User talk:A.Minkowiski
Hello and welcome to my talk page. If I have nominated your article for Speedy deletion, Article for deletion, Proposed deletion and you would like to know why, please first have a look at some of the following important Wikipedia policies and guidelines:
ChumburungPlease check the reference given in the newly created article about the kingdom of Chumburung, and also check the much older article on Chumburung language before you propose to delete it. And at least explain why you think that the present text is "promotional" in any sense. DrMennoWolters (talk) 10:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
hi minkowisky, why did you delete my wikipage of Cabo Love? im tryin to make a music page, pls help. :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Micheal28 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
RewardWe will double your pay! I'll have a look tomorrow when I have a bit more time, and see what I can find Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC) Open contentThank you for your notification about undoing at Open content. I was a bit puzzled at first, because you put it at User talk:LPfi#NMEA 0183 needs a review. In the future it might be better to create a new section. Perhaps you noticed that you left my previous edit as is. My deleting the sentence in question was because the wording of {tl|contested-inline}} is less than ideal (I am not very familiar with practices at the English version of Wikipedia). The reason= parameter is not shown, and I did not care to start a section at the discussion page about a misleading statement without source. Is it OK like this? --LPfi (talk) 07:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
Your revert edits and your adviceDon't you realise how needlessly negative you are coming over as? I am not just referring to our recent contact, but about a lot of your recent actions. Here is a typical example, this is what you did: [1] and [2]. Would just doing something like this not have been more productive? [3]. The article is about a general - so obviously he became a general sometime! So the content that said when this happened is likely to be true even if unreferenced, If content is unreferenced but probably correct, don't delete the content, just add a fact tag to it. It also appears that you are targeting only new users with these sort of reverts and your comments posted on their user talk pages. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
TalkbackHello, A.Minkowiski. You have new messages at Yunshui's talk page.
Message added 13:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Yunshui 雲水 13:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I am moving the Polish Standard Bidding System Stuff to a page with that name. Unfortunately I'm having trouble with Wikipedia and it won't let it save. Nigel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinglenose (talk • contribs) 17:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
Hello!Hello, I wish to let you know that, it would be helpful if your mark new pages as "patrolled" while tagging them with speedy-deletion criterion. It'd save other editors time to review the same page, has already been reviewed. You may find WP:Twinkle helpful in this case. It automatically marks pages as patrolled while tagging it with csd templates. Twinkle comes handly with fighting vandalism, as well. Let me know if you need help with enabling Twinkle. Happy editing! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
TalkbackHello, A.Minkowiski. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents.
Message added 11:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Passengerpigeon (talk) 11:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC) Kirk ReidCSD declined. db-attack is where there is only negative data and no good references. The BBC news will certainly do as a good reference. Ronhjones (Talk) 14:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Edit summariesHi A.Minkowiski: Thanks for leaving a message on my talk page. Per your request there to do so, I checked out come of your recent contributions. I noticed that you have omitted using Edit summaries. Please be sure to add edit summaries when making changes to Wikipedia pages. Thanks for your contributions, and happy editing. NorthAmerica1000 14:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Not sure where to reply to you. Basically, someone keeps putting up that Dan VS is cancelled because of something from Curtis Armstong's Facebook page. Meanwhile, when contacted, the producers of the show as well as the studio and the network counter that, saying that the show is not cancelled, just on hiatus. I have tried to reflect that by tweaking the section from "Cancellation" to "Cancellation Rumors" and even that keeps getting changed. So either make the section reflect the truth or erase all of the unfounded supposition. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Churchofdan (talk • contribs) 02:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Is the Hub public relations a viable source? Are Film Roman spokespeople a viable source? If Curtis Armstrong's Facebook page is a "viable source", then why isn't the official Facebook page for the show, which specifically contradicted Mr. Armstrong's comments a viable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Churchofdan (talk • contribs) 16:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
A kitten for you!Thanks for your contributions to welcome new users to Wikipedia on their talk pages. This is an important task that encourages editor retention. Thanks! NorthAmerica1000 15:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
Tips on AIV workHello. I have noticed your work on WP:AIV. Thank you for your help fighting vandalism! Would you like some tips and suggestions for increasing the effectiveness of your AIV reports? — Kralizec! (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Your request for rollbackHi A.Minkowiski. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:
If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! — Kralizec! (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
safierdeleted, user blocked, thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Just a quick message that when you performed the recent revert on Tajh Boyd, it removed important information (a title) from the citation. I added that information back and filled in more details. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 03:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Overzealous editingYou should actually read the edits you're reverting in the name of "anti-vandalism". You reverted a perfectly good edit that deleted non-notable spoof characters in a list of notable people. Don't assume that every IP is a vandal. And apologize for your mistakes. 71.139.142.249 (talk) 13:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
European Centre for Information Policy and Security (ECIPS)I could have let the AFD run, but it's pretty spammy, and I noticed that the deletion was contested by the creator (fair enough) but also by an ISP for whom it was there only edit, which looks a bit fishy Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC) Supergeo and JhangailSupergeo is a company, blocked spamusername creator, deleted. The other one is a clan rather than an individual. Although it may be non-notable, the creator can't be blocked for that page because it appears to be part of his name. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I have declined the speedy deletion of articles created by this users, and removed your vandal report. It seems obvious that this user is acting in good faith; he is creating stubs about people who already have articles on Polish Wikipedia. Instead, I have marked the pages for expansion using Polish Wikipedia, asked the user to create one full translation instead of submitting multiple stubs, and suggested moving the articles he had already created into user space as drafts. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
For an IP user, 71.139.142.249 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) seems pretty experienced at editing Wikipedia. There is no way that they are new here (they started editing today); they must be a sockpuppet of an established user. This user is also continuing to display disruptive behavior on their talk page by trying to ban me from their talk page. Maybe a report to an admin noticeboard like WP:ANI should get them warned or blocked. Thank you for looking into this. Epicgenius (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Free super saver delivery alternatives - how to add contentHi. You deleted the "Free super saver delivery alternatives" page I created yesterday. I thought it had enough context (it talked about Amazon's free super saver delivery system, when it ended and listed the current alternatives in the European market), but apparently more context was needed. I am willing to edit the page and add more information (the whole idea was that other people could contribute as well), but it has been deleted and I cannot pick up where it was left off. How can one retrieve the previous version and complete it? --Migueldealmeida (talk) 13:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Dilip Raju Studios etcThanks for that. I've indeffed Users Dilip Raju Studios and TrendyBeatRecords for spamusernames, deleted Ambrose method (contextless OR) and Bhangu Aman (spam, non-notable. If there are sock issues, the indef on TrendyBeatRecords should stop that Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
OER inquiryHi A.Minkowiski, I'm sending you this message because you're one of about 300 users who have recently edited an article in the umbrella category of open educational resources (OER) (or open education). In evaluating several projects we've been working on (e.g. the WIKISOO course and WikiProject Open), my colleague Pete Forsyth and I have wondered who chooses to edit OER-related articles and why. Regardless of whether you've taken the WIKISOO course yourself - and/or never even heard the term OER before - we'd be extremely grateful for your participation in this brief, anonymous survey before 27 April. No personal data is being collected. If you have any ideas or questions, please get in touch. My talk page awaits. Thanks for your support! - Sara FB (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC) 166.216.165.75Thanks for barnstar. The ISP has been blocked by another admin, hopefully he/she will realise that there are sanctions Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
Unsocial AmigosAgreed, deleted Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC) My general advice is that if something is a clear copyright violation, tag it as such and someone will get to it. More complicated problems can be listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Asking a specific person to look at it is not likely to be efficient. That said, in the specific case of Trot music, the source of claimed copyright infringement claims to have copied the material from Wikipedia, so it doesn't appear to be any kind of copyright infringement anyhow. WilyD 09:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Would you let me write something, instead of slapping a deletion tag a minute after I started the page? This is very bad. Yann (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Proposed deletionYou proposed deletion of HTTPA, with the rationale that "It may leads to original research of some one" to which I have to say "Huh???" What does that rationale mean? WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
The point is not whether it will work or not. The point is that it is a development effort that is being covered by significant sources. Not every technical covered at Wikipedia has to be a successful implementation. Significant developments and significant failures are also of interest. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Since you nominated the new article, it has been expanded and well sourced. I do not know how you were unable to find sources, as it was easy to do, but I ask that you might now reconsider your deletion nomination. Thanks. Schmidt, Michael Q. 21:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
VSFHeya, VSF - Viscose staple fibre/ fiber is a generic term used and not a term used specifically by Aditya Birla Group. It is using of viscose in the manufacturing of staple fibre/ fiber. See below wiki link for the individual components. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viscose https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staple_fiber There are a lot of other properties which I am still working on to include in the VSF post but i was surprised to find it deleted. I have posted below some of the references (from different sources) to substantiate my claim above. http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Viscose+Fibers http://www.sateri.com/module/12/4/en/viscose-staple-fiber http://www.viscoserayonindia.com/T_mfg.asp
StarsHi: per your message on my talk page, I generally don't award upon request, but I may surprise you with one someday! Cheers, NorthAmerica1000 13:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New York City derbiesThank you for the input. The articles I was referring to are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_River_derby https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_derbies The requested pages are not notable as there are no sources listed that refer to these matches by these names, and in most cases, matches between the teams listed have yet to be played. I nominated these articles because I felt they fell under the "not suitable for an encyclopedia" requirement. Adiamas (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC) BroadbandThanks to BT, all seems to be good at present... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
hi there, we've received your talk about my article on Fabio Mariani. we've taken the article from our website www.ledame.co.uk that we have written. Writing the same article taken from our website should this be considered a copyright violation? if so, What could i do? Thanks in advance, Le Dame Ledame (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC) HelloPlease do not delete this page. I did a lot of research and I put a lot of effort into this page. I have gotten permission from Vianca herself to create this page. RepliesThe merlin edit is fine. I've moved the ref to after the punctuation, per MoS, and also removed the copyright symbol. Audubon is out of copyright, and even if it wasn't, it's not for us to repeat any site's copyright claim. I've gently warned the football editor, and another admin has advised her to do one at a time properly, so let's see Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Jenita Janetadded my opinion to the AfD. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Teamwork barnstar
No personal attack has been made, admin is out of line and has continuously promoted malwareThe promotion of malware on Wikipedia is not allowed. It puts millions of users at risk. There have been no such attacks made to any admin. I have only let them know of their dangerous faults that can be catastrophic. Furthermore you have harassed me on my account (BloodyCrip). Wikipedia is an open community, you should not "side" with someone who promotes malware simply because they have been a member of the site longer. If this admin does not understand their dangerous acts, they should not be allowed near any cyber-security based content on Wikipedia. "Stop making personal attaks[edit] Please stop making personal attacks to an admin's talk page as you did here which is against talk page guidelines. Please avoid using such irrelevant wordings otherwise you will be blocked. A.Minkowiski _Lets t@lk 08:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)" - This seems like an attack on me. There have been no irrelevant words used whatsoever. I must ask you to please stop harassing me. I am only doing good. I am cleaning up malicious links that admins on this website seem to not understand. If you can not see that I will find means to let the website know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.0.110 (talk) 20:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC) Patta in India is a Revenue record, hence it will help many people in knowing and getting the result
Patta in India is a Revenue record, hence it will help many people in knowing and getting the result — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smoestatebusinesstoday (talk • contribs) 07:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC) RFAI'm happy to nominate you, but before I do so, I'd like you to make sure that you have read Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list, Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide and Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship. If you have done so, and you are happy with what they say, I'll nominate you. Incidentally, Gogo Dodo's last comment above is good advice Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC) Copy editingExcuse me, are you available for copy-editing? URDNEXT (talk) 15:31, 22 June 2014 (UTC) Speedy deletion of ISO pages on important standardsDear A. Minkowiski, I have created Wikipedia pages for the sub committees of ISO TC 37. These are important committees that create standards in the area of terminology and languages. All the standards created by these sub committee are published through ISO. Many individuals, organizations and governments use these standards. The pages are factual and are not promoting any commercial concern. There is no copyright infringements on these pages. I would ask that you remove your suggestion to delete them. Peter Reynolds — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterrey (talk • contribs) 18:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC) The articles I have published are on sub committees of an ISO technical committee which creates publically used and available standards. This is not promotional and contains factual information only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterrey (talk • contribs) 18:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC) Comments on ISO sub committee pagesDear A. Minkowiski, Your comments about my articles being copyrighted and then being promotional are wrong. Using this approach you would delete any page on any standard or any standard creation body. There is no copyright infringement because it mentions titles of standards being worked on by the committees or published by the committee. These are not promotional because it states factual information about the sub committees. How do I contest this? Is the real problem because I am a new contributor? Peterrey (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)peterrey (Peter Reynolds)
Nicole ReneeI am nicole renee and your info is false I was never raised in philadelphia and that was not my father — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicole Renee Harris (talk • contribs) I am Nicole Renée HarrisMost of the information is correct on page. That is why I am editing it.I was never raised in philadelphia. The parental information is incorrect. I never met my father. I never went to Juilliard I went to the art Institute and I don't no where the quote came from I was born in the hood it makes no sense and ref is bogus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicole Renee Harris (talk • contribs) 08:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
COIOne page had already gone, the coi user I blocked. I haven't forgotten the rfa, just a bit busy at present Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Re: User Habib constructionRe your message: I had missed that, but Smalljim handled the account and the edits have been reverted by other editors. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC) spiderlogicuser indeffed, page deleted Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC) TalkbackHello, A.Minkowiski. You have new messages at MelbourneStar's talk page.
Message added 11:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. +1 —MelbourneStar☆talk 11:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC) GreetingsHello A.Minkowiski. I wanted to leave you a message, thanking you for your positive contributions to Wikipedia, and for being willing to further serve the project as an administrator. I have no doubt that you are motivated by good faith intentions, and believe that you would have exercised the restraints you expressed; so as not to be seen using the tools in an aggressive manner. Unfortunately, I am equally convinced that the emerging consensus was not going to sway from their opinion, that a pile on chorus would repeat, over and again, that you simply needed more time, and that nothing new or beneficial could reasonably come from continuing the RfA further. I wish you the best; looking forward to seeing you around. Sincerely.—John Cline (talk) 14:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC) EnderugbyHe seems to be just messing around for the sake of it. I've given a warning of possible consequences. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Bharat Ka Veer Putra – Maharana PratapHello! You missed the fact that this edit broke a wikilink when you accepted it from Pending Changes. It's not easy when dealing with an unfamiliar subject, but when I see a change inside a wikilink (or other link), I've found that it's worth the time to compare the links in the current and the previous versions of the page. Thanks! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 11:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 30Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Synchronization of TV Transmitter and Receiver, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages CRT and Picture tube (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC) For Your Enthusiasm...
Clipping Creations Indiathanks, someone else go there first Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC) Draft:AgricenI created a draft entry for a company called Agricen-it was accepted, but was accepted as "Draft:Agricen" - I am uncertain what the next steps are to make it an article called "Agricen". Also, there is a note in it regarding links that I don't think is correct - the article does have internal links. Thanks for your time and help!Caravass (talk) 00:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC) The article is now de-orphaned. Still unsure how to change the entry from "Draft:Agricen" to "Agricen." Wondering if you could advise. Thanks Caravass (talk) 16:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC) MistakeHi, I got a message from you that I changed/deleted content from a page on Phyllis Wheatley. I had never even been to that page before you messaged me about it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.36.6 (talk) 16:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC) Happy New Year
Cake!Bananasoldier (talk) has given you a WikiCake! WikiCakes promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cake, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!
Spread the tastiness of cakes by adding {{subst:GiveCake}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy New Yearto you too, welcome back Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
ContentOK, I'll look tomorrow Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC) Preciouswatch recent changes Five years ago, you were recipient no. 1102 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for January 24Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robotic Sensors, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Electronic. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC) I suppose there is a need for WikiPolice. However, my good chap, or whatever "A." stands for if you get my meaning, I had spent all of about 10 minutes on the document and you gave it a slap. You are as about efficient as a London meter maid, and about as intelligent I suspect. Good day. On to the next target of A. Minimouski. I suggest you ban me from the great Wiki in the cloud altogether. Oh yes, one more thing, you are the master of the double-standard. All you need to do is look at a few other Association wiki pages. Talk about obvious self-promotion. Bah! Feel free to pass this on to your supperiors and please, delete the page I was trying to add.Hank Sullivan (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC) There is no reason to put a delete tag on this article. The song has already been released and it's gaining popularity.
Timberlake UMCWhile I did go ahead and block this user, you should consider your report to WP:AIV declined. They created one article and contested it's speedy deletion. That is not repeated spamming or vandalism by any reasonable definition, and the block I issued is just a "soft" block that requires them to choose a new name. If you see something like that in the future WP:UAA would be the more appropriate venue to report it. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Helgi HóseasonYou said that you had edited my recent contributions because it didn’t appear constructive to you. I knew Helgi Hóseason personally and what I wrote is true. That was his answer when I asked him why he never voted. Or rather he asked me back. Can you Smári Sverrisson tell the difference from cow shit and a horse shit. So whether it douse or douse not appear constructive to you I really don't care. I stand by it because it is the truth! Like I said I knew Helgi and it appear that you did not. Otherwise you would have let my contribution stand. Best regards and respect. Sigurjón Smári Sverrisson kt: 060658-5529 Snorrabraut 48. 105 Reykjavík Iceland. Phone: +354-897-1358
The Signpost: 28 January 2015
I hope you do not changing the red info again. It's against us. The red (page does not exist) info is to highlights the name of peoples and organizations involved and related in building our Football Association. I don't know who you are and I don't care who you are. As long as you don't visiting while deleting some 'red'(s) info, I'll be very grateful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shuvail (talk • contribs) 09:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC) OperosaHello, I'm writing you concerning one article in Wikipedia that has been declined couple of times. I'm a fan of the opera, leaving in Bulgaria and I've visited many events that Operosa has organized in the Balkan area. I asked them why don't the create a page in Wikipedia and they send me the link with the page they are trying to create but has been declined several times. I offered to help. I have lot's of spear time but I'm not very familiar how exactly to make a Wikipedia page. So I've decided to ask you for help if you have time to explain and give your suggestions. Thank you in advance Maria — Preceding unsigned comment added by MariaKristianova (talk • contribs) 16:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Yelena YatsuraI had previously nominated this for a speedy, as you saw, and another admin deleted it. The new version is just as bad, so that's gone too. The fact that it was on Russian Wikipedia is irrelevant. Other wikipedias have different rules and how they are interpreted also varies. Many accept a far more promotion tone than en-wiki, but of course wikipedias are not acceptable as RS anyway After your prod, two references were added. IMDB, which is not acceptable because it is self-editable, and a link to a gushing review of one of the films which support none of the text. Not the reason for the second speedy, but just so you know what's happening Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 04 February 2015
The MaxwellsAnother admin deleted the article, but didn't pick up that the user page had the same content, now deleted. Accounted also blocked as a violation of our user name policy, thanks again, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC) Update: I have added more sources and inline citations to Smart lighting. NORTH AMERICA1000 06:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC) The Signpost: 11 February 2015
The Signpost: 18 February 2015
The Signpost: 25 February 2015
The Signpost: 25 February 2015
WikiCup 2015 March newsletterThat's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. 64 competitors made it into this round, and are now broken into eight groups of eight. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups. Round 1 saw some interesting work on some very important articles, with the round leader Freikorp (submissions) owing most of his 622 points scored to a Featured Article on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, as Godot13 (submissions) had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge, Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) led round 1 with 601 points in 2013. In addition to Freikorp's work, some other important articles and pictures were improved during round one, here's a snapshot of a few of them:
You may also wish to know that The Core Contest is running through the month of March. Head there for further details - they even have actual prizes! If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) Thanks for your assistance! Miyagawa (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiCup. (Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC) The Signpost: 04 March 2015
The Signpost: 11 March 2015
The Signpost: 18 March 2015
The Signpost – Volume 11, Issue 12 – 25 March 2015
The Signpost, 1 April 2015
I'm backThanks for asking, but there was no problem, I was away on holiday in Cuba. Internet access is quite expensive there because of the US embargo, so I basically didn't edit while I was away Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC) The Signpost: 01 April 2015
The Signpost: 01 April 2015
ReplyAll our featured content is here. You would have to check on the talk page whether an article has already been a TFA. Some of the older FAs might need polishing a bit before nominating. There is also a list of Good Articles at the bottom of the page below the pictures. I'm not really working on anything at the moment. Both the articles you mentioned have been zapped by others, thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC) Today's articles for improvement
This week's article for improvement (week 15, 2015)
The Signpost: 08 April 2015
Today's articles for improvement
This week's article for improvement (week 16, 2015)
The Signpost: 15 April 2015
This week's article for improvement (week 17, 2015)
Today's articles for improvement
The Signpost: 22 April 2015
Today's articles for improvement
This week's article for improvement (week 18, 2015)
The Signpost: 29 April 2015
Today's articles for improvement
This week's article for improvement (week 2, 2025)
WikiCup 2015 May newsletterThe second round one has all wrapped up, and round three has now begun! Congratulations to the 34 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our second round. Leading the way overall was Cas Liber (submissions) in Group B with a total of 777 points for a variety of contributions including Good Articles on Corona Borealis and Microscopium - both of which received the maximum bonus. Special credit must be given to a number of high importance articles improved during the second round.
The points varied across groups, with the lowest score required to gain automatic qualification was 68 in Group A - meanwhile the second place score in Group H was 404, which would have been high enough to win all but one of the other Groups! As well as the top two of each group automatically going through to the third round, a minimum score of 55 was required for a wildcard competitor to go through. We had a three-way tie at 55 points and all three have qualified for the next round, in the spirit of fairness. The third round ends on June 28, with the top two in each group progressing automatically while the remaining 16 highest scorers across all four groups go through as wildcards. Good luck to all competitors for the third round! Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) 17:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC) The Signpost: 06 May 2015
Today's articles for improvement
This week's article for improvement (week 20, 2015)
The Signpost: 13 May 2015
This week's article for improvement (week 21, 2015)
Today's articles for improvement
The Signpost: 20 May 2015
This week's article for improvement (week 22, 2015)
TAFI week 22, 2015 updatePlease note that Personality is also an article for improvement for week 22, 2015. Thank you. Today's articles for improvement weekly vote
This week's article for improvement (week 23, 2015)
Today's articles for improvement weekly vote
The Signpost: 03 June 2015
This week's article for improvement (week 24, 2015)
Today's articles for improvement weekly vote
The Signpost: 10 June 2015
This week's article for improvement (week 25, 2015)
Today's articles for improvement weekly vote
The Signpost: 17 June 2015
This week's article for improvement (week 26, 2015)
Today's articles for improvement weekly vote
The Signpost: 24 June 2015
This week's article for improvement (week 27, 2015)
Today's articles for improvement weekly vote
The Signpost: 01 July 2015
This week's article for improvement (week 28, 2015)
Today's articles for improvement weekly vote
The Signpost: 08 July 2015
Today's articles for improvement weekly vote
This week's article for improvement (week 29, 2015)
The Signpost: 15 July 2015
Today's articles for improvement – discussion about changing project processes
This week's articles for improvement (week 30, 2015)
The Signpost: 22 July 2015
This week's articles for improvement (week 31, 2015)
TAFI's List of articles
The Signpost: 29 July 2015
This week's article for improvement (week 32, 2015)
The Signpost: 05 August 2015
TAFI List of articles purge, part II
This week's article for improvement (week 33, 2015)
The Signpost: 12 August 2015
This week's article for improvement (week 34, 2015)
The Signpost: 19 August 2015
This week's article for improvement (week 35, 2015)
The Signpost: 26 August 2015
This week's article for improvement (week 36, 2015)
WikiCup 2015 September newsletterThe 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 far Casliber (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 was Coemgenus (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:
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) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 11:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC) The Signpost: 02 September 2015
This week's article for improvement (week 37, 2015)
The Signpost: 09 September 2015
This week's article for improvement (week 38, 2015)
Orphaned non-free image File:Pizza Hut Logo.jpgNote that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC) The Signpost: 16 September 2015
This week's article for improvement (week 39, 2015)
The Signpost: 23 September 2015
This week's article for improvement (week 40, 2015)
The Signpost: 30 September 2015
This week's article for improvement (week 41, 2015)
The Signpost: 07 October 2015
This week's article for improvement (week 42, 2015)
The Signpost: 14 October 2015
This week's article for improvement (week 43, 2015)
The Signpost: 21 October 2015
This week's article for improvement (week 44, 2015)
The Signpost: 28 October 2015
This week's article for improvement (week 45, 2015)
The Signpost: 04 November 2015
WikiCup 2015: The resultsWikiCup 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 is Godot13 (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 to Rationalobserver (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:
We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, 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 from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · logs), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · logs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · logs) 18:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC) WikiCup AwardThis week's article for improvement (week 46, 2015)
TAFI talk
The Signpost: 11 November 2015
This week's article for improvement (week 47, 2015)
Bot automation at Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvementGreetings WikiProject TAFI members! Over the past two weeks, there has been extensive discussion on introducing bot automation to assist with maintenance of the Today's Articles for Improvement project. A bot has now been approved for trial and will carry out the weekly duties. The bots first run will occur around 00:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC) (midnight on Sunday). If you have been assisting any of the weekly maintenance tasks, please refrain from doing so this week. The bot needs to be tested and proven it can do the job, and it only gets one chance per week. The tasks will include:
Updating the accomplishments and archiving selections is still done manually, along with daily tasks such as adding approved entries to the articles for improvement page. These will become automated in the near future. We hope the bot proves to serve well, and by carrying out the routine housekeeping tasks we can boost the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the project. MusikBot thanks you for your service in helping with the weekly tasks in the past, and for your cooperation during this trial period :) Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • for all project notifications The Signpost: 18 November 2015
This week's article for improvement (week 48, 2015)
Hi, The Signpost: 25 November 2015
This week's article for improvement (week 49, 2015)
The Signpost: 02 December 2015
This week's article for improvement (week 50, 2015)
The Signpost: 09 December 2015
This week's article for improvement (week 51, 2015)
The Signpost: 16 December 2015
Wikiclaus Cheer !
This week's article for improvement (week 52, 2015)
WikiCup 2016 is just around the corner...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 to sign up. There are some changes we'd like to announce before the competition begins. After two years of serving as WikiCup judge, User:Miyagawa has stepped 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 in Featured 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 and Cwmhiraeth have chosen to limit their participation. See here 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 on Wikipedia: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 on Wikipedia 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 on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Figureskatingfan (talk), and Godot13 (talk).--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC) This week's article for improvement (week 53, 2015)
The Signpost: 30 December 2015
Happy New Year, A.Minkowiski!A.Minkowiski,
This week's article for improvement (week 1, 2016)
The Signpost: 06 January 2016
WikiCup 2016: Game On!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 WikiCup here. 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) 18:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC) WikiCup 2016: Game On!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 WikiCup here. 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) 18:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC) This week's article for improvement (week 2, 2016)
The Signpost: 13 January 2016
This week's article for improvement (week 3, 2016)
The Signpost: 20 January 2016
This week's article for improvement (week 4, 2016)
The Signpost: 27 January 2016
This week's article for improvement (week 5, 2016)
Invitation to the Google Doodle task force
Invitation to the Google Doodle task force
– Sent using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject Today's articles for improvement This week's article for improvement (week 6, 2016)
The Signpost: 03 February 2016
This week's article for improvement (week 7, 2016)
The Signpost: 10 February 2016
The Signpost: 17 February 2016
This week's article for improvement (week 8, 2016)
The Signpost: 24 February 2016
This week's article for improvement (week 9, 2016)
WikiCup 2015 March newsletterThat'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 by Cyclonebiskit (submissions), and two each by MPJ-DK (submissions), Hurricanehink (submissions), 12george1 (submissions), and Cas Liber (submissions). Twenty-one Featured Pictures were claimed, including 17 by Adam Cuerden (submissions) (the Round 1 high scorer). Thirty-one contestants saw their DYKs appear on the main page, with a commanding lead (28) by Cwmhiraeth (submissions). Twenty-nine participants conducted GA reviews with J Milburn (submissions) completing nine. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia: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), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC) WikiCup 2016 March newsletter (update)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) that Cas Liber (submissions) claimed the first Featured Article Persoonia terminalis of the 2016 Wikicup. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email).--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC) This week's article for improvement (week 10, 2016)
The Signpost: 02 March 2016
The Signpost: 09 March 2016
This week's article for improvement (week 11, 2016)
The Signpost: 16 March 2016
This week's article for improvement (week 12, 2016)
The Signpost: 23 March 2016
This week's article for improvement (week 13, 2016)
The Signpost: 1 April 2016
This week's article for improvement (week 14, 2016)
This week's article for improvement (week 15, 2016)
Orphaned non-free image File:NKMUN Logo.pngNote that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC) The Signpost: 14 April 2016
This week's article for improvement (week 16, 2016)
The Signpost: 24 April 2016
This week's article for improvement (week 17, 2016)
This week's article for improvement (week 18, 2016)
The Signpost: 2 May 2016
WikiCup 2016 May newsletterRound 2 is over and 35 competitors have moved on to Round 3. Round 2 saw three FAs (two by Cas Liber (submissions) and one by Montanabw (submissions)), four Featured Lists (with three by Calvin999 (submissions)), and 53 Good Articles (six by Worm That Turned (submissions) and five each by Hurricanehink (submissions), Cwmhiraeth (submissions), and MPJ-DK (submissions)). Eleven Featured Pictures were promoted (six by Adam Cuerden (submissions) and five by Godot13 (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, while The C of E (submissions) and MPJ-DK (submissions) each scored 150 base points. Eleven ITN were promoted and 131 Good Article Reviews were conducted with MPJ-DK (submissions) completing a staggering 61 reviews. Two contestants, Cwmhiraeth (submissions) and Cas 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 on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia 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 from Wikipedia: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), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC) This week's article for improvement (week 19, 2016)
Please chime in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HTTPA. —Ruud 12:14, 11 May 2016 (UTC) File:Robot sensors.jpg listed for discussionThis week's article for improvement (week 20, 2016)
The Signpost: 17 May 2016
This week's article for improvement (week 21, 2016)
The Signpost: 28 May 2016
This week's article for improvement (week 22, 2016)
The Signpost: 05 June 2016
This week's article for improvement (week 23, 2016)
This week's article for improvement (week 24, 2016)
The Signpost: 15 June 2016
This week's article for improvement (week 25, 2016)
This week's article for improvement (week 26, 2016)
This week's article for improvement (week 27, 2016)
The Signpost: 04 July 2016
This week's article for improvement (week 28, 2016)
This week's article for improvement (week 29, 2016)
The Signpost: 21 July 2016
This week's article for improvement (week 30, 2016)
This week's article for improvement (week 31, 2016)
The Signpost: 04 August 2016
This week's article for improvement (week 32, 2016)
This week's article for improvement (week 33, 2016)
The Signpost: 18 August 2016
This week's article for improvement (week 34, 2016)
This week's article for improvement (week 35, 2016)
This week's article for improvement (week 36, 2016)
The Signpost: 06 September 2016
This week's article for improvement (week 37, 2016)
This week's article for improvement (week 39, 2016)
The Signpost: 29 September 2016
This week's article for improvement (week 40, 2016)
This week's article for improvement (week 41, 2016)
The Signpost: 14 October 2016
This week's article for improvement (week 42, 2016)
This week's article for improvement (week 43, 2016)
This week's article for improvement (week 44, 2016)
WikiCup 2016 November newsletter: Final resultsThe final round of the 2016 WikiCup is over. Congratulations to the 2016 WikiCup top three finalists:
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:
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) 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 from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC) The Signpost: 4 November 2016
This week's article for improvement (week 45, 2016)
This week's article for improvement (week 46, 2016)
New Page Review needs your helpHi A.Minkowiski, As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically). Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted. Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review. It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial. (Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC) This week's article for improvement (week 47, 2016)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!Hello, A.Minkowiski. Voting in the 2016 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. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia 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 impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC) The Signpost: 4 November 2016
This week's article for improvement (week 48, 2016)
This week's article for improvement (week 49, 2016)
BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expectedAfC Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC) RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist SurveyGreetings Recent Changes Patrollers! This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:
Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis) Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016. Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings. Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC) This week's article for improvement (week 50, 2016)
WikiCup December newsletter: WikiCup 2017On 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):
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 champion Cwmhiraeth. The judges for the 2017 WikiCup are Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email). Signups are open now and will remain open until 5 February 2017. You can sign up here. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC) This week's article for improvement (week 51, 2016)
The Signpost: 22 December 2016
This week's article for improvement (week 52, 2016)
Your draft article, Draft:AR.FreeflightHello, A.Minkowiski. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "AR.Freeflight". In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it. Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Zupotachyon Ping me (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC) This week's article for improvement (week 1, 2017)
This week's article for improvement (week 2, 2017)
This week's article for improvement (week 3, 2017)
The Signpost: 17 January 2017
This week's article for improvement (week 4, 2017)
This week's article for improvement (week 5, 2017)
This week's article for improvement (week 6, 2017)
The Signpost: 6 February 2017
This week's article for improvement (week 7, 2017)
Orphaned non-free image File:HYDMUN Logo.jpegNote that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC) This week's article for improvement (week 8, 2017)
This week's article for improvement (week 9, 2017)
The Signpost: 27 February 2017
March 2017 WikiCup newsletterAnd 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:
The largest number of DYKs have been submitted by Vivvt and The C of E, who each claimed for seven, and MBlaze Lightning achieved eight articles at ITN. Carbrera and Peacemaker67 each claimed for five GAs and Krishna 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 on Wikipedia: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 on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC) This week's article for improvement (week 10, 2017)
This week's article for improvement (week 11, 2017)
This week's article for improvement (week 12, 2017)
This week's article for improvement (week 13, 2017)
This week's article for improvement (week 14, 2017)
This week's article for improvement (week 15, 2017)
This week's article for improvement (week 16, 2017)
This week's article for improvement (week 17, 2017)
This week's article for improvement (week 18, 2017)
May 2017 WikiCup newsletterThe 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:
Vivvt submitted the largest number of DYKs (30), and MBlaze Lightning achieved 13 articles at ITN. Carbrera claimed for 11 GAs and Argento 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 on Wikipedia: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 on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC) This week's article for improvement (week 19, 2017)
This week's article for improvement (week 20, 2017)
This week's article for improvement (week 21, 2017)
This week's article for improvement (week 22, 2017)
This week's article for improvement (week 23, 2017)
The Signpost: 9 June 2017
This week's article for improvement (week 24, 2017)
This week's article for improvement (week 25, 2017)
The Signpost: 23 June 2017
This week's article for improvement (week 26, 2017)
WikiCup 2017 July newsletterThe 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 and Freikorp 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 by MPJ-DK as well as 5 featured lists and 13 featured articles. PanagiotisZois and SounderBruce achieved their first ever featured articles. Carbrera led the GA score with 10, Tachs achieved 17 DYKs and MBlaze Lightning 10 In 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 on Wikipedia: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 on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 05:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC) This week's article for improvement (week 27, 2017)
This week's article for improvement (week 28, 2017)
The Signpost: 15 July 2017
This week's article for improvement (week 29, 2017)
This week's article for improvement (week 30, 2017)
This week's article for improvement (week 31, 2017)
The Signpost: 5 August 2017
This week's article for improvement (week 32, 2017)
This week's article for improvement (week 33, 2017)
This week's article for improvement (week 34, 2017)
This week's article for improvement (week 35, 2017)
WikiCup 2017 September newsletterRound 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 to Peacemaker67 on the Royal Yugoslav Navy Good Topic of 36 items, and the 12 featured articles achieved by Cas Liber (5), Vanamonde93 (3), Peacemaker67 (2), Adityavagarwal (1) and 12george1 (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. Meanwhile Yellow Evan, a typhoon specialist, was contributing 12 DYKs and 10 GAs, while Adityavagarwal and Freikorp 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 on Wikipedia: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 on Wikipedia 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 from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 06:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC) This week's article for improvement (week 36, 2017)
The Signpost: 6 September 2017
This week's article for improvement (week 37, 2017)
This week's article for improvement (week 38, 2017)
This week's article for improvement (week 39, 2017)
The Signpost: 25 September 2017
This week's article for improvement (week 39, 2017)
This week's article for improvement (week 40, 2017)
This week's article for improvement (week 41, 2017)
This week's article for improvement (week 42, 2017)
This week's article for improvement (week 43, 2017)
The Signpost: 23 October 2017
This week's article for improvement (week 44, 2017)
WikiCup 2017 November newsletter: Final resultsThe final round of the 2017 WikiCup is over. Congratulations to the 2017 WikiCup top three finalists:
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:
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, and SounderBruce: please send Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) an email from the email address to which you would like your Amazon voucher sent. Please include your preference of global Amazon marketplace 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 from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC) This week's article for improvement (week 45, 2017)
This week's article for improvement (week 46, 2017)
WikiCup 2018So 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 the WikiCup discussion about next year's contest? Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC) This week's article for improvement (week 47, 2017)
Nomination of Hyderabad Model United Nations for deletionA discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hyderabad Model United Nations is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyderabad Model United Nations until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Störm (talk) 15:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC) Nomination of Neroon Kot Model United Nations for deletionA discussion is taking place as to whether the article Neroon Kot Model United Nations is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neroon Kot Model United Nations until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Störm (talk) 15:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC) The Signpost: 24 November 2017
This week's article for improvement (week 48, 2017)
Orphaned non-free image File:NKMUN Logo.pngNote that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC) ArbCom 2017 election voter messageHello, A.Minkowiski. Voting in the 2017 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. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia 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 impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC) This week's article for improvement (week 49, 2017)
This week's article for improvement (week 50, 2017)
This week's article for improvement (week 51, 2017)
The Signpost: 18 December 2017
This week's article for improvement (week 52, 2017)
This week's article for improvement (week 1, 2018)
This week's article for improvement (week 2, 2018)
This week's article for improvement (week 3, 2018)
The Signpost: 16 January 2018
This week's article for improvement (week 4, 2018)
This week's article for improvement (week 5, 2018)
This week's article for improvement (week 6, 2018)
The Signpost: 5 February 2018
This week's article for improvement (week 7, 2018)
This week's article for improvement (week 8, 2018)
The Signpost: 20 February 2018
This week's article for improvement (week 9, 2018)
WikiCup 2018 March newsletterAnd 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:
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 on Wikipedia: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 on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) and Vanamonde (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC) This week's article for improvement (week 10, 2018)
This week's article for improvement (week 11, 2018)
This week's article for improvement (week 12, 2018)
This week's article for improvement (week 13, 2018)
Signpost issue 4 – 29 March 2018
This week's article for improvement (week 14, 2018)
This week's article for improvement (week 15, 2018)
This week's article for improvement (week 16, 2018)
This week's article for improvement (week 17, 2018)
The Signpost: 26 April 2018
This week's article for improvement (week 18, 2018)
WikiCup 2018 May newsletterThe 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:
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 on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC) This week's article for improvement (week 19, 2018)
This week's article for improvement (week 20, 2018)
This week's article for improvement (week 21, 2018)
The Signpost: 24 May 2018
The Signpost: 24 May 2018
This week's article for improvement (week 22, 2018)
This week's article for improvement (week 23, 2018)
This week's article for improvement (week 24, 2018)
This week's article for improvement (week 25, 2018)
This week's article for improvement (week 26, 2018)
The Signpost: 29 June 2018
This week's article for improvement (week 27, 2018)
WikiCup 2018 July newsletterThe 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:
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 on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk), Vanamonde (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC) This week's article for improvement (week 28, 2018)
This week's article for improvement (week 29, 2018)
This week's article for improvement (week 30, 2018)
This week's article for improvement (week 31, 2018)
The Signpost: 31 July 2018
This week's article for improvement (week 32, 2018)
This week's article for improvement (week 33, 2018)
This week's article for improvement (week 34, 2018)
This week's article for improvement (week 35, 2018)
The Signpost: 30 August 2018
WikiCup 2018 September newsletterThe 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:
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 on Wikipedia: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 on Wikipedia 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 from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:30, 1 September 2018 (UTC) This week's article for improvement (week 36, 2018)
This week's article for improvement (week 37, 2018)
This week's article for improvement (week 38, 2018)
This week's article for improvement (week 39, 2018)
This week's article for improvement (week 40, 2018)
The Signpost: 1 October 2018
This week's article for improvement (week 41, 2018)
This week's article for improvement (week 42, 2018)
This week's article for improvement (week 43, 2018)
The Signpost: 28 October 2018
This week's article for improvement (week 44, 2018)
WikiCup 2018 November newsletterThe WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is Courcelles (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:
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 to sign 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 from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email) and Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email). This week's article for improvement (week 45, 2018)
This week's article for improvement (week 46, 2018)
This week's article for improvement (week 47, 2018)
This week's article for improvement (week 48, 2018)
The Signpost: 1 December 2018
This week's article for improvement (week 49, 2018)
This week's article for improvement (week 50, 2018)
This week's article for improvement (week 51, 2018)
This week's article for improvement (week 52, 2018)
The Signpost: 24 December 2018
This week's article for improvement (week 1, 2018)
Welcome to the 2019 WikiCup!Hello and Happy New Year! Welcome to the 2019 WikiCup, the competition begins today. If you have already joined, your submission page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add 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 on Wikipedia 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 are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC) This week's article for improvement (week 2, 2019)
This week's article for improvement (week 3, 2019)
This week's article for improvement (week 4, 2019)
This week's article for improvement (week 5, 2019)
The Signpost: 31 January 2019
This week's article for improvement (week 6, 2019)
This week's article for improvement (week 7, 2019)
This week's article for improvement (week 8, 2019)
This week's article for improvement (week 9, 2019)
The Signpost: 28 February 2019
WikiCup 2019 March newsletterAnd 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:
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 on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). This week's article for improvement (week 10, 2019)
This week's article for improvement (week 11, 2019)
This week's article for improvement (week 12, 2019)
This week's article for improvement (week 13, 2019)
The Signpost: 31 March 2019
This week's article for improvement (week 14, 2019)
This week's article for improvement (week 15, 2019)
This week's article for improvement (week 16, 2019)
This week's article for improvement (week 18, 2019)
The Signpost: 30 April 2019
WikiCup 2019 May newsletterThe 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:
Other notable performances were put in by Barkeep49 with six GAs, Ceranthor, Lee Vilenski, and Canada Hky, each with seven GARs, and MPJ-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 on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC) This week's article for improvement (week 19, 2019)
This week's article for improvement (week 20, 2019)
This week's article for improvement (week 21, 2019)
This week's article for improvement (week 22, 2019)
The Signpost: 31 May 2019
This week's article for improvement (week 23, 2019)
This week's article for improvement (week 24, 2019)
This week's article for improvement (week 25, 2019)
This week's article for improvement (week 26, 2019)
The June 2019 Signpost is out!
This week's article for improvement (week 27, 2019)
WikiCup 2019 July newsletterThe 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:
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 on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC) This week's article for improvement (week 28, 2019)
This week's article for improvement (week 29, 2019)
This week's article for improvement (week 30, 2019)
This week's article for improvement (week 31, 2019)
The Signpost: 31 July 2019
This week's article for improvement (week 32, 2019)
This week's article for improvement (week 33, 2019)
This week's article for improvement (week 34, 2019)
This week's article for improvement (week 35, 2019)
The Signpost: 30 August 2019
WikiCup 2019 September newsletterThe 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 by Enwebb and Lee Vilenski, who are both new to the competition. In fourth place was SounderBruce, 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 while Kosack 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 on Wikipedia: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 on Wikipedia 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 from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC) This week's article for improvement (week 36, 2019)
This week's article for improvement (week 37, 2019)
This week's article for improvement (week 38, 2019)
This week's article for improvement (week 39, 2019)
This week's article for improvement (week 40, 2019)
The Signpost: 30 September 2019
This week's article for improvement (week 41, 2019)
This week's article for improvement (week 42, 2019)
This week's article for improvement (week 43, 2019)
This week's article for improvement (week 44, 2019)
The Signpost: 31 October 2019
WikiCup 2019 November newsletterThe WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is Adam 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:
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!
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 forgetting User:Jarry1250, who runs the scoring bot. We have opened a scoring 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 to sign 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 from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth 14:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC) This week's article for improvement (week 45, 2019)
This week's article for improvement (week 46, 2019)
This week's article for improvement (week 47, 2019)
This week's article for improvement (week 48, 2019)
The Signpost: 29 November 2019
This week's article for improvement (week 49, 2019)
This week's article for improvement (week 50, 2019)
This week's article for improvement (week 51, 2019)
This week's article for improvement (week 52, 2019)
The Signpost: 27 December 2019
This week's article for improvement (week 1, 2020)
Welcome to the 2020 WikiCup!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 found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add 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 the WikiCup 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 are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC) This week's article for improvement (week 2, 2020)
This week's article for improvement (week 3, 2020)
This week's article for improvement (week 4, 2020)
This week's article for improvement (week 5, 2020)
The Signpost: 27 January 2020
This week's article for improvement (week 6, 2020)
This week's article for improvement (week 7, 2020)
This week's article for improvement (week 8, 2020)
This week's article for improvement (week 9, 2020)
WikiCup 2020 March newsletterAnd 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:
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 on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC) The Signpost: 1 March 2020
This week's article for improvement (week 10, 2020)
WikiCup newsletter correctionThere 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) 09:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC) This week's article for improvement (week 11, 2020)
This week's article for improvement (week 12, 2020)
This week's article for improvement (week 13, 2020)
The Signpost: 29 March 2020
This week's article for improvement (week 15, 2020)
This week's article for improvement (week 16, 2020)
The Signpost: 26 April 2020
This week's article for improvement (week 18, 2020)
WikiCup 2020 May newsletterThe 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:
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 on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth. - MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC) This week's article for improvement (week 19, 2020)
WikiCup 2020 July newsletterThe 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:
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 on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC) WikiCup 2020 September newsletterThe 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
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 on Wikipedia: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 on Wikipedia 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 from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC) WikiCup 2020 November newsletterThe 2020 WikiCup has come to an end, with the final round going down to the wire. Our new Champion is Lee Vilenski (submissions), the runner-up last year, who was closely followed by Gog 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, with Epicgenius (submissions) close behind with 19 GAs and 16 DYK's, his interest being the buildings of New York. The other finalists were Hog Farm (submissions), HaEr48 (submissions), Harrias (submissions) and Bloom6132 (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.
Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign 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 from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC) Welcome to the 2021 WikiCup!Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup 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. We thank Vanamonde93 and Godot13, who have retired as judges, and we thank them for their past dedication. The judges for the WikiCup this year are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC) WikiCup 2021 March newsletterRound 1 of the competition has finished; it was a high-scoring round with 21 contestants scoring more than 100 points. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 55 contestants qualifying. You will need to finish among the top thirty-two contestants in Round 2 if you are to qualify for Round 3. Our top scorers in Round 1 were:
These contestants, like all the others, now have to start again from scratch. In Round 1, contestants achieved eight featured articles, three featured lists and one featured picture, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. They completed 97 good article reviews, nearly double the 52 good articles they claimed. Contestants also claimed for 135 featured article and featured list candidate reviews. There is no longer a requirement to mention your WikiCup participation when undertaking these reviews. 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 a good article candidate, a featured process, or something else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC) |