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

Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

• L293D, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with ten good articles on submarines for a total of 357 points.
• Adam Cuerden, a WikiCup veteran, came next with 274 points, mostly from eight featured pictures, restorations of artwork.
• MPJ-DK, a wrestling enthusiast, was in third place with 263 points, garnered from a featured list, five good articles, two DYKs and four GARs.
• Usernameunique came next at 243, with a featured article and a good article, both on ancient helmets.
• Squeamish Ossifrage was in joint fifth place with 224 points, mostly garnered from bringing the 1937 Fox vault fire to featured article status.
• Ed! was also on 224, with an amazing number of good article reviews (56 actually).

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

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it 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).

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).

Administrator changes Evad37 There'sNoTime Alex Shih • Brian • Mushroom • Nakon • Oscarthecat • PeruvianLlama • Ragib • Reaper Eternal • Rossami • Tom Interface administrator changes Evad37 • Galobtter Ritchie333

CheckUser changes There'sNoTime Keegan • Ks0stm Oversight changes There'sNoTime Ks0stm • Sphilbrick

Guideline and policy news

• The RfC on administrator activity requirements failed to reach consensus for any proposal.
• Following discussions at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:Administrators, an earlier change to the restoration of adminship policy was reverted. If requested, bureaucrats will not restore administrator permissions removed due to inactivity if there have been five years without a logged administrator action; this "five year rule" does not apply to permissions removed voluntarily.

Technical news

• A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
  • paid-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
  • checkuser-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2019 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Base, Einsbor, Jon Kolbert, Schniggendiller, and Wim b.

I may have already brought this up with you, so if I have, I'm asking again: Why did you tell me at some point in the not-too-distant past that if I wanted to make a page for a topic you'd already made a redirect for, to just approach or ping you and ask for you to request speedy deletion for it yourself, but you don't actually approach any other editor to ask them to do so for theirs? I'm not asking this so you'll start doing it to me, but it seems like a double standard, as if this was some congenial thing you would afford other editors/you want them to let you know their intentions, but you don't seem to want to let them know you're intending to make pages for their redirects by informing them about it. Instead, you're still going the draft route (as you've done for the two Diplo EPs you just made articles for), as if you're unsure the topics you're making redirects for are even notable. You're not new, you're an editor who's been around for over a decade, like myself, and I would trust by this point you know what's notable and what's not, considering you're also including news sources and reviews on them, which are clear indications of notability. Please don't tell me the only reason is "I don't know how editors would react if asked, but I know I would if asked" because as I said, it just seemed like you want(ed) to be informed for some reason but don't actually do the same in practice. I'm not accusing you of acting in bad faith, I'm just baffled by the fact that you're still making these articles as drafts instead of in your userspace. I only recommend this to newer editors. This is exactly why I never did and still won't come to you to let you know; I'll just request it elsewhere, because your request made no sense if it's not a vice versa thing. I'll also be sure to make a little stub next time Diplo announces an EP, album or notable song, and it'd be great to see you work on that...Doubt it though. Ss112 12:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I see you're still uploading oversized jpgs. I know you said "I'll leave it to a bot to resize them, thanks", but literally what is the point if your original file is just going to be deleted anyway? That completely negates the point of you even bothering to upload them in the first place. Also, it only takes a matter of seconds to resize a file. Every computer has either Paint or a similar simple artwork program that allows you to do this, and you can very easily resize the files (to 300×300 or smaller) in about two clicks. I also already told you, but jpgs are compressed, and pngs are preferred for artworks. Ss112 13:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ss112, We've had this discussion before. I don't have a problem moving a draft over a redirect in the main space, nor do I have a problem with other editors doing the same to override redirects I've created. I don't recall requesting to be notified about potential overrides, but you're welcome to direct me to my previous comment. I have a feeling this was a special instance involving a technical restriction. I don't think editors should take ownership of their redirects. Creating an article takes more work than creating a redirect, and the author should have the right to move their work over a redirect. Re: oversized jpgs, I don't care to spend time resizing when a bot will simply take care of it for me. Not a big deal. Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, to be clear, feel free to override redirects I've created (I don't care...), and by all means, feel free to create stubs over redirects. Redirects or stubs, I appreciate all the work you do for Wikipedia. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's taking ownership of redirects... that would be rather hypocritical of me to complain that you did this, as I do it (or request it) quite a bit myself (and have even done it to several of yours, if I recall correctly). Not the issue. My main confusion stemmed from the articles originating in draftspace, which is frequently the place to incubate undersourced or potential non-notable topics, and the place for editors unsure of how to make an article and the like to start pages. It just seems to be a rather strange method. For the record, I don't recall where you requested to be notified nor over what, but I definitely recall you having said it. Ss112 15:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ss112, Ok well, like my process or don't, but I'm working to improve Wikipedia as I see fit. I don't recall requesting to be notified of potential overrides, so I don't know what to say on that topic. Take care! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would have left it there AB, but that's a very bizarre sign-off. I'm sure I don't need to say that we can't all just do as we see fit on Wikipedia, as there are policies and guidelines stating or recommending how we should do things, and most of us are here to improve Wikipedia. It's not as if you needed to make that clear, because there was never a doubt here that what you did was to improve Wikipedia in some way. I made that clear from the start. Ss112 16:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ss112, I just meant, you may or may not like how I work in the draft space then submit requests to override redirects in the main space, but I don't have a problem with this method. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Kirsten Gillibrand 2020 presidential campaign shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Muboshgu, I'm glad to step away from this article and let others review recent edits and talk page discussions. Thanks. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Muboshgu: Please see I most recently revisited talk page discussion before reverting. I did not think I violated any rules, but sorry if I've overstepped in any way. Definitely taking a back seat now that other editors have this on their radar. Thanks, ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I've been noticing that user's edits quite a bit and while I hadn't wanted to intervene, I had thoughts that I should, or might have to. It looks like the "might have to" point has come. I just gave you that warning for heads up and to not show favorites against Tony85spoon when I hit them with the template. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:45, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had a feeling that it was Tony, and she has confirmed it. So for the record, that warning was unnecessary. I'm refactoring it. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Muboshgu: Thank you. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Lines of Color requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a musical recording which does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, and where the artist's article does not exist or is eligible for deletion itself. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for music.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Mjs1991 (talk) 05:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mjs1991, Simple Google search for Grammy-nominated album demonstrates notability... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 06:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Another Believer, Does the artist for the album have a page?--Mjs1991 (talk) 07:42, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rock Candy Media until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Chetsford (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on White Owl Social Club, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Graywalls (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Graywalls, This page should not be speedy deleted. Can you please create talk page discussions instead of just flagging everything? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing personal, but I stumbled upon your pattern of article creations that substantially fail to conform to the basic requirements of organization notability. You've preached how you have been editing for years but the fact other veteran editors also find your contents lacking in notability should mean something. You didn't articulate with a counter-argument in the scope of business notability guidelines as used on Wikipedia, not how you personally feel. I find it a waste of everyone's time to nominate for deletion and go through consensus process for multiple articles that substantially fail to meet the same set of guidelines. Graywalls (talk) 15:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Graywalls, I understand what you mean, but if you look at the Nuestra Cocina talk page you'll see that the entry has already survived a deletion discussion. Just because articles are short does not mean they need to be deleted. I'm just asking for talk page discussions to start because I'm logging in and seeing 10 pages that have been either merged, nominated for deletion, or deleted, and now I'm having to scramble to rescue them all. I recognize you may not care because you believe the topics are not notable, but I'm asking you to please slow down so editors can discuss and take action. Thank you. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote "Can you please restore this page? The entry should not have been deleted." Maybe you could tell me why you think it shouldn't have been deleted. Deb (talk) 14:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deb, The article should be expanded, not deleted. There's plenty of coverage... One editor is marking tons of pages for deletion and should not be. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that I deleted the article shows that I agreed with the editor who nominated it. I didn't delete it without looking at it first and I found that there was no claim of notability and there was a clear advertising intent. Deb (talk) 14:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deb, I'm asking for a move into the draft space, then, so I can make further improvements. I promise, this company is notable. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to stop you creating a draft from scratch. Deb (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deb, I'd prefer not to start from scratch, though. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What sources do you plan to use to demonstrate notability? Deb (talk) 15:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deb, There are plenty to add, which I'd prefer to add to the draft page and not my user talk page. If you're not willing to help, I will find another admin who is willing to restore the page. I didn't think restoring to the draft space was problematic. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just start the draft by creating the links to the references? You don't need to submit it yet. Deb (talk) 15:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deb, I'm not sure what you mean. I'd just like the page restored and moved into the draft space, so I can continue working, please. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Create a draft showing the links you are going to use, then I'll restore your text and incorporate the references. Deb (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deb, I searched "Elephants Delicatessen" at the Oregonian archives via my library card and there are hundreds of returns. There are also many Google and Google News search returns. I don't want to create a long list of sources, but I'm asking to have the page restored and moved into draft space for further improvement. I've also asked if any WikiProject Oregon admins will help. Thank you. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I've said I will do that when I've seen some of your sources. Deb (talk) 15:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deb, Well the library sources are paywalled, so sharing those URLs is not particularly helpful. I'll see if anything comes from the discussion at WikiProject Oregon. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the editor who nominated it. Many of your articles have come under scrutiny, so I have found out. Most of your opposition arguments have been appeal to confidence and "The article should be expanded, not deleted." without supporting premises. For this particular article, you had all of two sentences and one reference made of the company's official website and a list of seven addresses as of Mar 3, 2019. This rightfully earned you the unambiguous promotion deletion. When many of your articles have the same fundamental issue (lack of basic notability and obvious promotional intent hinted by tone, and participation by the businesses by the means of direct editing), I'd be wasting other editors' time to list them for deletion consensus building. So if you aren't ignorant of notability guidelines, you're gaming the system by trying to increase the work load as a deterrent to deletion. Graywalls (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]