Have you considered requesting theautopatrolled permission? You seem to meet the general criteria (only stumbling block being a couple of copyright notices) and this could be helpful in reducing theWP:NPP backlog. If you have questions or wish to discuss don't hesitate to ping me here or leave a comment on my talk page. Best,Barkeep49 (talk)03:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jon698, I just wanted to let you know that I haveadded the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload onnew page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, seeWikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing!Swarm♠05:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jon698. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them aspatrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at theNew Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia; if you have not already done so, youmust read the new tutorial atNew Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the variousdeletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread atpage reviewer talk.

• URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator.Swarm♠20:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have beenblockedindefinitely from editing forabusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts areallowed, butnot forillegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bansmay be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}.  --Scott Burley (talk)03:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by anadministrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see theblocking policy).

Jon698(block log •active blocks •global blocks •contribs •deleted contribs •filter log •creation log •change block settings •unblock •checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have made one account and used it for illegitimate purposes. However, I ask that I be unblocked, but banned from participating in AFD discussions and only be allowed to edit as my contribution history shows that I am the only person that has edited articles such asGeorge W. Bush 2000 presidential campaign,Alaska Libertarian Party, andLibertarian Party of Massachusetts and there are many articles like Bush's that are in need of greater editing to be completed or to be proper for Wikipedia. I came to Wikipedia two years ago to improve political articles and I have went too far. I acknowledge that I have broken the rules, but as this is the first time I ask that I be given a second chance. If I renege on this then I wish for the next blocking to be permanent.

Decline reason:

Yououtright lied about the connection before being blocked. You can take thestandard offer.NinjaRobotPirate (talk)09:17, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, pleaseread theguide to appealing blocks first, then use the{{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• Comment I understand. I am not good at apologies especially online and I have had the account since 2017. I rarely used it and did not use it for disruptive editing. I ask that it will be reconsidered and that I be limited to only editing or at least limited to editing only George W. Bush 2000 presidential campaign as it is close to completion, but I am the only one who edits it.Jon698Jon69814:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If I may chime in here and say that Jon has been incredible in improving our coverage of american politics.
  However, you don't even seem to be that sorry for what you did... You've been using this sock of yours since at least 2017 (Diffs fromScott Burley:[1][2]). That is long termscrutiny evasiason.
  Have you disclosed all your accounts publicly? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖05:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with MJL in that it looks like you've made some really significant contributions to the project and it would be a shame to lose you as an editor. This seems like a textbook case forWP:SO. Barring any substantive objections, I wouldn't have any problem unblocking you in six months. --Scott Burley (talk)17:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• But not likely to happen when you continue to sock withUser:DailyVermonter. -DJSasso (talk)14:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Jon, come on... you're really hurting the case here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖18:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by anadministrator, who accepted the request.

Jon698(block log •active blocks •global blocks •contribs •deleted contribs •filter log •creation log •change block settings •unblock •checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hello it has been six months since my block in May and I would like to begin thestandard offer process. My provided clear reason is Scott's statement "I agree with MJL in that it looks like you've made some really significant contributions to the project and it would be a shame to lose you as an editor. This seems like a textbook case for WP:SO." and MJL's statement "If I may chime in here and say that Jon has been incredible in improving our coverage of american politics." Also in the past six months I have improved my understanding of copyright and public domain and I hope to use it to improve the images of political/election articles and I have learned election mapping and hope to improve many Washington, D.C. election articles. The next year will be important for election/political Wikipedia editors and will have a large amount of work and I hope that I will be able to help and participate in that. It has been hard to not edit Wikipedia for six months, but I would still like to thank Scott for the block because it has helped me become less addicted to editing and MJL for helping me get a LPedia account that I could use to edit that site on if I ever had the urge to. --Jon69802:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles/Jon698&ilshowall=1https://lpedia.org/Special:Contributions/Jon168[reply]

Accept reason:

Per the conversation below (Special:PermanentLink/924708850), you are unblocked. Conditions for your unblock include a 6 month topic ban fromArticles for Deletion and a reminder to keep aware of general sanctions pertaining to American politics and other areas as you've acknowledged. --ferret (talk)13:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't really understand how the standard offer process works and I hope that I am doing it correctly. Apologies in advance for any mistakes.

@NinjaRobotPirate: I am sorry about the ping, but I have noticed that there is a large backlog in Requests for unblockJon698 (talk)03:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want your unblock request posted to theadministrators' noticeboard, I could do that. Due to a quirk in policy, unblock requests that fail to get consensus at a noticeboard turn into acommunity site ban. The difference ismostly academic, but site bans can only be appealed at noticeboards. Noticeboard appeals are settled via the consensus of the community (more-or-less a vote), but standard unblock requests are resolved by unilateral action by a single administrator. If you don't like the idea of a bunch of random people voting to ban/unban you, the alternative is to wait for a random administrator to get around to your unblock request. That shouldn't take more than a few days, but it could potentially take several weeks. If you want to speed up the process and increase the likelihood of success, you should list all the registered accounts you've used to edit Wikipedia.NinjaRobotPirate (talk)04:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. I would rather wait for some random administrator to get around to my request rather than putting it up to a noticeboard vote. The only registered accounts that I used wereUser:DailyVermonter andUser:ImBadWithUsernames.Jon698 (talk)04:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: I'm willing to go forward with this unblock, if checkuser is clean (or you feel it's not necessary) and he agrees to the topic ban for AFDs that he originally proposed 6 months ago in his prior appeal. I would additionally add that he read aboutGeneral Sanctions and acknowledge doing so by listing the active sanction he believes would apply to his preferred area of editing related to political topics.@Scott Burley: as info as blocking admin. --ferret (talk)23:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any obvious block evasion.NinjaRobotPirate (talk)23:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate:@Ferret: I agree to the topic ban for AFDs and as forGeneral Sanctions sanctions could be placed on areas such asabortion,Eastern Europe,gun control, and other areas like those.Jon698 (talk)03:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jon, works for me. Also be mindful ofAmerican politics 2. This sanction is core to your editing areas. --ferret (talk)13:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the correct time to claim points for DYK in the WikiCup is after the hook has appeared on the main page. So you can claim forTed Kennedy 1980 presidential campaign now, while some of your other submissions have been premature.Cwmhiraeth (talk)07:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth Thank you for telling me. I am new to Wikicup this year and I will remember to wait for the rest of my DYK hooks. -Jon698 (talk)11:11, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-I enjoyed reading your articles; thank you for writing them. I did have to make a change with theWilliam Jefferson Hardin article; he served in the Wyoming Territorial Legislature not the Wyoming State Legislature. The territorial and state legislatures are two different legislative chambers serving different political divisions-territorial and state in Wyoming-many thanks-RFD (talk)13:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-I have to remove the Wyoming Legislature template from the article aboutCathy Connolly who served in the Wyoming Legislature. The Wyoming Legislature template place the Members of the Wyoming Territorial Legislature category on the the article. This happen on some other articles. I had to go through the members of the Wyoming Territorial Legislature category and there 2 or 3 others this happen. I am not sure why the Wyoming Legislature template is doing this-many thanks-20:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)RFD (talk)20:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I look at the Wyoming Legislature template; the template covers the Wyoming territorial and state legislatures. This would explained why he members of the Wyoming Territorial Legislatures were put on some articles that should not be put on some articles like the Cathy Connolly article many thanks-RFD (talk)20:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Jon698, and welcome to Women in Red. With the enormous experience you have of writing about politics and politicians, it's great to see you now intend to devote more of your time to women. If you haven't already done so, you might find it useful to look through ourTen Simple Rules and ourPrimer for creating women's biographies. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk)09:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with you about your position on the position of whip. Seems obvious to me.Activist (talk)21:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your 6 months ban was a travesty, IMO. It's absurd that such a good editor was hit with such awful sanctions. This is an example of why I totally regret having startedWP:AN, which led to the farce that isWP:AN/I. -Aussie Article Writer (talk)19:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected asEditor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions!(courtesy of theWikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Vami IV submitted the following nomination forEditor of the Week:

I nominate Jon698 for Editor of the Week because of their outstanding contributions to our coverage of American politics, but especially US State legislatures. I have personally bore witness to their dedication to the topic, trawling through thousands of Newspaper.com clippings, and their obvious interest and openness about the topic through conversing with them onthe Discord server. On-wiki, he has several Good Articles to speak to the quality of his work, such asDavid Duke 1988 presidential campaign. He has made it his mission in the two years he's been actively editing to vastly improve our coverage of US State legislators, and has not disappointed. For that and his level-headed and humorous conducting of himself I wish to commend him.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎14:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Just wanted to give you a heads up of a Wyoming-related state legislator article that I recently created, as I recall you are active in the Wyoming Wikiproject and with American state legislator bios. I unfortunately don't have much more time to expand it further, but there are a number of Newspapers.com clippings that I came across and think offer some good material, if you ever feel the urge to expand it!Connormah (talk)05:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain whythe police stopped Moran in the first place? Thank you.DS (talk)03:49, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DragonflySixtyseven: The bookThey Came From Within: A History of Canadian Horror Cinema on page 38 does not give a reason for why he was initially stopped, but I have looked through the author's sources and they corroborate most of his claims. I ordered Filmfax #25 which was the only source I couldn't find online and will check that one out.Jon698 (talk)15:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DragonflySixtyseven: Apologies for the time it took me to finally get around to editing the article using the Filmfax source. I was unable to find anything about why they stopped it so I removed it. However, the magazine did have a lot of other, more useful, information. This was back on December 7.Jon698 (talk)17:47, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	Women in Red 8th Anniversary
	InJuly 2015 around15.5% of the English Wikipedia's biographies were about women. As ofJuly 2023,19.61% of the English Wikipedia's biographies are about women. That's a lot of biographies created in the effort to close the gender gap. Happy 8th Anniversary!Join us for some virtual cake and add comments or memories and please keep on editing to close the gap!

--Lajmmoore (talk)11:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

You did a fantastic job with the 2019 Seattle City Council election page! If you have time, could you please help me bring the 2023 election page up to the standard of the one you made?C. W. Edward (talk)04:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@C. W. Edward: Thank you for the invitation to edit. I loved making some of those local election pages and I would love to do it again. I just need to finish a few bookmarks on a book I've been reading recently and I'll be able to get to it.Jon698 (talk)17:51, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Filmhunter (talk)02:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the like on my post. I also have autism. How do I add the ASD tag to my profile? I mostly edit Wikimedia content and then put it on Wikipedia pages. So I might put it up there as well. Thanks again for the like.MonkeyBBGB (talk)02:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @MonkeyBBGB: I put it up on your page for you. BTW would you like to have it formatted to be right-adjusted so that it fits nicely next to your text?Jon698 (talk)02:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  wow thanks! I appreciate that. Yeah it would be cool if you did that. I'm going to tag you on my Wikimedia page, because your stuff is cool. What about my edit of adding that poster caught your attention? Right place at the right time?MonkeyBBGB (talk)02:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @MonkeyBBGB: Yeah right place at the right time. I previously made a large edit to the page and have it on my watchlist.Jon698 (talk)02:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  that's cool. i also look at pages I used to edit too. but most of my wikipedia edits of more substance are from the first few months here. I enjoyed editing about Oswald Rabbit when he became public domain. I madea page with him.MonkeyBBGB (talk)02:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The only real page I maintain isthis one. But it gets my local politics interest and keeps me up to date on cannabis laws in Virginia. And then that benefits others!MonkeyBBGB (talk)02:52, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm TheApex150. I saw on thepage for the 1984 U.S. Presidential Election that you added additional info to the national exit poll. I wanted to ask if you have access to exit poll info from certain states? For example, an exit poll from California or one from Texas. I know the election was a landslide, but I'm curious to see if there were differences among the states themselves. If you have access to that info, can you please link it to me here? Or you can link it to my talk page. Thank you! :-)TheApex150 (talk)09:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @TheApex150: I could do some research to see if there are exit polls at the state level. It would be interesting to see them.Jon698 (talk)09:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Alrighty, sounds good! I'm curious as well.TheApex150 (talk)10:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Have you found anything yet?TheApex150 (talk)05:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @TheApex150: I have not started yet. I will notify you when I find something.Jon698 (talk)07:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, thanks! Sorry if I sounded impatient.TheApex150 (talk)07:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @TheApex150: Don't worry. I am interested in finding this information as well.Jon698 (talk)07:46, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Awesome!TheApex150 (talk)08:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @TheApex150: Hello, I have found an exit poll for Utah.https://dataverse.harvard.edu/file.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/7R1OON/67MMQU&version=1.0&toolType=PREVIEWJon698 (talk)01:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Nice! That's great you found that. Did you find info on other states?TheApex150 (talk)05:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you have access to any of the ones here?https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/ipoll/search?end=1984-12-31&org=a58eef63-ee8d-4636-b321-36f5763c51c9&q=election%20day%20survey&start=1984-01-01&tab=STUDY They're also available through here:https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/ICPSR/studies/08368/summaryTheApex150 (talk)05:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! Thank you for your work on the 2023 election page. There's going to be a city council special election this year. Would you mind making the page for it? I would, but my summer is going to be extremely busy. I have some links for the article.
https://crosscut.com/politics/2024/01/seattle-city-council-appoints-tanya-woo-fill-district-8-seat
https://crosscut.com/briefs/2024/01/here-are-8-finalists-seattle-city-councils-vacant-seat
https://crosscut.com/politics/2024/05/three-progressives-take-tanya-woo-seattle-city-council-race
https://crosscut.com/politics/2024/01/72-people-applied-seattle-city-councils-vacant-seat
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/tanya-woo-launches-race-to-retain-seat-on-seattle-city-council/C. W. Edward (talk)06:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@C. W. Edward: Thank you for informing me of that. I am interested in doing it.Jon698 (talk)14:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recently noticed you put upHundreds of Beavers for GA nomination. Looking over the article, and working on gettingthe filmmaker's previous effort to FA status, I am impressed with the structure you have on this second film. Though I am still debating about reviewing it, I do want to thow out a few pointers and concerns I have noticed. If you wish to wait for that until an actual GA review occurs I understand.Paleface Jack (talk)22:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Paleface Jack Please go ahead and tell me.Jon698 (talk)00:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sections preceeding the plot are incomplete. While I don't know if you have found every piece of reliable information on the film's production, release, reception, and accolades have a great deal of expansion needed. While that is very strenuous, it is necessary. Not every piece of info is needed, but the film was released to many film festivals and to many awards. You don't need to cite every single one. The best example would be how I structured the release section ofLake Michigan Monster as it covers notable ones while citing how it was consistently screened in film festivals since the original release date. The reception section needs more reviews and should be structured in paragraphs, each one going into each aspect noted (positively or negatively) by critics. It might be a bit more work than you expected, but it helps significantly in fleshing out the article to the high quality we strive for in articles. if you have any. more questions or need advice, just message me on my talk page.Paleface Jack (talk)01:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Paleface Jack: Thank you for the information. I have gone to great lengths to find every online news and many print magazine mentions of Hundreds of Beavers since I started this summer. I even have many Google alerts related to it. I have made some edits to the Reception section and plan on expanding the Accolades and Release section using the IMDB page as a launching point for good sources.Jon698 (talk)18:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC){{re|[reply]

  Do you require assistance?Paleface Jack (talk)18:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Paleface Jack: I would be very grateful if you aided me.Jon698 (talk)18:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Will do later today.Paleface Jack (talk)18:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jon698:Just so I am not overriding your own style or taking over editing duties, I did a little structure changes to get you off on the right track of the reception section. You can always look at my work onLake Michigan Monster for a template on structure and make your own spin on that.Paleface Jack (talk)21:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jon698:Just looked over your expansion of the article, and I am impressed. With a little more work you have a very high chance of passing this.Paleface Jack (talk)18:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JonI’m Ed Adrian former City Councilor mentioned in your Kurt Wright edits. How did you happen to decide to edit Kurt’s page? We are both curious!

BestEd2601:19E:8780:5DC7:70B2:1E31:71FA:463A (talk)00:56, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am just interested in Burlington's politics (despite never setting foot in Vermont) and Kurt Wright was one of its major figures for a long time.Jon698 (talk)01:00, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, your focus was the citation's info. But whoever includedWaltz with Bashir before me might be inclined to include it again, so just curious: Do you think it's worth mentioning at all, or does it veer into superfluous territory?

The reason I created the footnote was because I was finding it difficult to word it eloquently enough, jugglingBashir being the first animated nominated for Foreign-yet-NOT-animated. Might require a hidden note within to deter recurring attempts. --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk17:43, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cinemaniac86: Your suggestion would be fine. I emailed IndieWire to offer a correction for their article so maybe that is a 1 in a 1,000 chance of them updating it to mention Waltz with Bashir.Jon698 (talk)17:47, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I sent an Instagram DM to the article's author as well! (Since he didn't provide his own e-mail.)

Proactive minds think alike. Though I have no clue if he'll even notice such a message, but we shall see… --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk21:45, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In theList of tallest people the entry looks unwieldy. Why don't you make it into a separate page. Google appears to givequite a few refs. --Altenmann>talk07:13, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Altenmann: I don't know. I have never made an article like that before and I am concern about its notability.Jon698 (talk)07:19, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG, as well as "William Patterson Bane, the Greene County Giant, one of the tallest soldiers in the Civil War, earned an almost mythical place in popular culture of late 19th-century America."[3] --Altenmann>talk07:21, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Altenmann: You know what, why not. It will be pretty interesting to see what I get from Newspapers.com.Jon698 (talk)07:23, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right, at the second glance google hits are not very promising. Maybe old newspapers help. --Altenmann>talk07:24, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just read the Leland Dudek page. Very well done! Had to click on Who Wrote That?

Kudos.Selbsportrait (talk)14:52, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk)06:19, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, welcome, welcome Jon698! I'm glad that you are joining theNovember 2025 drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.

Cielquiparle (talk)10:34, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2026 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor, we hope the WikiCup will give you a chance to improve your editing skills as you go. 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 a bot will set up your submissions page within one day, ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to theWikiCup talk page.

For the 2026 WikiCup, the highest-ranking contestants will receivetournament points at the end of each round, and final rankings are decided by the number of tournament points each contestant has. This is the same scoring system that we had last year. If you're busy and can't sign up in January, don't worry: Signups are open throughout the year. To make things fairer for latecomers, the lowest-scoring contestants are no longer eliminated at the end of each round.

The first round will end on 26 February. The judges for the WikiCup this year are:Cwmhiraeth (talk ·contribs ·email),Epicgenius (talk ·contribs ·email),Frostly (talk ·contribs ·email),Guerillero (talk ·contribs ·email) andLee Vilenski (talk ·contribs ·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.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:38, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yourgood article nomination of the articleKurt Wright isunder review. Seethe review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have.Message delivered byChristieBot, on behalf ofLastJabberwocky --LastJabberwocky (talk)09:46, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yourgood article nomination of the articleKurt Wright haspassed; congratulations! Seethe review page for more information. If the article iseligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you cannominate it within the next seven days.Message delivered byChristieBot, on behalf ofLastJabberwocky --LastJabberwocky (talk)17:42, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits are often-overlooked, but essential, contributions to the Wikipedia. TheMinor Barnstar is awarded for makingminor edits of the utmost quality. For your work on editing down a messy article about a messy film.

Bearian (talk)22:59, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Centres of governance in the Roman Empire, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed asC-Class, which is recorded on itstalk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top23% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at thegrading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can nowcreate articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work toArticles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at thehelp desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option tocreate articles yourself without posting a request toArticles for creation.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Jcgaylor (talk)23:40, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jon698:

This month, February 2026,WikiProject Women in Green is participating in theFebruary 2026 GAN Backlog Drive, in which we're aiming to review as many outstanding Good Article (GA) nominations about women and women's works as possible. If you want to help out, you can check out theproject talk page for a list of nominations in need of review (including some WiG originals). If you haven't reviewed a GA nomination before, be sure to check out thereviewing instructions andguidelines and feel free to ask for amentor to check your work.

We are also working together with a wikithon hosted on 5 February by Wikimedia UK, which will focus on writing and improving articles about women involved in sustainable development. If you want to join the event, feel free tosign up at the eventbrite page; or if you would be interested in providing a 20-minute assessment and/or a full GA review of the submitted articles in the weeks following, put your name down on theproject talk page for updates as the event progresses.

We hope to see you there!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk)15:05, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia US Mountain West

We will host an online meeting forWikipedia users in the Mountain States from 8:00 to 9:00 PM MST, Tuesday evening, February 10, 2026, atmeet.google.com/kfu-topq-zkd. Anyone interested in the future direction of Wikipedia and theWikimedia movement is encouraged to attend. We will discuss how users in each of our states can help one another. Help is available for new users, and all guests are welcome. Please seeour meeting page for details.

If you don't wish to receive these invitations anymore, please removeyour username from ourinvitation list. Thanks.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)01:28, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yourgood article nomination of the articleDalmatius isunder review. Seethe review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have.Message delivered byChristieBot, on behalf ofUndercoverClassicist --UndercoverClassicist (talk)11:06, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yourgood article nomination of the articleWalter White (Tennessee politician) isunder review. Seethe review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have.Message delivered byChristieBot, on behalf ofHawkeye7 --Hawkeye7 (talk)20:09, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yourgood article nomination of the articleWalter White (Tennessee politician) haspassed; congratulations! Seethe review page for more information. If the article iseligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you cannominate it within the next seven days.Message delivered byChristieBot, on behalf ofHawkeye7 --Hawkeye7 (talk)20:36, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]