User talk: Purplebackpack89
Archives
2008
2009
2010 (Jan-Aug)
2010 (Aug-Dec)
2011 (Jan-Jun)
2011 (Jul-Dec)
2012 (Jan-Jun)
2012 (July-Dec)
2013 (Jan-Jun)
2013 (July-Dec)
2014 (Jan-Jun)
2014 (July-Dec)
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar may be awarded to those that show a pattern of going the extra mile to be nice, without being asked. This barnstar is awarded to Purplebackpack89, for his dedication to comprimise and his ability to work with other editors to come up with amicable solutions which satisfy everyone. Purplebackpack89, thank you for your valiant efforts in building this project. Ikip (talk) 07:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Socratic Barnstar
		Though I doubt you're going to get anywhere in this debate due to the highly charged nature of the subject matter, your viewpoint on the issue and your line of reasoning shows you are thinker. Keep it up! And don't despair. The service of truth is the hardest service. NickCT (talk) 03:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Thanks for putting forward the suggestion on ANI that we block, rather than ban, User:LiteralKa. It may or may not pass, but at the end of the day, you did the right thing by suggesting it. The Cavalry (Message me) 21:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	For your battling abusive administrators and their sycophants. They do more destruction to Wikipedia than Joe can ever do and they know it. ...William 16:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For all your hard work organizing and maintaining Wikipedia:Vital articles. You are an asset to the project; keep up the great work! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Merging Barnstar
		Thanks for your recent work on multiple merge & redirects re: Yoko Tsuno. Much appreciated. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 13:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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) 11:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Purplebackpack89. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Super Mercury".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia 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 edit the submission and remove the ((db-afc)), ((db-draft)), or ((db-g13)) code.

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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@UnitedStatesian:: I didn't create Draft:Super Mercury. I created the page Super Mercury as a redirect to the Mercury Park Lane, then @Dr. Kadzi: turned it into an article about something else and moved it into draft space. pbp 00:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Round 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:

• Epicgenius led the field with a featured article, nine good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 945 points.
• Bloom6132 was close behind with 896 points, largely gained from 71 "In the news" items, mostly recent deaths.
• ImaginesTigers, who has been editing Wikipedia for less than a year, was in third place with 711 points, much helped by bringing League of Legends to featured article status, exemplifying how bonus points can boost a contestant's score.
• Amakuru came next with 708 points, Kigali being another featured article that scored maximum bonus points.
• Ktin, new to the WikiCup, was in fifth place with 523 points, garnered from 15 DYKs and 34 "In the news" items.
• The Rambling Man scored 511 points, many from featured article candidate reviews and from football related DYKs.
• Gog the Mild, last year's runner-up, came next with 498 points, from a featured article and numerous featured article candidate reviews.
• Hog Farm, at 452, scored for a featured article, four good articles and a number of reviews.
• Le Panini, another newcomer to the WikiCup, scored 438 for a featured article and three good articles.
• Lee Vilenski, last year's champion, scored 332 points, from a featured article and various other sport-related topics.

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) 20:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 21 April 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Walter Mondale, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Uses x (talk • contribs) 00:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The second round of the 2021 WikiCup has now finished; it was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 61 points to advance to Round 3. There were some impressive efforts in the round, with the top eight contestants all scoring more than 400 points. A large number of the points came from the 12 featured articles and the 110 good articles achieved in total by contestants, as well as the 216 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 Rambling Man, with 2963 points from three featured articles, 20 featured article reviews, 37 good articles, 73 good article reviews, as well as 22 DYKs.
• Epicgenius, with 1718 points from one featured article, 29 good articles, 16 DYKs and plenty of bonus points.
• Bloom6132, with 990 points from 13 DYKs and 64 "In the news" items, mostly recent deaths.
• Hog Farm, with 834 points from two featured articles, five good articles, 14 featured article reviews and 15 good article reviews.
• Gog the Mild, with 524 points from two featured articles and four featured article reviews.
• Lee Vilenski, with 501 points from one featured article, three good articles, six featured article reviews and 25 good article reviews.
• Sammi Brie, with 485 points from four good articles, eight good article reviews and 27 DYKs, on US radio and television stations.
• Ktin, with 436 points from four good articles, seven DYKs and 11 "In the news" items.

Please remember 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 (except for at the end of each round, when you must claim them before the cut-off date/time). 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. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Scouting | May 2021 Notes for May: Please go and "watch" this page: Article alerts. You will quickly see if any issues arise. Here is a list of other pages to watch as well: Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Watch Congratulations to our Barnstar awardees! Interested in coordinating a zoom meeting? Please let us know. Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications

--evrik ^(talk) 20:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The third round of the 2021 WikiCup has now come to an end. Each of the sixteen contestants who made it into the fourth round had at least 294 points, and our top six scorers all had over 600 points. They were:

• The Rambling Man, with 1825 points from 3 featured articles, 44 featured article reviews, 14 good articles, 30 good article reviews and 10 DYKs. In addition, he completed a 34-article good topic on the EFL Championship play-offs.
• Epicgenius, a New York specialist, with 1083 points from 2 featured article reviews, 18 good articles, 30 DYKs and plenty of bonus points.
• Bloom6132, with 869 points from 11 DYKs, all with bonus points, and 54 "In the news" items, mostly covering people who had recently died.
• Gog the Mild, with 817 points from 3 featured articles on historic battles in Europe, 5 featured article reviews and 3 good articles.
• Hog Farm, with 659 points from 2 featured articles and 2 good articles on American Civil War battles, 18 featured article reviews, 2 good articles, 6 good article reviews and 4 DYKs.
• BennyOnTheLoose, a snooker specialist and new to the Cup, with 647 points from a featured article, 2 featured article reviews, 6 good articles, 6 good article reviews and 3 DYKs.

In round three, contestants achieved 19 featured articles, 7 featured lists, 106 featured article reviews, 72 good articles, 1 good topic, 62 good article reviews, 165 DYKs and 96 ITN items. We enter the fourth round with scores reset to zero; 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 (one contestant in round 3 lost out because of this). 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. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Scouting | July 2021 Things to watch for: New: Newest articles Alert: Article alerts Continuing: To do Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications

--evrik ^(talk) 17:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen anything from you recently. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BeenAroundAWhile: Thanks for asking! My job is wearing me down and I've been using my leisure time in other pursuits than frequent Wikipedia editing. pbp 04:17, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear from you. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2016IARep has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The fourth round of the competition has finished with over 500 points being required to qualify for the final round. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants, The Rambling Man and Epicgenius, each scoring over 3000 points, and six contestants scoring over 1000. All but one of the finalists achieved one or more FAs during the round, the exception being Bloom6132 who demonstrated that 61 "in the news" items produces an impressive number of points. Other contestants who made it to the final are Gog the Mild, Lee Vilenski, BennyOnTheLoose, Amakuru and Hog Farm. However, all their points are now swept away and everyone starts afresh in the final round.

Round 4 saw the achievement of 18 featured articles and 157 good articles. Bilorv scored for a 25-article good topic on Black Mirror but narrowly missed out on qualifying for the final round. There was enthusiasm for FARs, with 89 being performed, and there were 63 GARs and around 100 DYKs during the round. As we start round 5, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it to the final round; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. For other contestants, 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.

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 your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Matt Amodio, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Faber.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Scouting | October 2021 It is with sadness that we note the passing of Jim Howes. Throughout his life, Jim worked to make the world a better place. WikiProject Scouting now has no administrators listed as willing to help the WikiProject. If you are an administrator and are willing to help, please let us know here. Things to watch for: New: Newest articles Alert: Article alerts Continuing: To do Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications

--evrik ^(talk) 15:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiCup is over for another year and the finalists can relax! Our Champion this year is The Rambling Man (submissions), who amassed over 5000 points in the final round, achieving 8 featured articles and almost 500 reviews. It was a very competitive round; seven of the finalists achieved over 1000 points in the round (enough to win the 2019 contest), and three scored over 3000 (enough to win the 2020 event). Our 2021 finalists and their scores were:

1. The Rambling Man (submissions) with 5072 points
2. Lee Vilenski (submissions) with 3276 points
3. Amakuru (submissions) with 3197 points
4. Epicgenius (submissions) with 1611 points
5. Gog the Mild (submissions) with 1571 points
6. BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 1420 points
7. Hog Farm (submissions) with 1043 points
8. Bloom6132 (submissions) with 528 points

All those who reached the final round will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. Awards will be handed out in the next few days.

• The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the featured article prize, for 8 FAs in round 5.
• Lee Vilenski (submissions) wins the featured list prize, for 3 FLs in round 5.
• Gog the Mild (submissions) wins the featured topic prize, for 13 articles in a featured topic in round 5.
• Epicgenius (submissions) wins the good article prize, for 63 GAs in round 4.
• The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the good topic prize, for 86 articles in good topics in round 5.
• The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the reviewer prize, for 68 FAC reviews and 213 GAN reviews, both in round 5.
• Epicgenius (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 30 did you know articles in round 3 and 105 overall.
• Bloom6132 (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 71 in the news articles in round 1 and 284 overall.

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether they made it to the final round or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup, some of whom did very well. Wikipedia has benefitted greatly from the quality creations, expansions and improvements made, and the numerous reviews performed. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition, not forgetting User:Jarry1250, who runs the scoring bot.

If you have views on whether the rules or scoring need adjustment for next year's contest, please comment on the WikiCup talk page. 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 2022 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 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect YOU crank that souljah boy. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 10#YOU crank that souljah boy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. dudhhr_Contribs 20:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Archive top yellow/old has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Did Q28 make a mess today? 03:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Purplebackpack89,

I am Petros Apostolopoulos, a Ph.D. candidate in Public History at North Carolina State University. My Ph.D. project examines how historical knowledge is produced on Wikipedia. If you are interested in participating in my research study by offering your own experience of writing about history on Wikipedia, you can click on this link https://ncsu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9z4wmR1cIp0qBH8. There are minimal risks involved in this research.

If you have any questions, please let me know. Petros Apostolopoulos, paposto@ncsu.edu Apolo1991 (talk) 15:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Purplebackpack89 ,

I am Petros Apostolopoulos, a Ph.D. candidate in Public History at North Carolina State University. My Ph.D. project examines how historical knowledge is produced on Wikipedia. If you are interested in participating in my research study by offering your own experience of writing about history on Wikipedia, you can click on this link https://ncsu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9z4wmR1cIp0qBH8. There are minimal risks involved in this research.

If you have any questions, please let me know. Petros Apostolopoulos, paposto@ncsu.edu Apolo1991 (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year from Wikimedians of Los Angeles! We're beginning to plan in-person and virtual events for 2022, and your support is needed as we re-launch the LA User Group. Please get involved! If you have ideas, or if you're interested in helping to lead the group, leave a note at Ideas for 2022 on our talk page. Join our Facebook group here. To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

--JSFarman (talk) 02:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @JSFarman:. It may be awhile before I feel comfortable eventing but the day WILL come. pbp 02:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Totally get that. I'm still not entirely comfortable yet but it is definitely getting to be a little less challenging. I'll look forward to meeting you -- hopefully it will not be too long! JSFarman (talk) 02:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Yardbird, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jailbird.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2022 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. 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. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2022 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. 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. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LA to FA 2022

Dear Purplebackpack89, You're invited to a zoom call, taking place on February 11, with the goal of improving the article on Los Angeles to Featured article status! I often find it daunting to approach the Big Subjects on my own—so if you, like me, want a time to sit down with fellow dedicated editors and tackle something important and complex, this is the zoom for you! I, unfortunately, have no way to transmit snacks over zoom; but I trust you to exercise good judgement and discretion in selecting snacks of your own. Hope to see you there—if you're interested, add your name here! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 00:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC) To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.[reply]

And so ends the first round of the WikiCup. Last year anyone who scored more than zero points moved on to Round 2, but this was not the case this year, and a score of 13 or more was required to proceed. The top scorers in Round 1 were:

• Epicgenius, a finalist last year, who led the field with 1906 points, gained from 32 GAs and 19 DYKs, all on the topic of New York buildings.
• AryKun, new to the contest, was second with 1588 points, having achieved 2 FAs, 11 GAs and various other submissions, mostly on the subject of birds.
• Bloom6132, a WikiCup veteran, was in third place with 682 points, garnered from 51 In the news items and several DYKs.
• GhostRiver was close behind with 679 points, gained from achieving 12 GAs, mostly on ice hockey players, and 35 GARs.
• Kavyansh.Singh was in fifth place with 551 points, with an FA, a FL, and many reviews.
• SounderBruce was next with 454 points, gained from an FA and various other submissions, mostly on United States highways.
• Ktin, another WikiCup veteran, was in seventh place with 412 points, mostly gained from In the news items.

These contestants, like all the others who qualified for Round 2, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews of a large number of good articles as the contest ran concurrently with a GAN backlog drive. Well done all! To qualify for Round 3, contestants will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two participants.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Anything that should have been claimed for in Round 1 is no longer eligible for points. 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 Needed.

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) 12:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And so ends the first round of the WikiCup. Last year anyone who scored more than zero points moved on to Round 2, but this was not the case this year, and a score of 13 or more was required to proceed. The top scorers in Round 1 were:

• Epicgenius, a finalist last year, who led the field with 1906 points, gained from 32 GAs and 19 DYKs, all on the topic of New York buildings.
• AryKun, new to the contest, was second with 1588 points, having achieved 2 FAs, 11 GAs and various other submissions, mostly on the subject of birds.
• Bloom6132, a WikiCup veteran, was in third place with 682 points, garnered from 51 In the news items and several DYKs.
• GhostRiver was close behind with 679 points, gained from achieving 12 GAs, mostly on ice hockey players, and 35 GARs.
• Kavyansh.Singh was in fifth place with 551 points, with an FA, a FL, and many reviews.
• SounderBruce was next with 454 points, gained from an FA and various other submissions, mostly on United States highways.
• Ktin, another WikiCup veteran, was in seventh place with 412 points, mostly gained from In the news items.

These contestants, like all the others who qualified for Round 2, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews of a large number of good articles as the contest ran concurrently with a GAN backlog drive. Well done all! To qualify for Round 3, contestants will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two participants.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Anything that should have been claimed for in Round 1 is no longer eligible for points. 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 Needed.

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) 13:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The second round of the 2022 WikiCup has now finished. It was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 115 points to advance to round 3. There were some very impressive efforts in round 2, with the top seven contestants all scoring more than 500 points. A large number of the points came from the 11 featured articles and the 79 good articles achieved in total by contestants.

Our top scorers in round 2 were:

1. Epicgenius, with 1264 points from 2 featured article, 4 good articles and 18 DYKs. Epicgenius was a finalist last year but has now withdrawn from the contest as he pursues a new career path.
2. AryKun, with 1172 points from two featured articles, one good article and a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews.
3. Bloom6132, with 605 points from 44 in the news items and 4 DYKs.
4. Sammi Brie, with 573 points from 8 GAs and 21 DYKs.
5. Ealdgyth, with 567 points from 11 GAs and 34 good and featured article reviews.
6. Panini!, with 549 points from 1 FA, 4 GAs and several other sources.
7. Lee Vilenski, with 545 points from 1 FA, 4 GAs and a number of reviews.

The rules for featured and good article reviews require the review to be of sufficient length; brief quick fails and very short reviews will generally not be awarded 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. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Scouting | May 2022 Notes for May: Please go and "watch" this page: Article alerts. You will quickly see if any issues arise. Here is a list of other pages to watch as well: Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Watch Congratulations to our Barnstar awardees! We want to develop a featured portal, look here if you want to help. Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications

--evrik ^(talk)

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 9, 2022, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 11:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The third round of the 2022 WikiCup has now come to an end. Each of the sixteen contestants who made it into the fourth round had at least 180 points, which is a lower figure than last year when 294 points were needed to progress to round 4. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

• BennyOnTheLoose, with 746 points, a tally built both on snooker and other sports topics, and on more general subjects.
• Bloom6132, with 683 points, garnered mostly from "In the news" items and related DYKs.
• Sammi Brie, with 527, from a variety of submissions related to radio and television stations.

Between them contestants achieved 5 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 51 good articles, 149 DYK entries, 68 ITN entries, and 109 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. 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 a good article nomination, 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. WikiCup judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Scouting | June 2022 Notes for June: Hey! Hey! We have updated Portal:Scouting/Recognized content, go give it a look! Congratulations to our Barnstar awardees! We still want to develop a featured portal, look here if you want to help. Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications | watch

--evrik ^(talk) 22:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Scouting | August 2022 Notes for August: Happy Scout Scarf Day! You wearing your neckerchief today? We are working to develop a featured portal, look here if you want to help. These three articles are our top candidates to work up into Good Articles. Gilwell Park Girl Guides World Organization of the Scout Movement Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications | watch

--evrik ^(talk) August 1, 2022

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:41, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Laurel green and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 9#Laurel green until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 02:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fourth round of the WikiCup has now finished. 383 points were required to reach the final, and the new round has got off to a flying start with all finalists already scoring. In round 4, Bloom6132 with 939 points was the highest points-scorer, with a combination of DYKs and In the news items, followed by BennyOnTheLoose, Sammi Brie and Lee Vilenski. The points of all contestants are swept away as we start afresh for the final round.

At this stage, 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. For the remaining competitors, 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, and importantly, before the deadline on October 31st!

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. The judges are Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:44, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Donald Trump endorsements and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 4#Donald Trump endorsements until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:35, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 2022 WikiCup has drawn to a close with the final round going down to the wire. The 2022 champion is

• Lee Vilenski (1752 points), who won in 2020 and was runner up in both 2019 and last year. In the final round he achieved 3 FAs and 15 GAs, mostly on cue sports. He was closely followed by
• Bloom6132 (1732), who specialised in "In the news" items and DYKs, and who has reached the final round of the Cup for the past three years. Next was
• BennyOnTheLoose (1238), another cue sports enthusiast, also interested in songs, followed by
• Muboshgu (1082), an "In the news" contributor, a seasoned contestant who first took part in the Cup ten years ago. Other finalists were
• Sammi Brie (930), who scored with a featured article, good articles and DYKs on TV and radio stations,
• Kavyansh.Singh (370), who created various articles on famous Americans, including an FA on Louis H. Bean, famed for his prediction of election outcomes. Next was
• PCN02WPS (292), who scored with good articles and DYKs on sporting and other topics and
• Z1720 (25) who had DYKs on various topics including historic Canadians.

During the WikiCup, contestants achieved 37 featured articles, 349 good articles, 360 featured article reviews, 683 good article reviews and 480 In the news items, so Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors. Well done everyone! All those who reached the final round will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. 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 the overall leader in this field.

• Lee Vilenski wins the featured article prize, for a total of 6 FAs during the course of the competition and 3 in the final round.
• Kavyansh.Singh wins the featured list prize, for 3 FLs in round 2.
• Adam Cuerden wins the featured picture prize, for 39 FPs during the competition.
• Z1720 wins the featured article reviewer prize, for 35 FARs in round 4.
• Epicgenius wins the good article prize, for 32 GAs in round 1.
• SounderBruce wins the featured topic prize, for 4 FT articles in round 1.
• Lee Vilenski wins the good topic prize, for 34 GT articles in round 5.
• Sammi Brie wins the good article reviewer prize, for 71 GARs overall.
• Sammi Brie wins the Did you know prize, for 30 DYKs in round 3 and 106 overall.
• Bloom6132 wins the In the news prize, for 106 ITNs in round 5 and 289 overall.

Next year's competition will begin on 1 January and possible changes to the rules and scoring are being discussed on the discussion page. You are invited to sign up to take part in the contest; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to have a good turnout for the 2023 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners and finalists, 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 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on John Atoms requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

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. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I gave a detailed response to McAdoo vs. Jokic. Also, I never got a response to my 04:00, 18 November 2022 (UTC) Kurt Warner discussion point and since the current tally is a 1-vote majority, I just wanted to make sure you saw it.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:51, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you for letting me know. pbp 20:30, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2023 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. 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 ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to 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. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article 2016 sports deaths has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced and arbitrary list of deaths for an arbitrary year for people many of whom are only tangentially related to "sports"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Brycehughes (talk) 09:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Scouting | January 2023 Notes for January: We are working to develop a featured portal, look here if you want to help. These three articles are our top candidates to work up into Good Articles. Gilwell Park Girl Guides World Organization of the Scout Movement Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications | watch

--evrik ^(talk) January 16, 2023

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So ends the first round of the 2023 WikiCup. Everyone with a positive score moved on to Round 2, with 54 contestants qualifying. The top scorers in Round 1 were:

• Unlimitedlead with 1205 points, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with two featured articles on historical figures and several featured article candidate reviews.
• Epicgenius was in second place with 789 points; a seasoned WikiCup competitor he specialises in buildings and locations in New York.
• FrB.TG was in third place with 625 points, garnered from a featured article on a filmmaker which qualified for an impressive number of bonus points.
• TheJoebro64, another WikiCup newcomer, came next with 600 points gained from two featured articles on video games.
• Iazyges was in fifth place with 532 points, from two featured articles on classical history.

The top sixteen contestants at the end of Round 1 had all scored over 300 points; these included LunaEatsTuna, Thebiguglyalien, Sammi Brie, Trainsandotherthings, Lee Vilenski, Juxlos, Unexpectedlydian, SounderBruce, Kosack, BennyOnTheLoose and PCN02WPS. It was a high-scoring start to the competition.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start again from scratch. The first round finished on February 26. Remember that any content promoted after that date 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 Needed.

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 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Scouting | March 2023 Notes for March: The article on the The Scout Association was recently "delisted" from Good Article status. Help is requested. We are working to develop a featured portal, look here if you want to help. Looking for a new project? perhaps authoring an article on Aids to Scoutmastership Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications | watch

--evrik ^(talk) March 16, 2023

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The second round of the 2023 WikiCup has now finished. Contestants needed to have scored 60 points to advance into round 3. Our top five scorers in round 2 all included a featured article among their submissions and each scored over 500 points. They were:

• Iazyges (1040) with three FAs on Byzantine emperors, and lots of bonus points.
• Unlimitedlead (847), with three FAs on ancient history, one GA and nine reviews.
• Epicgenius (636), a WikiCup veteran, with one FA on the New Amsterdam Theatre, four GAs and eleven DYKs
• BennyOnTheLoose (553), a seasoned competitor, with one FA on snooker, six GAs and seven reviews.
• FrB.TG (525), with one FA, a Lady Gaga song and a mass of bonus points.

Other notable performances were put in by Sammi Brie, Thebiguglyalien, MyCatIsAChonk, PCN02WPS, and AirshipJungleman29.

So far contestants have achieved thirteen featured articles between them, one being a joint effort, and forty-nine good articles. The judges are pleased with the thorough reviews 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. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Scouting | July 2023 Notes for July On our To do list, we need to prioritize some tasks for articles outside of the US or the UK. The Scout Association has been nominated for a good article reassessment. 25th World Scout Jamboree, this may be a good time to improve this article. Anyone going? We want to develop a featured portal, look here if you want to help. Wood Badge, Brownsea Island Scout camp and Philmont Scout Ranch all need attention. Announcements for the benefit of all Please go and "watch" this page: Article alerts. You will quickly see if any issues arise. Here is a list of other pages to watch as well: Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Watch Other ways to participate Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications

--evrik ^(talk)

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery at 16:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The third round of the 2023 WikiCup has come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round had at least 175 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

• Thebiguglyalien, with 919 points from a featured article on Frances Cleveland as well as five good articles and many reviews,
• Unlimitedlead, with 862 points from a high-scoring featured articles on Henry II of England and numerous reviews,
• Iazyges, with 560 points from a high-scoring featured article on Tiberius III.

Contestants achieved 11 featured articles, 2 featured lists, 47 good articles, 72 featured or good article reviews, over 100 DYKs and 40 ITN appearances. As always, 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. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The fourth round of the competition has finished, with anyone scoring less than 673 points being eliminated. It was a high scoring round with all but one of the contestants who progressed to the final having achieved an FA during the round. The highest scorers were

• Epicgenius, with 2173 points topping the scores, gained mainly from a featured article, 38 good articles and 9 DYKs. He was followed by
• Sammi Brie, with 1575 points, gained mainly from a featured article, 28 good articles and 50 good article reviews. Close behind was
• Thebiguglyalien, with 1535 points mainly gained from a featured article, 15 good articles, 26 good article reviews and lots of bonus points.

Between them during round 4, contestants achieved 12 featured articles, 3 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 126 good articles, 46 DYK entries, 14 ITN entries, 67 featured article candidate reviews and 147 good article reviews. Congratulations to our eight finalists and 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 and within 24 hours of the end of the final. 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 your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.

I will be standing down as a judge after the end of the contest. I think the Cup encourages productive editors to improve their contributions to Wikipedia and I hope that someone else will step up to take over the running of the Cup. Sturmvogel 66 (talk), and Cwmhiraeth (talk)

The WikiCup is a marathon rather than a sprint and all those reaching the final round have been involved in the competition for the last ten months, improving Wikipedia vastly during the process. After all this hard work, BeanieFan11 has emerged as the 2023 winner and the WikiCup Champion. The finalists this year were:-

• BeanieFan11 with 2582 points
• Thebiguglyalien with 1615 points
• Epicgenius with 1518 points
• MyCatIsAChonk with 1012 points
• BennyOnTheLoose with 974 points
• AirshipJungleman29 with 673 points
• Sammi Brie with 520 points
• Unlimitedlead with 5 points

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether they made it to the final round or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the competition, some of whom did very well. Wikipedia has benefitted greatly from the quality creations, expansions and improvements made, and the numerous reviews performed. All those who reached the final round will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. Awards will be handed out in the next few days.

• Unlimitedlead wins the featured article prize, for 7 FAs in total including 3 in round 2.
• MyCatIsAChonk wins the featured list prize, for 5 FLs in total.
• Lee Vilenski wins the featured topic prize, for a 6-article featured topic in round 4.
• MyCatIsAChonk wins the featured picture prize, for 6 FPs in total.
• BeanieFan11 wins the good article prize, for 75 GAs in total, including 61 in the final round.
• Epicgenius wins the good topic prize, for a 41-article good topic in the final round.
• LunaEatsTuna wins the GA reviewer prize, for 70 GA reviews in round 1.
• MyCatIsAChonk wins the FA reviewer prize, for 66 FA reviews in the final round.
• Epicgenius wins the DYK prize, for 49 did you know articles in total.
• Muboshgu wins the ITN prize, for 46 in the news articles in total.

The WikiCup has run every year since 2007. With the 2023 contest now concluded, I will be standing down as a judge due to real life commitments, so I hope that another editor will take over running the competition. Please get in touch if you are interested. Next year's competition will hopefully begin on 1 January 2024. You are invited to sign up to participate in the contest; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors. It only remains to congratulate our worthy winners once again and thank all participants for their involvement! (If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.) Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Tremont Township, Solano County, California has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Rural townships are not inherently notable, and this article does not cite any reliable source. Fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 16:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2024 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. 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 ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close on 31 January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), Epicgenius (talk · contribs · email), and Frostly (talk · contribs · 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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

pbp, you're obviously more versed in American history than I am. What do you think we should cut from Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Military personnel, revolutionaries, and activists#Rebels, revolutionaries and activists? We're 68 articles over the recently decided quota. starship.paint (RUN) 12:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC) @Starship.paint: I was about to work on this today. I think American activists is severely bloated and probably 40 of the 68 should come from there. I'll ping you again when I finish my list, it's a WIP right now. pbp 13:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Starship.paint: Here some names that could be moved or removed. The principal rationale is that they are not the leading activists in their field. Abolition, all three waves of feminism, black civil rights, LGBT rights, Native American rights, labor organization, environmentalism, and consumer rights all will be left with multiple representatives:

• William T. Anderson (we have Quantrill to represent Confederate guerrillas)
• James Bevel (we have MLK Jr and Abernathy and A. Philip Randolph and John Lewis from the Civil Rights movement)
• Voltairine de Cleyre
• Eldridge Cleaver and Geronimo Pratt (we have Huey Newton, Mumia Abu-Jamal and Fred Hampton)
• The individual members of the Chicago Seven (Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin and Bobby Seale don't need to be listed individually if the Seven is listed as a group)
• Claudette Colvin (lesser-known Rosa Parks)
• Sanford Dole (move to politicians, was President and Governor of Hawaii)
• Andrea Dworkin (obscure 2nd/3rd wave feminist)
• David Duke and/or Hiram Wesley Evans and/or William Luther Pierce (the Klan gets and white nationalism get one slot but IDK about two or three)
• Daniel Ellsberg (the Pentagon Papers themselves are more vital than he is)
• Luigi Galleani (probably needs to be MOVED to Europeans)
• Sylvester Graham (the Graham of the Graham cracker, probably should be under scientists, classified similarly to Robert Atkins)
• Doc Holliday (move to law enforcement or delete outright)
• T. R. M. Howard (not as prominent as Medgar Evers or Jesse Jackson)
• Jesse James (needs to be moved to criminals)
• George Jackson (activist) (trivia tbh; we don't need every guy who shot a cop)
• Lady Bird Johnson (either needs to be moved to politicians or socialites or deleted outright)
• Brewster Kahle (needs to be moved to computer scientists; had previously been nominated for removal but it hung 2-2)
• Frank Kameny and/or Craig Rodwell (we have several other gay rights activists)
• Maulana Karenga (the Kwanzaa holiday is more notable than he specifically)
• Yuri Kochiyama (too obscure)
• Fred Korematsu (the Korematsu case is more relevant than Fred Korematsu the dude)
• Rodney King (riots > he specifically)
• Joseph Lowery (mostly was a sidekick to other Civil Rights leaders)
• Russell Means (we have Banks and Mankiller to represent postwar Native American rights)
• Johann Most (too obscure, a lot of his notability seems to be from being the granddad of the Celtics' broadcaster)
• Madalyn Murray O'Hair (too obscure)
• Elizabeth Packard (too obscure)
• Lucy Parsons (we have other people who represent the 19th century labor movement)
• Marsha P. Johnson and Sylvia Rivera (one but not both)
• Paul Robeson (move to singers tbh)
• Bayard Rustin (mostly was a sidekick to other Civil Rights leaders)
• Betty Shabazz (not vital expect for being married to Malcolm X)
• Assata Shakur (again, don't need everybody who shot a cop)
• Samantha Smith (trivia tbh)
• Valerie Solanas (we have other 2nd wave feminists)
• William Still (we have others associated with abolitionism and the Underground Railroad]]
• Sundance Kid (move to criminals)
• Mary Surratt (move to criminals or remove outright; executed for supposed role in Lincoln assassination)
• Lorrin A. Thurston (Sanford Dole is enough to represent the white guy takeover of Hawaii)
• William_Monroe_Trotter (we have others from this period of African-American civil rights; not on the level of Booker T, DuBois, Garvey, James Weldon Johnson or Walter White)
• Lillian Wald (We have Jane Addams from the settlement house movement)
• Fredric Wertham (move to social scientists)

However, we may need to ADD Enrique Tarrio (organizer, with Trump, of January 6 capitol attack) and move Dorothea Dix from scientists to activist. FWIW, the ones that are being kept, broken down by areas, are:

Abolitionism (7)

John Brown, Frederick Douglass (VA4), William Lloyd Garrison, Harriet Jacobs, Sojourner Truth (VA4), Harriet Tubman (VA4), Theodore Dwight Weld

African-American civil rights (inc. Black Panthers and BLM) (24)

Ralph Abernathy, Mumia Abu-Jamal, Ruby Bridges, Anita Bryant, Stokely Carmichael, Patrisse Cullors, Angela Davis, Medgar Evers, Fred Hampton, Hubert Harrison, Jesse Jackson, Colin Kaepernick, Coretta Scott King, Martin Luther King Jr. (VA4), John Lewis, Little Rock Nine, Huey P. Newton, Rosa Parks (VA4), A. Philip Randolph, Fred Shuttlesworth, Booker T. Washington (VA4), Ida B. Wells, Walter White, Malcolm X (VA4)

Anarchism and Communism (4)

Bill Ayers, Chicago Seven, Gus Hall, Sacco and Vanzetti

Environmentalism (2)

Marjory Stoneman Douglas, John Muir (VA4)

Feminism and women’s suffrage (8)

Susan B. Anthony (VA4), Carrie Chapman Catt, Betty Friedan (VA4), Lucretia Mott, Alice Paul, Elizabeth Cady Stanton (VA4), Gloria Steinem, Victoria Woodhull

Labor (12)

Cesar Chavez, [Eugene V. Debs]], Samuel Gompers, Bill Haywood, Jimmy Hoffa, Dolores Huerta, Mother Jones, Daniel De Leon, John L. Lewis, Tony Mazzocchi, George Meany, Walter Reuther

LGBT (4)

Barbara Gittings, Marsha P. Johnson, Christine Jorgensen, Harvey Milk (VA4)

Native American rights (5)

Dennis Banks, Geronimo, Irataba, Wilma Mankiller, Sarah Winnemucca

White Nationalism (2)

Hiram Wesley Evans, George Lincoln Rockwell

Consumer rights (3); Erin Brockovich, Ralph Nader, Karen Silkwood

Other (17)

1. Jane Addams (VA4) (settlement house/pacificism)
2. Jessie Daniel Ames (anti-lynching)
3. Clara Barton (American Red Cross)
4. Helen Keller (VA4 (Disabilities rights, pacifism)
5. Jack Kevorkian (physician-assisted suicide)
6. Lyndon LaRouche (fringe political parties/conspiracy theories)
7. Juliette Gordon Low (Girl Scouts)
8. Chelsea Manning
9. Carrie Nation (temperance/anti-saloon)
10. Alex Pacheco (activist) (PETA)
11. Margaret Sanger (Level 4) (abortion/eugenics)
12. Mario Savio (Free Speech/anti-Vietnam)
13. Phyllis Schlafly (anti-Feminism)
14. Edward Snowden (WikiLeaks)
15. Enrique Tarrio (January 6)
16. Jody Williams (anti-landmines/Nobel Prize)
17. Bill W. (Alcoholics Anonymous)

[1]

• Great, thank you pbp. I may be inactive for a bit, but when I get back I'll look at your list! starship.paint (RUN) 13:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm good with a mass proposal for all these. Great work, pbp. starship.paint (RUN) 14:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited Right-wing populism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nativism.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited American nationalism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Nationalism.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page January 20, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, if you wouldn't mind referring to me as they/them I would greatly appreciate it. Cheers. DN (talk) 00:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, sorry for not doing so earlier pbp 01:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I must ask you to please keep your comments about me within the scope of matters under discussion and to use the names we have designated for ourselves.

As we have a dispute, I have been following the instructions of WP:Dispute resolution to the best of my ability. If you have a complaint I encourage you to look at the instructions for such problems on the same page and pursue at your discretion. I suggest however that we seek WP:Mediation. SamuelRiv (talk) 03:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Sam" and "Sammy" are reasonable nicknames for Samuel, come on, man...

And let me get this straight...you're allowed to come on to my talk page to tell me how to behave, but I'm not allowed to express concerns about your behavior anywhere? You're allowed to discuss this wherever you want and I'm not? Do you not see the inherent inequality there? You have GOT to start treating me as an equal, man...I'm not a child and I'm not one of your students (I presume you are a professor or instructor of some sort? No official confirmation but you give off that vibe).

One of the key elements of dispute resolution is disengagement. And, buddy, you're doing the exact opposite: you're trying to figure out which forum to go to to either get your way on the RWP article, or exact some punishment from me. It would be best for you to just avoid both me and RWP for the foreseeable future. Mediation is not needed if you do that and I am NOT going to initiate a mediation request. Too bureaucratic anyway. Please be aware that if you initiate it, there are a number of things that I will request that YOU be forced to start doing, such as a) treating me as an equal, b) being more thorough with verifiability checks if you're removing a lot of content, c) explaining them in greater detail when asked, d) not edit-warring when consensus has been reached, e) disengaging when consensus is against you, and failing those f) an interaction ban with me, which would forbid you from removing content I add

pbp 04:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently WP:M exists but WP:RfM no longer does (despite being linked on DRN main), so I filed a general dispute resolution request, asking for mediation. SamuelRiv (talk) 05:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SamuelRiv: IDK where you get the assumption that I agreed to this. Above I said mediation wasn't need pbp 12:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Doniago: @Drmies: Get a load of this...Samuel is forum-shopping. Feels like he's NEVER going to drop this and is going to go ANYWHERE and do ANYTHING until he either gets a W on the populism page or against me personally. I advised him "Mediation is not needed" but he created a dispute resolution request anyway. pbp 13:05, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think WP:DRN is a reasonable approach to trying to resolve your disagreement at this point. If you feel this is primarily a conduct matter rather than a content issue, then given your evident frustrations I'd generally suggest going to WP:ANI, but you're going to need to provide specific diffs demonstrating how their conduct violates policies/guidelines. While WP:CANVASS may be a concern, I haven't really seen evidence of that thus far, though maybe I'm assuming more good faith than is warranted. I'm sorry if I'm not coming across as being as supportive as you were hoping for, but filing an ANI report is pretty serious business that can reflect as badly on the filer as on the person being reported, so I'd encourage you to give DRN a try. If it doesn't work out in Samuel's favor and they continue to push the situation then you'll have pretty solid ground for an ANI filing in any case. DonIago (talk) 13:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Doniago: I have no intention of filing an ANI and you are indeed correct that ANIs have a habit of blowing up in the nominator's face. I have no intention of starting any additional discussion threads anywhere because I want this to go away and there are already existing discussions going (at article's talk page, for example).

  I suppose I have to participate in the DRN he started. A draft of my response to the DRM can be found here. It has diffs pbp 14:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  FWIW, DRN is voluntary, so you don't have to participate...but I think it shows good faith if you do participate, and I think it's your best option for resolving this matter and hope that it will be the final word on it. I'm not really planning to participate myself, as I don't know that I have anything meaningful to contribute. DonIago (talk) 14:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, you got dragged into this because you declined SamuelRiv's 3O and he tried to badger you into reopening it.

  Once again, if you have a few minutes to read this, it would be appreciated pbp 15:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Eh, calling your opponent "Sammy" doesn't look good here. I was going to read that document, but I won't unless you rethink and rename. Drmies (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Drmies: I have made the change you requested. It can now be found here pbp 16:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Btw, @Drmies: @Doniago: an additional thing that bothers me is Samuel's dispute resolution request is rife with factual errors. He says I agreed to this dispute resolution process when I didn't. He says there were only two editors involved when there were more. &c. pbp 18:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The DRN filing would be the proper place to express those concerns. DonIago (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Doniago: Have you had a chance to glance at my draft? pbp 20:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I honestly don't think anyone at DRN is going to read it if you post it, because it's a WP:WALLOFTEXT that seems more focused on conduct than content. DRN is for content disputes, so I would recommend focusing on your concerns regarding the content and minimizing any discussion of behavioral concerns. If I understand things right and the base content concern is that Samuel is removing text for which WP:V has been satisfied, then it seems to me that all you really need to establish is that the text did in fact satisfy WP:V (easy enough if there's citations to reliable sources), and then it's on Samuel to verbalize why they feel V wasn't satisfied. I hope this helps. DonIago (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  it's as annoying as all get-out tbh, @Doniago:. For starters, he hasn't specifically listed the passages he's challenged or why he's challenging them ("Oh all of them" isn't specific enough to be helpful)

  The other annoying thing is that he's whining for a do-over because he didn't get his way before. Might as well just copy-and-paste the greatest hits of what I've said before because doing anything else is a waste of my time. You understand why I'm frustrated about this, right? pbp 21:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. But consider WP:ROPE (more as a general principle of how to handle this than in the specifics it discusses). If Samuel keeps pushing as he seems to be doing, he will attract undesirable attention from people in a position to do something about it, though it may take time (as all bureaucratic processes do). The DRN filing will most likely either uphold his views, in which case you'll have learned something useful (hopefully), or go against him, in which case if he keeps pushing you'll have something definitive that you can present at ANI. I've been in your position, and I know it sucks to be told to sit back and wait, but attacking them will just make you look worse. The best thing you can do is make it as clear as possible that you're trying to assume good faith and follow the established processes to their intended conclusions, including the parts where you should keep quiet and let other people handle things. DonIago (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Check out this version of my comments.

  And TBH, I almost WANT other editors to get bored with what I say, do nothing, and leave me alone. pbp 22:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As for lessons learned, if Samuel were to get his way, it'd probably just further restrict how I edit rather than doing anything useful. It's akin to why I don't try for FAs or GAs anymore: because the bureacrats and WikiLawyers make the hard-working editors like me their slaves pbp 22:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the new version is better. I'd recommend removing the scare quotes, as they amount to casting aspersions, and not using all-caps at any point, as it comes across as yelling (if you still feel emphasis is needed, consider italics instead). I'm not sure your proposal of remedies is a great idea either. DRN is for moderated discussion to reach a compromise; it's not ANI. I think you'll make a better impression if you leave it to the moderator to propose a solution rather than demanding one of two options right out of the gate. I also think you'll make a better impression if you focus on just wanting Samuel to explain their reasoning versus jumping ahead as though it's a foregone conclusion that their reasoning will be insufficient. It may seem very unlikely, but part of AGF is being open to the possibility that there may be a good reason for the other party's actions even when they seem incomprehensible to you.

  Also, not to be a pedant, but I think you used the wrong template for the collapsible box. Consider Template:Collapse instead.

  TL;DR I think if you dial back your tone and center your comments around merely wanting an explanation from Samuel at this time, before judging the rightness of their actions, it will make for a better presentation. Hope this is helpful! DonIago (talk) 14:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's difficult for me to put up some fake show of AGF about SamuelRiv when a) he started a DRV when I advised him not to, b) he made inaccurate statements in said DRV, and c) he's been hounding other editors about their closes he didn't like. If he continues to hound editors like he did to SMcCandlish, it's off to ANI for Samuel, BOOMerang be damned. pbp 01:40, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough, and I understand where you're coming from. You'd just asked for my advice, so I provided it. DonIago (talk) 03:55, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In case you haven't already seen it, the DRN filing has been closed after Samuel neglected to comment further (while inexplicably making edits to other areas of the project). Thank you for giving DRN a chance, or at least humoring it. I can't say I'm pleased by how that went, as it turned into a huge waste of time, but I'd say you've now got your mandate to revert Samuel's edits if you wish to do so. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 02:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-a-thon and Wikipedia Day Celebration

Please join Wikimedians of Los Angeles on Saturday, February 17 from 12:00 to 4:00 pm for a Los Angeles and West Hollywood-themed edit-a-thon at the West Hollywood Library. (For the details and to sign up, see Wikipedia:Meetup/Los Angeles/February 2024.) We'll also be celebrating Wikipedia's 23rd birthday/Wikipedia Day. (There will be cake!) We hope to see you there! JSFarman via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] Join our Facebook group here. To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

You evidently tapped a different part of your screen than you meant to tap. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, something like that. I got a new phone a few weeks ago and I need to adjust the sensitivity. The timing suggests the edit happened while I was walking with my phone in my pocket pbp 00:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Right-wing populists in the United States indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 14:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 2024 WikiCup is off to a flying start, with 135 participants. This is the largest number of participants we have seen since 2017.

Our current leader is newcomer Generalissima (submissions), who has one FA on John Littlejohn (preacher) and 10 GAs and 12 DYKs mostly on New Zealand coinage and Inuit figures. Here are some more noteworthy scorers:

• AirshipJungleman29 (submissions), with one FA on Hö'elün, two GAs on Mongolia-related articles, and two DYKs;
• Vami_IV (submissions), with one FA on Doom (2016 video game), one GA on Boundary Fire (2017), and 11 reviews;
• MaranoFan (submissions), with one FA on Holidays (Meghan Trainor song), a nine-article FT on 30 (album), and two DYKs;
• Skyshifter (submissions), with one FA on OneShot and one DYK;
• Sammi Brie (submissions), with five GAs and five DYKs on television and radio stations;
• voorts (submissions) and Elli (submissions), both with one FA and one DYK each.

As a reminder, competitors may submit work for the first round until 23:59 (UTC) on 27 February, and the second round starts 1 March. Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round; currently, competitors need at least 15 points to progress. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. 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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first round of the 2024 WikiCup ended at 23:59 (UTC) on 27 February. Everyone with at least 30 points moved on to Round 2, the highest number of points required to advance to the second round since 2014. Due to a six-way tie for the 64th-place spot, 67 contestants have qualified for Round 2.

The following scorers in Round 1 all scored more than 300 points:

• Generalissima (submissions), who has 916 points mostly from one FA on John Littlejohn (preacher), 15 GAs, and 16 DYKs on a variety of topics including New Zealand coinage and Inuit figures, in addition to seven reviews
• Vami_IV (submissions), who has 790 points from two FAs on Felix M. Warburg House and Doom (2016 video game), two GAs, one DYK, and 11 reviews
• AirshipJungleman29 (submissions), who has 580 points from one FA on Hö'elün, two GAs on Mongolia-related articles, two DYKs, and five reviews
• Sammi Brie (submissions), who has 420 points mostly from nine GAs and seven DYKs on television and radio stations
• MaranoFan (submissions), who has 351 points from one FA on Holidays (Meghan Trainor song), a nine-article FT on 30 (album), and three DYKs
• Skyshifter (submissions), who has 345 points from one FA on OneShot, one DYK and two reviews

In this newsletter, the judges would like to pay a special tribute to Vami_IV (submissions), who unfortunately passed away this February. At the time of his death, he was the second-highest-scoring competitor. Outside the WikiCup, he had eight other featured articles, five A-class articles, eight other good articles, and two Four Awards. Vami also wrote an essay on completionism, a philosophy in which he deeply believed. If you can, please join us in honoring his memory by improving one of the articles on his to-do list.

Remember that any content promoted after 27 February 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 Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. 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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature on Wikipedia stands out for its unique styling, surpassing nearly every signature I've come across. The individual links are tiny and challenging to hover over, the custom redirect for Special:Contributions hampers user highlighting scripts, and the span outside of the links keeps CSS to de-customize signatures from working (the half-disabled result is even harder to read). Would you consider adjusting your signature? At a minimum, placing the spans inside of the anchors and linking to /wiki/Special:Contributions/Purplebackpack89 would help. Larger links would be even better. Thanks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Quinlan: Since my signature became deprecated, I've now fixed it. All three letters in the signature now redirect to this page and the span is functional again. _pbp 21:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's definitely an improvement, thanks! Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 05:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are approaching the end of the 2024 WikiCup's second round, with a little over two weeks remaining. Currently, contestants must score at least 105 points to progress to the third round.

Our current top scorers are as follows:

• Sammi Brie (submissions) with 642 points, mostly from 11 GAs about radio and television;
• voorts (submissions) with 530 points, mostly from two FAs (Well he would, wouldn't he? and Cora Agnes Benneson) and three GAs;
• Generalissima (submissions) with 523 points, mostly from 11 GAs about coinage and history;
• SounderBruce (submissions) with 497 points, mostly from a FA about the 2020 season of the soccer club Seattle Sounders FC and two GAs;
• Tamzin (submissions) with 410 points, mostly from a FA about the drink Capri-Sun and three GAs;
• Kusma (submissions) with 330 points, mostly from a FA about the English botanist Anna Blackburne and a GA.

Competitors may submit work for the second round until the end of 28 April, and the third round starts 1 May. Remember that only competitors with the top 32 scores will make it through to the third round. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs. As a reminder, competitors are strictly prohibited from gaming Wikipedia policies or processes to receive more points.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please read Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. 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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect The ceiling is the roof has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 24 § The ceiling is the roof until a consensus is reached. Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 13:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect LeOld LeBald Le4and6 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 24 § LeOld LeBald Le4and6 until a consensus is reached. Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 13:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The second round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 28 April. This round was particularly competitive: each of the 32 contestants who advanced to Round 3 scored at least 141 points. This is the highest number of points required to advance to Round 3 since 2014.

The following scorers in Round 2 all scored more than 500 points:

• Sammi Brie (submissions) with 707 points, mostly from 45 good article nomination reviews and 12 good articless about radio and television;
• Generalissima (submissions) with 600 points, mostly from 12 good articles and 12 did you know nominations about coinage and history;
• SounderBruce (submissions) with 552 points, mostly from a featured article about the 2020 Seattle Sounders FC season, three featured lists, and two good articles;
• BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 548 points, mostly from a featured article about the snooker player John Pulman, two featured lists, and one good article;
• voorts (submissions) with 530 points, mostly from two featured articles (Well he would, wouldn't he? and Cora Agnes Benneson) and three good articles.

The full scores for Round 2 can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 18 featured articles, 22 featured lists, and 186 good articles, 76 in the news credits and at least 200 did you know credits. They have conducted 165 featured article reviews, as well as 399 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 21 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 April but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed during Round 3, which starts on 1 May at 00:00 (UTC). 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 Needed.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. 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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Scouting | May 2024 Notes for May: Looking for something to work on? Try looking at, Category:Scouting articles needing attention. Some important articles that need help: The Scout Association, NAYLE, Philmont Training Center, BSA Leadership Training, COPE We are working to develop a featured portal, look here if you want to help. Looking for a new project? perhaps authoring an article on Aids to Scoutmastership Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications | watch

--evrik ^(talk) May 22, 2024

The Return of the LA Wiknic

Eat, drink, and bask in the glory of Los Angeles in early June at the 9th not-annual Wiknic! Saturday, June 8 from 11:30 to 2:30 pm Pan Pacific Park 7600 Beverly Blvd, Los Angeles CA 90036 Get the details and RSVP here. (It's a potluck. There's a wish list on the meetup page.) Get the details and join WikiLA here. To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]