, on behalf ofThe Almightey Drill --The Almightey Drill (talk)01:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invitation, I'd love to travel to America's soccer city, it seems such a cultured and interesting place (I may be basing that opinion on a certain television sitcom). By the way, The Cup can stay!'''tAD''' (talk)19:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, like you, I may have once or twice let alcohol get in the way of my edits. I'm at university and because of my regular habit of going home for the weekend, we often drink on Tuesdays, and I stumble into bars to see glimpses of Champions League matches and write about them when I get back.'''tAD''' (talk)19:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you follow the "other" football, but good luck for the Seahawks in the big game! I like their name, reminds me of how my father speaks in a quaint country way and calls seagulls "shitehawks" in reference to the obvious'''tAD''' (talk)01:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article2014 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final you nominated as agood article has passed; seeTalk:2014 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final 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 cannominate it to appear in Did you know.Message delivered byLegobot, on behalf ofThe Almightey Drill --The Almightey Drill (talk)19:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Responding to your prompt I looked at his edits over the lòast few days (admittedly I rarely sight SD, most of the pages he works are not on my watchlist)

• Buq'ata SD wants ‘currently’. Might be overegging the pud. I don't think the word is needed, as you say per WP:MOS. But it's a fair POV, a nudge perhaps that attentive readers don't need.
• Keffiyeh. Reasonable. I once got chased and threatened on a kibbutz for wearing one, only by one kibbutznik though. The community was a great, flexible and sensible one, save for him.
• that the Shebaa Farms is occupied is universally known
• Syrian ‘controlled’ is wrong, because it is Syrian territory, as the previous edit had it..’Israel-occupied’ , as a contrast to ‘controlled’, while true, is probably not the best solution since Shebaa farms is defined simply as a territory, and referred to by a link that explains its status, earlier in the page.
• reverted back to S.hoyland, ‘invaded’ is improper, ‘entered’ is correct. Jordan did not invade, nor did Lebanon, for instance. The former assumed defensive control of areas designated as Arab in the UN declaration.User contributions:Par Ah Dux, an editor with a profile that doesn’t exist confidence (reverts good editors or admins like SH and Malik Shabazz)
• correct, I think. A new editor reverted Sean.hoyland on POV tag. SD restored it.
• ‘reverts’ de jure to proclaimed for Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights, which is correct.
• Putting ‘occupied’ can be justified. The Golan Heights law placing the area Israel conquered under Israeli administration does not contain the word ‘annexation’ and technically it is under ‘belligerent occupation’ (Yoram DinsteinThe International Law of Belligerent Occupation Cambridge University Press, 2009 pp.19-20.
• ethnic cleansing is going on in Syria, correct.
• correct

We're always going to disagree on quite a few key things, but I don't mind that. What I find exasperating is failure to addresscoherently on a talk page a point of difference, which is what happened in the Ashtul case (thanks for helping there). I freely admit I have in the past had difficulties with quite a bit of SD's behavior when I reviewed some AE reports. We disagreed then, from memory, on quite a few things, and I don't know if he respects my opinion. Let's put it this way. If you see something that you think is worthy of a note from me on his page or some article talk page, I'd be happy to review it, as impartially as I can and drop a note on his page. Cheers.Nishidani (talk)11:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And, by the way, stick to the 'suds' and maintain the smoke-free life. I abuse both, but then, it's better to be cranky from a drop of ale than to cough, splutter and struggle with short-windedness, esp. when one tends to be, as I am, a noxiously long-winded cunt.Nishidani (talk)11:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was fuckin tanked last night (still pulling 9th place in the wikicup before it gets hard). SD is sole purpose: Fuck Israel and highlight the occupation nonstop in a losing battle to give Syria credit. Really, Syria? At ;eat JJG and a couple other pro-Israeli guys had some goddamn tact in their POV. SD messed up the awesome falafel article.

Regardless, I need something to take the edge off from being angry here and in reality. I had dinner with a handful of old buddies the other night and all they talked about was their million dollar budgets and how many hallucinogens they did as kids. Life is funny that way. But SD is problematic for the project as a whole.Cptnono (talk)04:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On31 January 2015,Did you know was updated with a fact from the article2014 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was... thatSeattle Sounders FC's trip to the2014 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final was their fifth in six years? The nomination discussion and review may be seen atTemplate:Did you know nominations/2014 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page(here's how,live views,daily totals), and it may be added tothe statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on theDid you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk·contribs)12:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By reverting my edit you've put the red back into the references section. Please refer toWikipedia:Citing sources and adjust the dates according to[1]Help:CS1 errors here. RegardsKeith-264 (talk)18:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember toassume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do onUser talk:DragonflySixtyseven.Also, your behavior onOdin Brewing Company is not appropriate either._→AzaToth13:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My behavior is fine.Cptnono (talk)15:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the articlePacific Tower (Seattle) you nominated forGA-status according to thecriteria. 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 byLegobot, on behalf ofThe Almightey Drill --The Almightey Drill (talk)21:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The articlePacific Tower (Seattle) you nominated as agood article has passed; seeTalk:Pacific Tower (Seattle) 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 cannominate it to appear in Did you know.Message delivered byLegobot, on behalf ofThe Almightey Drill --The Almightey Drill (talk)15:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are two quotes there about the nearby Palestinian village that are hardly relevant and an image with Carmel 'in the background'. My edits are repeatedly reverted by from what I saw, you get some more respect around here.

Also, can you please comment inthis discussion.

Thanks,Ashtul (talk)08:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, you did the right thing bydisengaging. My comment on ANI was more toward the others who reverted after you, especially since you did engage in some discussion on the talk page. Just wanted to reply to your comment and acknowledge that you did the appropriate thing imho. Here's an adorable kitten for the heck of it. Cheers! :)

EvergreenFir(talk)Please {{re}}21:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi man,

Sorry you have to spend precious time b/c of me again. I am asking here b/cx AE page is clunged by now. If this is inappropriate please delete.

I am just really confused by this whole AE request since Nishidani doesn't argue even once the content should have stayed.WP:3RR rule is in place to preventWP:WAR over content dispute not prevent editors from removing outdated material that other editors put back unintentionally.

Thanks,Ashtul (talk)13:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The protection ofcleavage (breasts) has been lifted. Your reverts of the recent changes were the only one that were directly motivated concerns relating to article quality (the other reverts[2][3] appear to have been about restoring stability). There has been a lot of discussion about recent changes, including motivations as to why the recent edits were justified. So far, consensus seems to support all or most of those changes. If you'd like to chime in, now would probably a good time.

Peter^Isotalo15:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are we looking at "Reverted edits in need of motivations"? The massive changes were a cluster fuck. I suppose that talk section will do for review purposes but it looks like someone else is already calling shenanigans. I will attempt go through source by source. It would be easier if the lines being removed were also included. It is alreayd hard enough to do due dilligence without it taking an extra half hour to sort through tid bits that the remover could have spent time highlighting. (note to self... bug WMF about a tool that mimics the bright yellow of a higher).Cptnono (talk)04:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 leaderFreikorp (submissions) owing most of his 622 points scored to aFeatured Article on the 2001 filmFinal Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, asGodot13 (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) tookBumblebee, alevel-4 vital article, toGood Article;
• AHeneen (submissions) worked-up theMalaysia Airlines Flight 370 article, also to Good Article status;
• Rodw (submissions) developed an extremely timely article to Good Article, takingMagna Carta there some 800 years after it was first sealed;
• And last but not least,Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points) worked up a number ofFeatured Pictures during round 1, including the 1948 oneDeutsche 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 thatThe 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 onWikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome onWikipedia 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 fromWikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.Figureskatingfan (talk ·contribs ·email),Miyagawa (talk ·contribs ·email) andSturmvogel 66 (talk ·contribs ·email)

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

(Opt-out Instructions)This message was send byJim Carter throughMediaWiki message delivery (talk)04:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for "waking me up" about the GA review, can't believe I had it on my watchlist but never noticed it! I've made all the changes you have suggested, you are very good at making suggestions. I think it helps to have a North American reviewer, because sometimes European football fans take our knowledge for granted, it's important to present information for a global audience.'''tAD''' (talk)07:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Almightey Drill: dammit, I was about to go to watch a documentary on baseball and go to bed but now I have to go and cross the t's and dot the i's on this new GA. Don't forget you have an FAC with dead links still. Nice work, dude!Cptnono (talk)07:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On2 March 2015,Did you know was updated with a fact from the articleGame of War: Fire Age, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was... that approximately $40 million was spent on marketingGame of War: Fire Age? The nomination discussion and review may be seen atTemplate:Did you know nominations/Game of War: Fire Age. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page(here's how,live views,daily totals), and it may be added tothe statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on theDid you know talk page.

Thanks for your contribution to the WikiVictuallers (talk)00:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

it would have been cool if he would have stepped back and taken a deep breath before disregarding Ashtul's points.

You're right to the extent that I disregarded his points because they were legion, and short responses lead to more. On retrospect. Exasperation with, what to me, was consistently confused responses was at work. I just find that he should have mastered in 6 months some of the more elementary rules, and how to stay on topic, and avoid campaigning. Most of us don't do a large number of edits we're minded to, because they foreseeably lead to conflict or bickering, and try, I think, to stick to stuff that will stick. I've had to sit out a few bans, one a perma (which I privately felt was entirely irrational), some for sheer stubbornness for refusing to revert crap, for months. It's sensible in the long run, if one wants to work this place and fucks up, just to sit things out, work on other articles and learn to build them, and come back refreshed and more competent. I'm minded, if I get time, to return to the Skunk and a few other articles, and if I do, I'd appreciate you s(h)itting (:)) on my shoulder to see that a fair rewrite emerges. CheersNishidani (talk)17:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Skunk would be a piece of cake.Cptnono (talk)04:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your AE request, just thought I'd write and tell you you're well justified in trying to fight the half-dozen partisan Palestine SPAs that have hijacked the entire Israel-Palestine topic area for their own ends. This comes from one who spent quite some time on a previous account trying to undo the rampaging Israel SPAs some ten years ago or so. It seems quite some time after I left some epic stuff went down with ARBCOM and the pro-Israel types mostly moved on and the pro-Palestine types mostly waited out their bans and continued the fight. In many respects the articles are far weaker now than then because of the jarring propaganda they have managed to insert into articles day-in, day-out with little resistance and oversight - and then all close ranks to defend. I don't care about the subject area enough to get involved, with all the bickering required and the inevitable abuse that entails, but good luck to you.AnotherNewAccount (talk)15:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very well said at AE. A little bit more profanity is my style but god damn. Noting will come of it it but it is good for people to hear.Cptnono (talk)03:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review of2008 UEFA Champions League Final at the article's first FAC. Now that two weeks have passed since the article was last reviewed, I've nominated it againhere. I'd appreciate your opinions once again in helping the article reach FA status. –PeeJay18:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mReferenceBot. I haveautomatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the2014 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final page,your edit caused anunnamed parameter error(help). (Fix |Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is afalse positive, you canreport it to my operator.Thanks,ReferenceBot (talk)00:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Freaking cute! Thanks. Besides editing on a broken keyboard and acting like a jungle gym for several hours, it has been a lovely holiday. Thank God for mimosas.Cptnono (talk)04:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The beating of the deceased's cousin by the Israeli forces was proven to have taken place after they handcuffed him, and contrary to their statements . Hence both the riots and the sense in mentioning that detail in the article. Do you really want to revert a killing to use the word "incident" to describe it instead ? REALLY ? If so, why ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk16:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My primary concern was the handcuff part. That detail belongs somewhere else, was too minor a detail for that article, and made the sentence read a little off. I considered keeping "killing" in but "murder" is used just before it so I don;t think there is any confusion to the reader. There was also the kidnapping so it is an overall "incident". I don't feel terribly strongly about that bit, though. I was going to keep the "protests" part but confussed myself while trying to reword it and got sidetracked. The other edit was kept 100%.Cptnono (talk)17:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cptnono. This is a courtesy notice that thecopy edit you requested forSteve Zakuani at theGuild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. Allfeedback welcome! Cheers,Baffle gab1978 (talk)23:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The Seattle Sounders FC Barnstar
		For your great work taking2014 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup from stub article through DYK, GA, and finally FA reviews getting it to the status of featured article, I award you this barnstar. Bravo!SkotyWATC06:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Skotywa: Thanks! Zakuani is going through FAC right now. I'm thinking about taking Sounders to featured topic with the primary page, Open Cups, coach, and stadium all FA. All that is needed is bringing the season list to FL and touching up the player list.Cptnono (talk)18:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When the editor that removed your content onTalk:Brogrammer#Feminism, I thought it was a violation ofWP:TPOC. I restored it for you.

While I you are understandably upset, I would just like to caution you on the language you use against them. While you can beup in arms over the removal of your content,name calling against them isn't particularly wise perWikipedia:No personal attacks. Criticize their actions, not them.

Anyhow, Godspeed.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT)21:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 wasCas Liber (submissions) in Group B with a total of 777 points for a variety of contributions including Good Articles onCorona Borealis andMicroscopium - 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 improvingUlysses 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) tookDragonfly to Good Article for a 3x bonus - and if that wasn't enough, they also tookDamselfly there as well for a 2x bonus.
• LeftAire (submissions) worked upAlexander Hamilton to Good Article for the maximum bonus. Hamilton was one of the founding fathers of the United States and is alevel 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) andSturmvogel 66 (talk ·contribs ·email)16:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the articleSeattle Mardi Gras riot you nominated forGA-status according to thecriteria. 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 byLegobot, on behalf ofWinner 42 --Winner 42 (talk)20:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The articleSeattle Mardi Gras riot you nominated as agood article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting thegood article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. SeeTalk:Seattle Mardi Gras riot for things which need to be addressed.Message delivered byLegobot, on behalf ofWinner 42 --Winner 42 (talk)04:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, when you have a spare moment would you mind reviewingList of York City F.C. players (fewer than 25 appearances) at FLC? Thanks,Mattythewhite (talk)21:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The articleSeattle Mardi Gras riot you nominated as agood article has failed; seeTalk:Seattle Mardi Gras riot for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article.Message delivered byLegobot, on behalf ofWinner 42 --Winner 42 (talk)23:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARBPIA3 is now open and evidence can be submitted until September 8.62.90.5.221 (talk)09:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The finals for the 2015 Wikicup has now begun! Congrats to the 8 contestants who have survived to the finals, and well done and thanks to everyone who took part in rounds 3 and 4.

In round 3, we had a three-way tie for qualification among the wildcard contestants, so we had 34 competitors. The leader was by farCasliber (submissions) in Group B, who earned 1496 points. Although 913 of these points were bonus points, he submitted 15 articles in the DYK category. Second place overall wasCoemgenus (submissions) at 864 points, who although submitted just 2 FAs for 400 points, earned double that amount for those articles in bonus points. Everyone who moved forward to Round 4 earned at least 100 points.

The scores required to move onto the semifinals were impressive; the lowest scorer to move onto the finals was 407, making this year's Wikicup as competitive as it's always been. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:

1. Cas Liber (submissions), who is competing in his sixth consecutive Wikicup final, again finished the round in first place, with an impressive 1666 points in Pool B. Casliber writes about the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. A large bulk of his points this round were bonus points.
2. Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points), second place both in Pool B and overall, earned the bulk of his points with FPs, mostly depicting currency.
3. Cwmhiraeth (submissions), first in Pool A, came in third. His specialty is natural science articles; in Round 4, he mostly submitted articles about insects and botany. Five out of the six of the GAs he submitted were level-4 vital articles.
4. Harrias (submissions), second in Pool A, took fourth overall. He tends to focus on articles aboutcricket and military history, specifically the 1640sFirst English Civil War.
5. West Virginian (submissions), from Pool A, was our highest-scoring wildcard. West Virginia tends to focus on articles about the history of (what for it!) the U.S. state of West Virginia.
6. Rodw (submissions), from Pool A, likes to work on articles about British geography and places. Most of his points this round were earned from two impressive accomplishments: a GT aboutScheduled monuments in Somerset and a FT aboutEnglish Heritage properties in Somerset.
7. Rationalobserver (submissions), from Pool B, came in seventh overall. RO earned the majority of her points from GARs and PRs, many of which were earned in the final hours of the round.
8. Calvin999 (submissions), also from Pool B, who was competing with RO for the final two spots in the final hours, takes the race for most GARs and PRs—48.

The intense competition between RO and Calvin999 will continue into the finals. They're both eligible for the Newcomers Trophy, given for the first time in the Wikicup; whoever makes the most points will win it.

Good luck to the finalists; the judges are sure that the competition will be fierce!

Figureskatingfan (talk ·contribs),Miyagawa (talk ·contribs) andSturmvogel 66 (talk ·contribs)11:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated this article for FAhere, as you suggested after the GA review in January. Thanks for your help with that. Feel free to comment at the FA nomination page.00:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cptnono :) My name is Heather Ford - I've written my PhD thesis about Wikipedia and your username appears in one of my chapters - about the progress of the 2011 Egyptian Revolution article. I would love to share a pre-publication copy of the chapter with you if you'd like to read it? --hfordsa (talk)16:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2015 is now in the books! Congrats to our finalists and winners, and to everyone who took part in this year's competition.

This year's results were an exact replica of last year's competition. For the second year in a row, the 2015 WikiCup champion isGodot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points). All of his points were earned for an impressive 253 featured pictures and their associated bonus points (5060 and 1695, respectively). His entries constituted scans of currency from all over the world and scans of medallions awarded to participants of the U.S. Space program.Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came in second place; she earned by far the most bonus points (4082), for 4 featured articles, 15 good articles, and 147 DYKs, mostly about in her field of expertise, natural science.Cas Liber (submissions), a finalist every year since 2010, came in third, with 2379 points.

Our newcomer award, presented to the best-performing new competitor in the WikiCup, goes toRationalobserver (submissions). Everyone should be very proud of the work they accomplished. We will announce our other award winners soon.

A full list of our award winners are:

• Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points) wins the prize forfirst place and theFP prize for 330 featured pictures in the final round.
• Cwmhiraeth (submissions) wins the prize forsecond place and theDYK prize for 160 did you knows in the final round (310 in all rounds).
• Cas Liber (submissions) wins the prize forthird place and theFA prize for 26 featured articles in all rounds.
• West Virginian (submissions) wins the prize forfourth place
• Calvin999 (submissions) wins afinal 8 prize.
• Rationalobserver (submissions) wins afinal 8 prize.
• Harrias (submissions) wins afinal 8 prize and theFL prize for 11 featured lists.
• Rodw (submissions) wins the most prizes: afinal 8 prize, theGA prize for 41 good articles, and thetopic prize for a 13-article good topic and an 8-article featured topic, both in round 3.
• ThaddeusB (submissions) wins thenews prize for the most news articles in round 3.

We warmly invite all of you tosign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are alsoopen, and all are welcome to participate. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2016 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement!If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself fromWikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.

Figureskatingfan (talk ·contribs ·logs),Miyagawa (talk ·contribs ·logs) andSturmvogel 66 (talk ·contribs ·logs)18:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the currentArbitration Committee election. TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipediaarbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome toreview the candidates' statements and submit your choices onthe voting page. For the Election committee,MediaWiki message delivery (talk)13:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone, and we would like to wish you all a happy holiday season. As you will probably already know, the 2016 WikiCup begins in the new year; there is still time tosign up. There are some changes we'd like to announce before the competition begins.

After two years of serving as WikiCup judge,User:Miyagawa hasstepped down as judge. He deserves great thanks and recognition for his dedication and hard work, and for providing necessary transition for a new group of judges in last year's Cup. Joining Christine (User:Figureskatingfan) and Jason (User:Sturmvogel 66) is Andrew (User:Godot13), a very successful WikiCup competitor and expert inFeatured Pictures; he won the two previous competitions. This is a strong judging team, and we anticipate lots of enjoyment and good work coming from our 2016 competitors.

We would also like to announce one change in how this year's WikiCup will be run. In the spirit of sportsmanship, Godot13 andCwmhiraeth have chosen to limit their participation. Seehere for the announcement and a complete explanation of why. They and the judges feel that it will make for a more exciting, enjoyable, and productive competition.

The discussions/polls concerning the next competition's rules will be closed soon, and rules changes will be made clear onWikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring and talk pages. The judges are committed to not repeating the confusion that occurred last year and to ensuring that the new rules are both fair and in the best interests of the competition, which is, first and foremost, about improving Wikipedia.

If you have any questions or concerns, the judges can be reached onWikipedia talk:WikiCup, on their talk pages, or by email. We hope you will all join us in trying to make the 2015 WikiCup the most productive and enjoyable yet.You are receiving this message because you are listed onWikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.Sturmvogel 66 (talk),Figureskatingfan (talk), andGodot13 (talk).--MediaWiki message delivery (talk)06:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We are about to enter the second week of the 2016 WikiCup. The most recent player to sign up brings the current total to 101 contestants. Signups close on 5 February. If you’re interested, you can join this year's WikiCuphere.

We are aware that in some areas the scoring bot’s numbers are a little bit off (i.e., overly generous) and are working to have that corrected as soon as possible.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk)18:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We are about to enter the second week of the 2016 WikiCup. The most recent player to sign up brings the current total to 101 contestants. Signups close on 5 February. If you’re interested, you can join this year's WikiCuphere.

We are aware that in some areas the scoring bot’s numbers are a little bit off (i.e., overly generous) and are working to have that corrected as soon as possible.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk)18:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. Forty-seven competitors move into this round (a bit shy of the expected 64), and we are roughly broken into eight groups of six. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups.

Twenty-two Good Articles were submitted, including three byCyclonebiskit (submissions), and two each byMPJ-DK (submissions),Hurricanehink (submissions),12george1 (submissions), andCas Liber (submissions). Twenty-one Featured Pictures were claimed, including 17 byAdam Cuerden (submissions) (the Round 1 high scorer). Thirty-one contestants saw their DYKs appear on the main page, with a commanding lead (28) byCwmhiraeth (submissions). Twenty-nine participants conducted GA reviews withJ Milburn (submissions) completing nine.

If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it onWikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome onWikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself fromWikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Thanks to everyone for participating, and good luck to those moving into round 2.Sturmvogel 66 (talk ·contribs ·email),Figureskatingfan (talk ·contribs ·email), andGodot13 (talk ·contribs ·email) --MediaWiki message delivery (talk)02:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Along with getting the year wrong in the newsletter that went out earlier this week, we did not mention (as the bot did not report) thatCas Liber (submissions) claimed the first Featured ArticlePersoonia terminalis of the 2016 Wikicup.Sturmvogel 66 (talk ·contribs ·email),Figureskatingfan (talk ·contribs ·email), andGodot13 (talk ·contribs ·email).--MediaWiki message delivery (talk)16:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Round 2 is over and 35 competitors have moved on to Round 3.

Round 2 saw three FAs (two byCas Liber (submissions) and one byMontanabw (submissions)), four Featured Lists (with three byCalvin999 (submissions)), and 53 Good Articles (six byWorm That Turned (submissions) and five each byHurricanehink (submissions),Cwmhiraeth (submissions), andMPJ-DK (submissions)). Eleven Featured Pictures were promoted (six byAdam Cuerden (submissions) and five byGodot13 (submissions)). One Featured Portal, Featured Topic and Good Topic were also promoted. The DYK base point total was 1,135.Cwmhiraeth (submissions) scored 265 base points, whileThe C of E (submissions) andMPJ-DK (submissions) each scored 150 base points. Eleven ITN were promoted and 131 Good Article Reviews were conducted withMPJ-DK (submissions) completing a staggering 61 reviews. Two contestants,Cwmhiraeth (submissions) andCas Liber (submissions), broke the 700 point mark for Round 2.

If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it onWikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome onWikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself fromWikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Thanks to everyone for participating, and good luck to those moving into round 2.Sturmvogel 66 (talk ·contribs ·email),Figureskatingfan (talk ·contribs ·email), andGodot13 (talk ·contribs ·email) --MediaWiki message delivery (talk)02:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Four years ago ...

neutrality
... you were recipient no.207 ofPrecious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk)20:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Five years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk)04:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

... and six! --Gerda Arendt (talk)05:47, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... and seven! --Gerda Arendt (talk)05:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The final round of the 2016 WikiCup is over. Congratulations to the 2016 WikiCup top three finalists:

• First Place -Cas Liber (submissions)
• Second Place -MPJ-DK (submissions)
• Third Place -Adam Cuerden (submissions)

In addition to recognizing the achievements of the top finishers and everyone who worked hard to make it to the final round, we also want to recognize those participants who were most productive in each of the WikiCup scoring categories:

• Featured Article – Cas Liber (actually a three-way tie with themselves for two FAs in each of R2, R3, and R5).
• Good Article – MPJ-DK had 14 GAs promoted in R3.
• Featured List –Calvin999 (submissions) produced 2 FLs in R2
• Featured Pictures – Adam Cuerden restored 18 images to FP status in R4.
• Featured Portal –SSTflyer (submissions) produced the only FPO of the Cup in R2.
• Featured Topic –Cyclonebiskit (submissions) and Calvin were each responsible for one FT in R3 and R2, respectively.
• Good Topic – MPJ-DK created a GT with 9 GAs in R5.
• Did You Know – MPJ-DK put 53 DYKs on the main page in R4.
• In The News –Dharmadhyaksha (submissions) andMuboshgu (submissions), each with 5 ITN, both in R4.
• Good Article Review – MPJ-DK completed 61 GARs in R2.

Over the course of the 2016 WikiCup the following content was added to Wikipedia (only reporting on fixed value categories): 17 Featured Articles, 183 Good Articles, 8 Featured Lists, 87 Featured Pictures, 40 In The News, and 321 Good Article Reviews. Thank you to all the competitors for your hard work and what you have done to improve Wikipedia.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk)01:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We will open up a discussion for comments on process and scoring in a few days. The 2017 WikiCup is just around the corner! Many thanks from all the judges. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself fromWikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.Sturmvogel 66 (talk ·contribs ·email),Figureskatingfan (talk ·contribs ·email), andGodot13 (talk ·contribs ·email)

WikiProject Good Articles's2016-2017 GA Cup Greetings, all! We would like to announce the start of the 4thGA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing ofGood article nominations! Thus far, there have been three GA Cups, which were successful in reaching our goals of significantly reducing the traditionally long queue at GAN, so we're doing it again. Currently, there are over 400 nominations listed. We hope that we can again make an impact this time. The 4th GA Cup will begin onNovember 1, 2016. Four rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on February 28, 2017), but this may change based on participant numbers. We may take a break in December for the holidays, depending on the results of a poll of our participants taken shortly after the competition begins. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same, as will the scoring. Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on November 14, 2016. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now! If you have any questions, take a look at theFAQ page and/or contact one of the judges. Cheers from3family6,Figureskatingfan,Jaguar,MrWooHoo, andZwerg Nase. We apologize for the delay in sending out this message until after the competition has started. Thank you toKrishna Chaitanya Velaga for aiding in getting this message out. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name toour 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.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk)01:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cptnono. Voting in the2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please reviewthe candidates' statements and submit your choices onthe voting page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On 1 January 2017, WikiCup 2017 (the 10th Annual WikiCup) will begin. This year we are trying something a little different –monetary prizes.

For the WC2017 the prizes will be as follows (amounts are based in US$ and will be awarded in the form of an online Amazon gift certificate):

• First place – $200
• Second & Third place – $50 each
• Category prizes – $25 per category (which will be limited to FA, FL, FP, GA, and DYK for 2017). Winning a category prize does not require making it to the final round.

Note: Monetary prizes are a one-year experiment for 2017 and may or may not be continued in the future. In order to be eligible to receive any of the prizes above, the competing Wikipedia account must have a valid/active email address.

After two years as a WikiCup judge,Figureskatingfan is stepping down. We thank her for her contributions as a WikiCup judge. We are pleased to announce that our newest judge is two-time WikiCup championCwmhiraeth.

The judges for the 2017 WikiCup areGodot13 (talk ·contribs ·email),Cwmhiraeth (talk ·contribs), andSturmvogel 66 (talk ·contribs ·email).

Signups are open now and will remain open until 5 February 2017. You can sign uphere.

If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself fromWikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)20:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HelloCptnono! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access toAutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from theCheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it atWP:PERM/AWB. Thank you!—MusikBot II^talk20:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. It would have been 5 points, but when a late entrant was permitted to join the contest in February, a promise was made that his inclusion would not result in the exclusion of any other competitor. To achieve this, the six entrants that had the lowest positive score of 4 points have been added to the 64 people who otherwise would have qualified. As a result, some of the groups have nine contestants rather than eight. Our top four scorers in round 1 were:

• Cas Liber, last year's winner, led the field with two featured articles on birds and a total score of 674.
• Iry-Hor, a WikiCup newcomer, came next with a featured article, a good article and a tally of 282 bonus points for a score of 517. All these points came from the articleNyuserre Ini, an Ancient Egyptian pharaoh,
• 1989, another WikiCup newcomer, was in joint third place at 240. 1989 has claimed points for two featured lists and one good article relating to anime and comedy series, all of which were awarded bonus points.
• Peacemaker67 shared third place with five good articles and thirteen good article reviews, mostly on naval vessels. He is also new to the competition.

The largest number of DYKs have been submitted byVivvt andThe C of E, who each claimed for seven, andMBlaze Lightning achieved eight articles at ITN.Carbrera andPeacemaker67 each claimed for five GAs andKrishna Chaitanya Velaga was well out in front for GARs, having reviewed 32. No featured pictures, featured topics or good topics yet, but we have achieved three featured articles and a splendid total of fifty good articles.

So, on to the second round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it onWikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome onWikipedia 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 fromWikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.Godot13,Sturmvogel 66 andCwmhiraeth13:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The second round of the competition has now closed, with just under 100 points being required to qualify for round 3.YellowEvan just scraped into the next round with 98 points but we have to say goodbye to the thirty or so competitors who didn't achieve this threshold; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Our top scorers in round 2 were:

• Cas Liber, led the field with five featured articles, four on birds and one on astronomy, and a total score of 2049, half of which came from bonus points.
• 1989 was in second place with 826 points, 466 of which were bonus points. 1989 has claimed points mostly relating to anime and Japanese-related articles.
• Peacemaker67 took third place with two FAs, one GA and seven GARs, mostly on naval vessels or military personnel, scoring 543 points.
• Other contestants who scored over 400 points wereFreikorp,Carbrera, andCzar. Of course all these points are now wiped out and the 32 remaining contestants start again from zero in round 3.

Vivvt submitted the largest number of DYKs (30), andMBlaze Lightning achieved 13 articles at ITN.Carbrera claimed for 11 GAs andArgento Surfer performed the most GARs, having reviewed 11. So far we have achieved 38 featured articles and a splendid 132 good articles. Commendably, 279 GARs have been achieved so far, more than double the number of GAs.

So, on to the third round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it onWikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome onWikipedia 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 fromWikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.Godot13,Sturmvogel 66 andCwmhiraeth13:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The third round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 288 points being required to qualify for round 4. It was a hotly competitive round with all but four of the contestants exceeding the 106 points that was necessary to proceed to round 4 last year.Coemgenus andFreikorp tied on 288, and both have been allowed to proceed, so round 4 now has one pool of eight competitors and one of nine.

Round 3 saw the achievement of a 26-topic Featured topic byMPJ-DK as well as 5 featured lists and 13 featured articles.PanagiotisZois andSounderBruce achieved their first ever featured articles.Carbrera led the GA score with 10,Tachs achieved 17 DYKs andMBlaze Lightning 10In the news items. There were 167 DYKs, 93 GARs and 82 GAs overall, this last figure being higher than the number of GAs in round 2, when twice as many people were taking part. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.

As we start round 4, we say goodbye to the fifteen or so competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it onWikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome onWikipedia 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 fromWikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.Godot13,Sturmvogel 66 andCwmhiraeth05:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the2014 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final article has been scheduled astoday's featured article for September 6, 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so atWikipedia:Today's featured article/September 6, 2017, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks!Jimfbleak -talk to me?14:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk)06:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Round 4 of the WikiCup has ended and we move forward into the final round. In round 4, a total of 12 FAs, 3 FLs, 44 GAs, 3 FLs, 79 DYKs, 1 ITN and 42 GARs was achieved, with no FPs or FTs this time. Congratulations toPeacemaker67 on theRoyal Yugoslav Navy Good Topic of 36 items, and the 12 featured articles achieved byCas Liber (5),Vanamonde93 (3), Peacemaker67 (2),Adityavagarwal (1) and12george1 (1). With a FA scoring 200 points, and bonus points available on top of this, FAs are likely to feature heavily in the final round. MeanwhileYellow Evan, a typhoon specialist, was contributing 12 DYKs and 10 GAs, while Adityavagarwal andFreikorp topped the GAR list with 8 reviews each. As we enter the final round, we are down to eight contestants, and we would like to thank those of you who have been eliminated for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. The lowest score needed to reach round 5 was 305, and I think we can expect a highly competitive final round.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it onWikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome onWikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck, and let the best man (or woman) win!If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself fromWikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.Godot13,Sturmvogel 66 andCwmhiraeth06:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The final round of the 2017 WikiCup is over. Congratulations to the 2017 WikiCup top three finalists:

• First Place -Adityavagarwal (submissions)
• Second Place -Vanamonde (submissions)
• Third Place -Cas Liber (submissions)

In addition to recognizing the achievements of the top finishers and everyone who worked hard to make it to the final round, we also want to recognize those participants who were most productive in each of the WikiCup scoring categories:

• Featured Article – Cas Liber (actually a two-way tie with themselves for an astonishing five FAs in R2 and R4).
• Good Article – Adityavagarwal had 14 GAs promoted in R5.
• Featured List –Bloom6132 (submissions) and1989 (submissions) both produced 2 FLs in R2
• Featured Pictures –SounderBruce (submissions) improved an image to FP status in R5, the only FP this year.
• Featured Topic –MPJ-DK (submissions) has the only FT of the Cup in R3.
• Good Topic – Four different editors created a GT in R2, R3 and R4.
• Did You Know – Adityavagarwal had 22 DYKs on the main page in R5.
• In The News –MBlaze Lightning (submissions) had 14 ITN on the main page in R2.
• Good Article Review –Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (submissions) completed 31 GARs in R1.

Over the course of the 2017 WikiCup the following content was added or improved on Wikipedia: 51 Featured Articles, 292 Good Articles, 18 Featured Lists, 1 Featured Picture, 1 Featured Topics, 4 Good Topics, around 400 Did You Knows, 75 In The News, and 442 Good Article Reviews. Thank you to all the competitors for your hard work and what you have done to improve Wikipedia.

Regarding the prize vouchers -@Adityavagarwal,Vanamonde93,Casliber,Bloom6132,1989, andSounderBruce: please sendGodot13 (talk ·contribs ·email) an email from the email address to which you would like your Amazon voucher sent. Please include your preference of global Amazonmarketplace as well. We hope to have the electronic gift cards processed and sent within a week.

We will open up a discussion for comments on process and scoring in a few days. The 2018 WikiCup is just around the corner! Many thanks from all the judges. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself fromWikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.Sturmvogel 66 (talk ·contribs ·email),Cwmhiraeth (talk ·contribs ·email), andGodot13 (talk ·contribs ·email)MediaWiki message delivery (talk)11:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So the 2017 WikiCup has come to an end. Congratulations to the winner, to the other finalists and to all those who took part. 177 contestants signed up, more than usual, but not all of them submitted entries in the first round. Were editors attracted by the cash prizes offered for the first time this year, or were these irrelevant? Do the rules and scoring need changing for the 2018 WikiCup? If you have a view on these or other matters, why not join in theWikiCup discussion about next year's contest?Sturmvogel 66 (talk ·contribs ·email),Godot13 (talk ·contribs ·email) andCwmhiraeth (talk ·contribs ·email).MediaWiki message delivery (talk)13:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cptnono. Voting in the2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. With 53 contestants qualifying, the groups for round 2 are slightly smaller than usual, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining users.

Our top scorers in round 1 were:

• Aoba47 led the field with a featured article, 8 good articles and 42 GARs, giving a total of 666 points.
• FrB.TG, a WikiCup newcomer, came next with 600 points, gained from a featured article and masses of bonus points.
• Ssven2, another WikiCup newcomer, was in third place with 403 points, garnered from a featured article, a featured list, a good article and twelve GARs.
• Ceranthor,Numerounovedant,Carbrera,Farang Rak Tham andCartoon network freak all had over 200 points, but like all the other contestants, now have to start again from scratch. A good achievement was the 193 GARs performed by WikiCup contestants, comparing very favourably with the 54 GAs they achieved.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. 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 onWikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome onWikipedia 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 fromWikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.Godot13 (talk),Sturmvogel 66 (talk),Cwmhiraeth (talk) andVanamonde (talk)15:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The second round of the 2018 WikiCup has now finished. Most contestants who advanced to the next round scored upwards of 100 points, but two with just 10 points managed to scrape through into round 3. Our top scorers in the last round were:

• Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with three featured articles
• Iazyges, with nine good articles and lots of bonus points
• Yashthepunisher, a first time contestant, with two featured lists
• SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with seventeen good topic articles
• Usernameunique, a first time contestant, with fourteen DYKs
• Muboshgu, a seasoned competitor, with three ITNs and
• Courcelles, another first time contestant, with twenty-seven GARs

So far contestants have achieved twelve featured articles between them and a splendid 124 good articles. Commendably, 326 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2018 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met; most of the GARs are fine, but a few have been a bit skimpy.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it onWikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome onWikipedia 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 your name fromWikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.Godot13 (talk),Sturmvogel 66 (talk),Vanamonde (talk) andCwmhiraeth (talk)06:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Cptnono. I'm just posting to let you know thatList of bridges in Seattle – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page asToday's featured list for May 28. The TFL blurb can be seenhere. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or atTFL talk. Regards,Giants2008 (Talk)02:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is bad ass and made my evening.Cptnono (talk)06:57, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The third round of the 2018 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round had at least 227 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

• Courcelles, a first time contestant, with 1756 points, a tally built largely on 27 GAs related to the Olympics
• Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three GAs on natural history and astronomy topics
• SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with a variety of submissions related to transport in the state of Washington

Contestants managed 7 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 120 good articles, 1 good topic, 124 DYK entries, 15 ITN entries, and 132 good article reviews. Over the course of the competition, contestants have completed 458 GA reviews, in comparison to 244 good articles submitted for review and promoted. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process; several submissions, particularly in abstruse or technical areas, have needed additional work to make them completely verifiable.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it onWikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome onWikipedia 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 your name fromWikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.Godot13 (talk),Sturmvogel 66 (talk),Cwmhiraeth (talk),Vanamonde (talk)04:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:Stussy Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (seeour policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described insection F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)18:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fourth round of the 2018 WikiCup has now come to an end. The eight users who made it to the final round had to score a minimum of 422 points to qualify, with the top score in the round being 4869 points. The leaders in round 4 were:

• Courcelles scored a magnificent 4869 points, with 92 good articles on Olympics-related themes. Courcelles' bonus points alone exceeded the total score of any of the other contestants!
• Kees08 was second with 1155 points, including a high-scoring featured article forNeil Armstrong, two good topics and some Olympics-related good articles.
• Cas Liber, with 1066 points, was in third place this round, with two featured articles and a good article, all on natural history topics.
• Other contestants who qualified for the final round wereNova Crystallis,Iazyges,SounderBruce,Kosack andCeranthor.

During round four, 6 featured articles and 164 good articles were promoted by WikiCup contestants, 13 articles were included in good topics and 143 good article reviews were performed. There were also 10 "in the news" contributions on the main page and 53 "did you knows". Congratulations to all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it onWikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome onWikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck, and let the best editor win!If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself fromWikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.Godot13,Sturmvogel 66,Vanamonde andCwmhiraeth.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)18:31, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiCup is over for another year! OurChampion this year isCourcelles (submissions), who over the course of the competition has amassed 147 GAs, 111 GARs, 9 DYKs, 4 FLs and 1 ITN. Our finalists were as follows:

1. Courcelles (submissions)
2. Kosack (submissions)
3. Kees08 (submissions)
4. SounderBruce (submissions)
5. Cas Liber (submissions)
6. Nova Crystallis (submissions)
7. Iazyges (submissions)
8. Ceranthor (submissions)

All those who reached the final win awards, and awards will also be going to the following participants:

• Cas Liber (submissions) wins the FA prize, for three featured articles in round 2.
• Courcelles (submissions) wins the GA prize, for 92 good articles in round 3.
• Kosack (submissions) wins the FL prize, for five featured lists overall.
• Cartoon network freak (submissions) wins the topic prize, for 30 articles in good topics overall.
• Usernameunique (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 24 did you know articles in round 3.
• Zanhe (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 17 in the news articles overall.
• Aoba47 (submissions) wins the GAR prize, for 43 good article reviews in round 1.

Awards will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved much this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition.

Next year's competition begins on 1 January. You are invited tosign up to participate; it is open to all Wikipedians, new and old. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2019 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement!If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself fromWikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.Sturmvogel 66 (talk ·contribs ·email),Godot13 (talk ·contribs ·email),Cwmhiraeth (talk ·contribs ·email) andVanamonde93 (talk ·contribs ·email).

Hello, Cptnono. Voting in the2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cptnono. Voting in the2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and Happy New Year!

Welcome to the 2019 WikiCup, the competition begins today. If you have already joined, your submission page can be foundhere. If you have not yet signed up, you canadd your name here and we will set up your submissions page. One important rule to remember is that only content on which you have completed significant work during 2019, and which you have nominated this year, is eligible for points in the competition, the judges will be checking! Any questions should be directed to one of the judges, or left onWikipedia talk:WikiCup. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will make it to round 2. Good luck! The judges for the WikiCup areSturmvogel 66 (talk ·contribs ·email),Godot13 (talk ·contribs ·email),Vanamonde93 (talk ·contribs ·email) andCwmhiraeth (talk ·contribs ·email).MediaWiki message delivery (talk)11:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2. With 56 contestants qualifying, each group in Round 2 contains seven contestants, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for Round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining contestants.

Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

• L293D, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with ten good articles on submarines for a total of 357 points.
• Adam Cuerden, a WikiCup veteran, came next with 274 points, mostly from eight featured pictures, restorations of artwork.
• MPJ-DK, a wrestling enthusiast, was in third place with 263 points, garnered from a featured list, five good articles, two DYKs and four GARs.
• Usernameunique came next at 243, with a featured article and a good article, both on ancient helmets.
• Squeamish Ossifrage was in joint fifth place with 224 points, mostly garnered from bringing the1937 Fox vault fire to featured article status.
• Ed! was also on 224, with an amazing number of good article reviews (56 actually).

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews on 143 good articles, one hundred more than the number of good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Well done all!

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. 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 onWikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome onWikipedia 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 fromWikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.Godot13 (talk),Sturmvogel 66 (talk),Vanamonde (talk) andCwmhiraeth (talk).

Just wanted to give you a heads up:Seattle Sounders FC is scheduled to run asToday's featured article on March 19. Feel free to edit the blurbhere. Glad to see you back!SounderBruce23:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The second round of the 2019 WikiCup has now finished. Contestants needed to scored 32 points to advance into round 3. Our top four scorers in round 2 all scored over 400 points and were:

• Cas Liber (1210), our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three DYKs. He also made good use of the bonus points available, more than doubling his score by choosing appropriate articles to work on.
• Kosack (750), last year's runner up, with an FA, a GA, two FLs, and five DYKs.
• Adam Cuerden (480), a WikiCup veteran, with 16 featured pictures, mostly restorations.
• Zwerg Nase (461), a seasoned competitor, with a FA, a GA and an ITN item.

Other notable performances were put in byBarkeep49 with six GAs,Ceranthor,Lee Vilenski, andCanada Hky, each with seven GARs, andMPJ-DK with a seven item GT.

So far contestants have achieved nine featured articles between them and a splendid 80 good articles. Commendably, 227 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2019 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. The judges are pleased with the thorough GARs that are being performed, and have hardly had to reject any. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it onWikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome onWikipedia 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 your name fromWikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.Godot13 (talk),Sturmvogel 66 (talk),Vanamonde (talk) andCwmhiraeth (talk)MediaWiki message delivery (talk)17:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The third round of the 2019 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round needed to score at least 68 points, which is substantially lower than last year's 227 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

• Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with 500 points derived mainly from a featured article and two GAs on natural history topics
• Adam Cuerden, with 480 points, a tally built on 16 featured pictures, the result of meticulous restoration work
• SounderBruce, a finalist in the last two years, with 306 points from a variety of submissions, mostly related to sport or the State of Washington
• Usernameunique, with 305 points derived from a featured article and two GAs on archaeology and related topics

Contestants managed 4 (5) featured articles, 4 featured lists, 18 featured pictures, 29 good articles, 50 DYK entries, 9 ITN entries, and 39 good article reviews. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them, and it is imperative to claim them in the correct round; one FA claim had to be rejected because it was incorrectly submitted (claimed in Round 3 when it qualified for Round 2), so be warned! When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it onWikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome onWikipedia 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 your name fromWikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.Godot13 (talk),Sturmvogel 66 (talk),Vanamonde (talk) andCwmhiraeth (talk).MediaWiki message delivery (talk)20:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fourth round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 454 points being required to qualify for the final round. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants with over 400 points being eliminated, and all but two of the finalists having achieved an FA during the round.Casliber, our 2016 winner, was the highest point-scorer, followed byEnwebb andLee Vilenski, who are both new to the competition. In fourth place wasSounderBruce, a finalist last year. But all those points are swept away as we start afresh for the final round.

Round 4 saw the achievement of 11 featured articles. In addition,Adam Cuerden scored with 18 FPs, Lee Vilenski led the GA score with 8 GAs whileKosack performed 15 GA reviews. There were around 40 DYKs, 40 GARs and 31 GAs overall during round 4. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.

As we start round 5, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it onWikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome onWikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email.If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself fromWikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.Godot13,Sturmvogel 66,Vanamonde andCwmhiraethMediaWiki message delivery (talk)18:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mDennis Bratland. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person onErica C. Barnett, but you didn't support your changes with acitation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerninghow we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message onmy talk page. Thank you!Dennis Bratland (talk)05:27, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced orpoorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia aboutliving (or recently deceased) persons, as you did toErica C. Barnett. Thank you.Dennis Bratland (talk)05:42, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced orpoorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did atErica C. Barnett. Content of this nature could be regarded asdefamatory and is in violation ofWikipedia policy. If you continue, you may beblocked from editing Wikipedia.Dennis Bratland (talk)05:51, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy onedit warring. Thank you.Dennis Bratland (talk)06:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have beenblocked from editing for a period of24 hours for violating the3 revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome tomake useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read theguide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C06:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User: El C, I am very disappointed by this block but I did cross 3rr (I thought I was only at two but was going too fast) and only realized I was not able to edit while trying to work things out on the talk page. The article is being used as a cover letter. I actually agree she should be called a "joutnalist", and I would like to show more NPR sources. My problem is the scrubbing of other information that I spent time researching. Some of it is negative, but it still should receive some voice. You are letting users get away with promoting an agenda. Shame on me for edit warring but shame on you for allowing such nonsense.Cptnono (talk)06:48, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I am undaunted. Especially, considering that I am not familiar with the article to tell, one way or the other, but when it comes to BLPs I prefer to err on the side of caution.El_C06:51, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you should need to apologize, but you certainly should not be performing administrative actions if you can't be bothered to look in to the issue. I did break the rules and can step back for 24 hours, but you have allowed the subject to use Wikipedia inappropriately through an overt attempt to flood the project with bad faith editing. So again I will say to you: ShameUser: El C, shame on you.Cptnono (talk)07:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I repeatedly tried to tell you that you have to exercise extreme caution with BLPs. I've seen BLP disputes before. You have to give living people the benefit of the doubt and avoid negative content like the plague, unless it is really, really, really solid. But you don't listen. --Dennis Bratland (talk)07:07, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I evaluated that urgent action was needed, so did not get a chance to study the matter closely. Please feel free to bring anything I do up to review in any forum you see fit. The "shaming" innuendo is unhelpful and unwelcome, however.El_C07:08, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no innuendo. You should feel ashamed. Period.Cptnono (talk)07:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not to pile it on, Cptnono, but in order to satisfy the awareness criteria ofARBBLP, I am required to present you with the following discretionary sanctions alert:

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect.It doesnot imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules calleddiscretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may imposesanctions on editors who do not strictly followWikipedia's policies, or thepage-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see theguidance on discretionary sanctions and theArbitration Committee's decisionhere. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

El_C07:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eat a fucking dick,El_CCptnono (talk)06:35, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiCup is over for another year! OurChampion this year isAdam Cuerden (submissions), who over the course of the competition has amassed 91 featured pictures, including 32 in the final round. Our finalists this year were:

1. Adam Cuerden (submissions) with 964 points
2. Lee Vilenski (submissions) with 899 points
3. Casliber (submissions) with 817 points
4. Kosack (submissions) with 691 points
5. SounderBruce (submissions) with 388 points
6. Enwebb (submissions) with 146 points
7. Usernameunique (submissions) with 145 points
8. HaEr48 (submissions) with 74 points

All those who reached the final will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field. Awards will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!

• Casliber (submissions) wins the featured article prize, for a total of 7 FAs during the course of the competition.
• Lee Vilenski (submissions) wins the good article prize, for 14 GAs in round 5.
• Yashthepunisher (submissions) wins the featured list prize, for 4 FLs overall.
• Adam Cuerden (submissions) wins the featured picture prize, for 91 FPs overall.
• MPJ-DK (submissions) wins the topic prize, for 7 articles in good topics in round 2.
• Lee Vilenski (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 14 did you know articles in round 5.
• Muboshgu (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 7 in the news articles in round 1.
• Ed! (submissions) wins the reviewer prize, for 56 good article reviews in round 1.

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved much this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition, not forgettingUser:Jarry1250, who runs the scoring bot.

We have opened ascoring discussion on whether the rules and scoring need adjustment. Please have your say. Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited tosign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2020 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement!If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself fromWikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.Godot13,Sturmvogel 66,Vanamonde andCwmhiraeth14:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Happy New Decade and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders and improvers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be foundhere. If you have not yet signed up, you canadd your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. We are relaxing the rule that only content on which you have completed significant work during 2020 will count; now to be eligible for points in the competition, you must have completed significant work on the content at some time! Any questions on the rules or on anything else connected to the Cup should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to theWikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. Good luck! The judges for the WikiCup areSturmvogel 66 (talk ·contribs ·email),Godot13 (talk ·contribs ·email),Vanamonde93 (talk ·contribs ·email) andCwmhiraeth (talk)11:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have beenblocked from editing for a period of1 month for makingpersonal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome tomake useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read theguide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  — JJMC89 (T·C)06:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as anadministrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block log •active blocks •global blocks •autoblocks •contribs •deleted contribs •abuse filter log •creation log •change block settings •unblock •checkuser (log))

---

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read theguide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to theUnblock Ticket Request System. If the block is aCheckUser orOversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to theArbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to theunblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

I've extended your block indefinitely. — JJMC89 (T·C)07:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 57 contestants qualifying. We have abolished the groups this year, so to qualify for Round 3 you will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two contestants.

Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

• Epicgenius, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with a featured article, five good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 895 points.
• Gog the Mild came next with 464 points, from a featured article, two good articles and a number of reviews, the main theme being naval warfare.
• Raymie was in third place with 419 points, garnered from one good article and an impressive 34 DYKs on radio and TV stations in the United States.
• Harrias came next at 414, with a featured article and three good articles, an English civil war battle specialist.
• CaptainEek was in fifth place with 405 points, mostly garnered from bringingCactus wren to featured article status.
• The top ten contestants at the end of Round 1 all scored over 200 points; they also includedL293D,Kingsif,Enwebb,Lee Vilenski andCAPTAIN MEDUSA. Seven of the top ten contestants in Round 1 are new to the WikiCup.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. In Round 1 there were four featured articles, one featured list and two featured pictures, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. Between them, contestants completed 127 good article reviews, nearly a hundred more than the 43 good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Contestants also claimed for 40 featured article / featured list reviews, and most even remembered to mention their WikiCup participation in their reviews (a requirement).

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Some contestants made claims before the new submissions pages were set up, and they will need to resubmit them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. 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 onWikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome onWikipedia 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 fromWikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.Godot13 (talk),Sturmvogel 66 (talk),Vanamonde (talk) andCwmhiraeth (talk).MediaWiki message delivery (talk)16:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was an error in the WikiCup 2020 March newsletter;L293D should not have been included in the list of top ten scorers in Round 1 (they led the list last year), instead,Dunkleosteus77 should have been included, having garnered 334 points from five good articles on animals, living or extinct, and various reviews.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)09:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The second round of the 2020 WikiCup has now finished. It was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 75 points to advance to round 3. There were some very impressive efforts in round 2, with the top ten contestants all scoring more than 500 points. A large number of the points came from the 12 featured articles and the 186 good articles achieved in total by contestants, and the 355 good article reviews they performed; the GAN backlog drive and the stay-at-home imperative during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been partially responsible for these impressive figures.

Our top scorers in round 2 were:

• Epicgenius, with 2333 points from one featured article, forty-five good articles, fourteen DYKs and plenty of bonus points
• Gog the Mild, with 1784 points from three featured articles, eight good articles, a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews and lots of bonus points
• The Rambling Man, with 1262 points from two featured articles, eight good articles and a hundred good article reviews
• Harrias, with 1141 points from two featured articles, three featured lists, ten good articles, nine DYKs and a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews
• Lee Vilenski with 869 points,Hog Farm with 801,Kingsif with 719,SounderBruce with 710,Dunkleosteus77 with 608 andMX with 515.

The rules for featured article reviews have been adjusted; reviews may cover three aspects of the article, content, images and sources, and contestants may receive points for each of these three types of review. Please also remember the requirement to mention the WikiCup when undertaking an FAR for which you intend to claim points. Remember also that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it onWikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome onWikipedia 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 your name fromWikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.Godot13 (talk),Sturmvogel 66 (talk),Vanamonde (talk) andCwmhiraeth. -MediaWiki message delivery (talk)17:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The third round of the 2020 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it into the fourth round each had at least 353 points (compared to 68 in 2019). It was a highly competitive round, and a number of contestants were eliminated who would have moved on in earlier years. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

• Epicgenius, with one featured article, 28 good articles and 17 DYKs, amassing 1836 points
• The Rambling Man, with 1672 points gained from four featured articles and seventeen good articles, plus reviews of a large number of FACs and GAs
• Gog the Mild, a first time contestant, with 1540 points, a tally built largely on 4 featured articles and related bonus points.

Between them, contestants managed 14 featured articles, 9 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 152 good articles, 136 DYK entries, 55 ITN entries, 65 featured article candidate reviews and 221 good article reviews. Additionally,MPJ-DK added 3 items to featured topics and 44 to good topics. Over the course of the competition, contestants have completed 710 good article reviews, in comparison to 387 good articles submitted for review and promoted. These large numbers are probably linked to a GAN backlog drive in April and May, and the changed patterns of editing during the COVID-19 pandemic. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it onWikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome onWikipedia 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 your name fromWikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.Godot13 (talk),Sturmvogel 66 (talk),Vanamonde (talk),Cwmhiraeth (talk)MediaWiki message delivery (talk)12:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk)06:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fourth round of the competition has finished, with 865 points being required to qualify for the final round, nearly twice as many points as last year. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants with 598 and 605 points being eliminated, and all but two of the contestants who reached the final round having achieved an FA during the round. The highest scorers were

• Bloom6132, with 1478 points gained mainly from 5 featured lists, 12 DYKs and 63 in the news items;
• HaEr48 with 1318 points gained mainly from 2 featured articles, 5 good articles and 8 DYKs;
• Lee Vilenski with 1201 points mainly gained from 2 featured articles and 10 good articles.

Between them, contestants achieved 14 featured articles, 14 featured lists, 2 featured pictures, 87 good articles, 90 DYK entries, 75 ITN entries, 95 featured article candidate reviews and 81 good article reviews. Congratulations to all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it onWikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome onWikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email.If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself fromWikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.Godot13 (talk),Sturmvogel 66 (talk),Vanamonde (talk),Cwmhiraeth (talk)MediaWiki message delivery (talk)19:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 2020 WikiCup has come to an end, with the final round going down to the wire. Our newChampion isLee Vilenski (submissions), the runner-up last year, who was closely followed byGog the Mild (submissions). In the final round, Lee achieved 4 FAs and 30 GAs, mostly on cue sport topics, while Gog achieved 3 FAs and 15 GAs, mostly on important battles and wars, which earned him a high number of bonus points.The Rambling Man (submissions) was in third place with 4 FAs and 8 GAs on football topics, withEpicgenius (submissions) close behind with 19 GAs and 16 DYK's, his interest being the buildings of New York.

The other finalists wereHog Farm (submissions),HaEr48 (submissions),Harrias (submissions) andBloom6132 (submissions). The final round was very productive, and besides 15 FAs, contestants achieved 75 FAC reviews, 88 GAs and 108 GAN reviews. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!

All those who reached the final will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field.

• Gog the Mild (submissions) wins the featured article prize, for a total of 14 FAs during the course of the competition.
• Bloom6132 (submissions) win the featured list prize, for 5 FLs in round 4.
• Rhododendrites (submissions) wins the featured picture prize, for 3 FPs in round 3 and 5 overall.
• Lee Vilenski (submissions) wins the featured article reviewer prize, for 23 FAC reviews in round 5.
• Epicgenius (submissions) wins the good article prize, for 45 GAs in round 2 and 113 overall.
• MPJ-DK (submissions) wins the topic prize, for 33 articles in good topics in round 2.
• The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the good article reviewer prize, for 100 good article reviews in round 2.
• Epicgenius (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 22 Did you know articles in round 4 and 94 overall.
• Bloom6132 (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 63 In the news articles in round 4 and 136 overall.

Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited tosign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2021 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement!If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself fromWikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.Godot13,Sturmvogel 66,Vanamonde andCwmhiraethMediaWiki message delivery (talk)11:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blown for Good has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to thereassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.PARAKANYAA (talk)21:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cptnono. Followinga request for comment in May 2025, the community has decided to implement an activity requirement for theautopatrolled permission. Because your account has not edited in the last three years, the autopatrolled permission has been removed from your account. This action is purely procedural and does not affect your ability to create articles; if you return to actively creating articles, you may request that the permission be restored throughthe normal process. When returning, please consider taking some time to re-familiarize yourself with common practices and how they may have changed over the past few years if you wish to request the permission back. Thank you for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and we hope to see you again soon.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)06:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Pages with missing files