This is an archive of past discussions with Q28. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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

Q28 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

• zh:我现在在中国大陆。因为这个原因，我必须使用代理工具。所以请给我一个IP封禁豁免。

• en:I am in Mainland China now. I have to use agent tools because this reason. So please give me an IP block exemption, please.

Accept reason:

Granted for one year. SQL^{Query me!} 16:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit the English Wikipedia through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions. Inappropriate usage of this user right may result in revocation. I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. SQL^{Query me!} 16:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• K.--Alcremie (talk) 11:27, 22 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moved from ZH:UT:IN

Hi, I just came across your successful request for rename and just wanted to share the joy. That would be really really easier and faster to refer in many languages, I bet. Best wishes. Alfa80 (talk) 17:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you.--IN (talk) 03:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Genuinely curious, but why create over 150 sandboxes for templates that probably don't even need them (for example, ((25)), which has not been edited since 2015)? Seems like pointless busywork. Primefac (talk) 13:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Brush editing. Sorry, I'm from China. I only know a little English. My English is basically obtained through translation software.--Alcremie (talk) 11:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop mass create the template's sandbox. These edits are not constructive contribution and violate Gaming the system guideline. If you still still doing this behavior, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. (警告內容與中維的警告相近) --SCP-2000 16:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Warning has been received. I must not to mass create template sandbox in later. Thank you so much.--Alcremie (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop editing in the Template space. I have yet to see constructive edits there. If you insist on continuing I will be forced to seek sanctions. Primefac (talk) 10:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Primefac:All right.--Alcremie (talk) 14:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:IN/twinkleoptions.js, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:IN/twinkleoptions.js and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:IN/twinkleoptions.js during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. SecurityXP🔒 13:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Q28 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

My IPBE is about to expire, request renewal.

Accept reason:

Extended for 12 months from now. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 11:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Voice of Clam: Thx so much.--Alcremie (talk) 11:17, 22 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You don't need to add tags like ((unreferenced)) to articles such as List of listed buildings in the Scottish Borders as these are simply disambiguation pages that do not contain information. Nthep (talk) 14:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To editor Nthep: OK, so all list of list needn't tag ((unr)), right? Btw, you undid my edit in day day up, but this article's “List of episodes” section is Chinese. What can I do?--Alcremie (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have the episode titles ever been translated into English, anywhere? If so insert those. Nthep (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nthep: I do not found episode's english and you don't answer “OK, so all list of list needn't tag ((unr)), right?” .--Alcremie (talk) 04:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ok, so the episode titles will have to remain untranslated for the time being but that is not a reason to tag it in the way you did. The template ((rough translation)) might be appropriate.

If a page is just a list of titles then it doesn't need references as it is just a WP:DISAMBIGUATION page. Nthep (talk) 09:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• ​But why don't these pages have dab templates on “list of...” pages so much so that the script I use to display orange link in the disambiguation page doesn't display?--Alcremie (talk) 12:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know they don't have dab templates on but read the content, what is on those pages that needs sourcing? Nthep (talk) 12:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

​Urm…… I think these article neednt tag unr because If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it?--Alcremie (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure I understand this last statement. If I read it literally as written, you are agreeing with me that these types of pages do not need tagging as unreferenced which is what I have been saying throughout this conversation. The only difference is you saying it is because of WP:IAR whereas I'm saying it is not necessary because commons sense says it's not necessary as there is no content to apply a reference to. If you meant to say these articles do need tagging because of WP:IAR I disagree as the tag does nothing to improve or maintain Wikipedia. Nthep (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry! Nthep, I said some weasel word. I meamt theses articles do not need to be added to the unr template. Btw, I live in China and en-2, but I'm zh-N. I Don't know your Chinese level, so if you can speak a little Chinese, please tell me so that we can communicate in Chinese.--Alcremie (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So we are agreed that pages like these should not have ((unreferenced)) added to them. Nthep (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure. Btw, my English level is relatively poor, some sentences must be sent to you through translation. But I'm good at Chinese, if you can speak a little Chinese, please tell me so that we can talk in Chinese when we communicate next time, so I can better understand what you're saying.--Alcremie (talk) 19:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems that the other party has not responded to me for more than a month, so I can assume that this topic has ended, so after I leave this message, I can archive it at any time.--Alcremie (talk) 07:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi!

I saw your comment about the Monkbot's edit:

User talk:Trappist the monk(oldid=1000049889) § A toast sandwich for you!

and I got curious about the edits numbering. They really appear to grow in time, so the natural guess is the oldid=1 would give the first revision of the first page ever. Alas, that turned out to be false:

Special:PermanentLink/1

is an edit made to the revision 294750:

Special:Diff/294750/1

As a result, the Monkbot's edit id=999999999 is not necessarily the 999,999,999th one.
Anyway, well spotted!

Keep safe! And happy editing! :) --CiaPan (talk) 10:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification message, no reply.--Did you know? Alcremie's 1000th edit was made very close to the 20th anniversary day of Wikipedia. 05:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sulfurboy was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of films). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Fight COVID-19 and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Fight COVID-19, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "((Db-g7))" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Sulfurboy (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, IN! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Sulfurboy (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I noticed your signature on Wikipedia talk:Twinkle and it's really difficult to tell that it's a signature: By the way, did you know? Alcremie's 1000th edit was made very close to the 20th anniversary day of Wikipedia. It reads as a continuation of whatever comment you're making, but doesn't make sense as part of that comment. Perhaps you might add that information about your 1000th edit to your user page, and return to a recognizable signature for talk pages? Happy editing! Schazjmd (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Schazjmd, this is designed to celebrate my 1000th edit and the 20th anniversary of Wikipedia. I'm going to deactivate it after I make my 1300th edit——I've made my 1300th edit, at 5 pm UTC on January 31, 2021. So starting with this edit, I'm going to use a recognizable signature.--Alcremie (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The other party was very satisfied with my disposal method, so he thanked me. In this case, the discussion is end now and can be archived by me at any time.--Alcremie (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

据Special:Diff/1004567715得知。 现在应该可以了。--AnYiLin^Talk 07:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

​Use English next time, thank you.--Alcremie (talk) 08:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm pretty sure there was a consensus there. Please could you just close it rather than relist? Thanks, Number 57 12:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looking a bit more, I see you are quite inexperienced and have admitted above that you have a limited understanding of English, so I really don't think it was appropriate to pass judgement on a long and complicated discussion. I've undone the relisting for now. Thanks, Number 57 12:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But pls you think about it, why is there no one to merge these two templates?--Alcremie (talk) 14:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am willing to merge them and I believe there is consensus to. I'm just waiting for the discussion to be closed and then I'll do it. Number 57 14:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So when do you need to shut it down?--Alcremie (talk) 15:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Someone just needs to close the discussion. I believe there is a consensus to merge the templates, but I cannot do it because I was (heavily) involved in the discussion. Several people (including myself) started off opposing it, but then agreed that a merger could take place as long as elements of the Member of the Knesset infobox were merged into Infobox officeholder to allow things to be displayed in the same way. Number 57 15:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Working on it. Hefty discussion, not much time. Primefac (talk) 01:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

​​It's time for the discussion to come to an end. The template has been deleted, so after I left this message, I can archive it on any time. --Alcremie (talk) 11:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:X9 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suggest that you don't relist at RfD as you don't understand the rules. Relisting a discussion you have taken part in is a violation of WP:INVOLVED. So until you get more experienced at RfD, don't relist or close those discussions. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 00:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@J947: I have read the above message. I will reply when I have a moment.--Alcremie (talk) 14:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@J947: I see. I won't do it again.--Alcremie (talk) 12:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure if this was just a mistake, an attempt at a joke, or something else – it's no big deal if you just did it this once, but please don't use odd random capital letters, or replace letters with digits (in some kind of Leet spelling), in discussions on Wikipedia. Please also stop using nonsensical edit summaries like the one you used in that edit, or here, or here, and in several other places. Edit summaries are used to give your fellow editors some idea of what you did in your edit, and meaningless combinations of letters don't do that. Thanks. --bonadea contributions talk 20:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adding to the above. It wasn't something you only did this once: [1] (where you also used strikethrough formatting in a way that makes no sense), [2], [3]. Please stop doing that. Thanks. --bonadea contributions talk 20:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

HeⅡo bonadea. About nonsensical edit summary, its namely those 5 letters that don't seem to have any connection actually is my editing ID (In fact, some robots will use numbers to indicate the edit ID, but I prefer to use five uppercase letters). Maybe if I put these five letters in parentheses then it can reduce some misunderstandings. Also, I've recently testing AfDstats, so I try to see if the script can recognize my vote in this way, and I won't do it again.--Alcremie (talk) 09:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, I understand. But the edit summary is there to tell other editors what you did with the edit. There is no reason to add an ID code to the edit, but the important thing is that the edit summary doesn't only consist of such a code, which doesn't tell other editors anything at all. More information here. (Information about how many edits you have made is also not relevant in an edit summary even though that is not incomprehensible, since such information doesn't tell us anything about the content of the edit.)

Another point: please don't edit other users' talk page posts like you did here (with, I might add, an incorrect edit summary – your edit had nothing to do with formatting or layout, you changed the URLs). I understand what you did and I can guess why you did it, but please do not do it in future. More information here, and note that your edit does not fall under the heading "fixing links", since you did not fix links that didn't work, but changed the URLs to something else. (In fact, after your edits, some of the links did not go to the diffs I posted initially, but to other edits.) Thank you! --bonadea contributions talk 12:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I personally don't like people posting URLs because they are long and ugly, and most URLs can be resolved by special pages. In addition, I can change the title of the discussion. By the way, the discussion is somewhat offtopic, banadea.--Alcremie (talk) 13:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you want to avoid long URLs in links to specific edits in your own posts, it might be better if you used diffs rather than an external site like enwp.org, just for the record. (By the way, you accidentally spelt my user name incorrectly and pinged somebody else, so I did not get the ping.) Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 16:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

​Oh, I'm sorry, I accidentally ping into a user with a similar username to yours who has been blocked. ḄṬẈ, some people like to paste some unprocessed difference links directly for the convenience of communication, which not only lengthens the length of the page, it also cause inconvenience to the editing of the mirror fork.--Alcremie (talk) 09:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You just edited my old posts again, doing the same thing! (Including, I may add, the same incorrect links to a completely different edit, made by a different editor do a different page, than the ones I linked to initially.) Do not do that. Thanks. --bonadea contributions talk 10:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(edit conflict)Sorry, again.​ If there is nothing else, I will archive this topic tomorrow.--Alcremie (talk) 10:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi IN, see WP:IAN#Missing nowiki tags in user scripts lead to strange template creations and protection requests, thanks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Understand, ToBeFree.--Alcremie (talk) 07:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi IN,

if I understand the situation correctly, you are currently blocked on the Chinese Wikipedia, and at least part of the reason is that you have created unnecessary redirects.

Now you have created unnecessary redirects on the English Wikipedia, too, and your recent contributions seem to show an interest in continuing to create redirects.

Please do not continue to create redirects for now.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hⅰ TBF. I have stopped creating template namespace redirects until that matter is resolved. However, I will continue to create redirects for other namespaces (Especially the main namespace) beacuse WP:BBUP.--Alcremie (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alcremie, during a site-wide multi-month block for creating redirects – correct me if I am wrong – and being asked to avoid creating redirects on another wiki as well, "being bold" is not a justification for continuing anymore. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Sorry, my English is not very good, so this passage is translated with DeepL) I think you may be wrong. As we all know, Chinese characters are different in complexity and simplicity (see zh:繁简转换). I was block on zhwiki because I created a simplified title with Taiwanese words.--Alcremie (talk) 00:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All right then, no worries. But please be careful when creating redirects. If communicating in English is problematic, please avoid causing reasons for communication: Making uncontroversial edits is fine, but "being bold" requires the ability to react to concerns voiced on your talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That OK. Thx for your advice.--Alcremie (talk) 08:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The other party has not responded to the topic for more than a month, so I think this discussion is over, This discussion will be archive on evey time without further notice.--Alcremie (talk) 10:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Timtrent was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Fiddle Faddle 13:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, IN! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Fiddle Faddle 13:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi IN! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Clean up bare URLs, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing ((bots|deny=Muninnbot)) here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, please don't change other people's comments as you did here. I have undone the addition of that URL. Also, I'm not sure what an edit summary of "Hrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr?" is supposed to denote; edit summaries should be concise summaries of the changes that you're making. Thanks. DanCherek (talk) 18:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry! DanCherek, I used a mirror fork in the edit, I forgot to replace it with the original link.--Alcremie (talk) 10:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How is editing a sandbox so bad that you needed to place an only warning? Sure, the category is supposed to be for adding to pages, not for editing but this is a sandbox... I'm not sure if even a level 1 warning was needed, let alone a level 4im. Please can you be more careful with your warning? --Belwine (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Belwine:This is because I then received a speedy delete warning say that X9 will be delete. Then I found out that it was only because this person destroyed this page, so much so that the administrator thinks that the page can be speedy delete by C1, So I gave him 4im in a fit of pique. In hindsight, I felt I didn't need such a strong warning.--Alcremie (talk) 09:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh ok, maybe the user should have reverted back to the version before they were testing it. --Belwine (talk) 09:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Belwine, I warned him only because he forgot to rollback. And the as mentioned above about speedy delete warning can be found on #Speedy deletion nomination of Category:X9.--Alcremie (talk) 09:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. Fiddle Faddle 10:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note that this is a level 2 warning, following your warning above Fiddle Faddle 10:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

​Sorry, I used a mirror fork, so I accidentally modified the link in other people's comments.--Alcremie (talk) 10:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see you have been in trouble before for disruption concerning redirects. Now what is this all about? It makes no sense at all. The redirect does not go to that article and never has done. Nor does the target article discuss or use that abbreviation for anything. SpinningSpark 13:56, 15 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Spinningspark:This is only because I do not want to use RFD, Using RFD will increase your edits by 5, but edit these pages directly will only increase my edits by 2.--q28 (talk) 15:11, 15 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your answer makes no more sense than the original action. That's borderline disruptive and so is tampering with the link in my post. Please tell me that you will never again insert nonsense in an article to get a redirect deleted. Please read Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. SpinningSpark 16:34, 15 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since I am using a mirror site, to avoid this problem, I will now add a blank section after your message to prevent the link from being tampered.--q28 (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Spinningspark: If you do not reply, this discussion string may be archived after 15 days.--q28 (talk) 17:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for failing to show you understand the disruption you are causing and failure to undertake not to do it again.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)).  SpinningSpark 17:45, 16 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Q28 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have understood that change link to en.wikipedia.org is not allowed and I promise that I must not modify the link to en.wikpedia.org again.--q28 (talk) 04:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not address the reason you were blocked. Yamla (talk) 10:09, 17 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

---

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

@Spinningspark: What do I have to do to unblock me? I'll do as you say.--q28 (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I promise that I will never again insert nonsense in an article to get a redirect deleted.--q28 (talk) 15:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm going to unblock you on the strength of that, but very reluctantly. Many of your comments both to me and to others have the appearance of either trolling or incompetence. I won't hesitate to block again if it continues, and next time I won't be so easily persuaded. SpinningSpark 16:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:P.S. has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Primefac (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:666. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 22#Wikipedia:666 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Primefac (talk) 21:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The page Minecraft (game) has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it was a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion Review Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:32, 30 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:GQ. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 30#Wikipedia:GQ until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:37, 30 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:KI. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 30#Wikipedia:KI until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:MZ. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 30#Wikipedia:MZ until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:Q28. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 30#Wikipedia:Q28 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:57, 30 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:FH. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 30#Wikipedia:FH until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Q28. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that User:Q28/draft, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 08:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I deleted it myself.--Did Q28 make a mess today? 15:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've noticed an uptick of your nominations within the past few days. If you're interested you can add yourself as a member of the Unused Templates Task Force that I created. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@WikiCleanerMan, Thank you for your invitation. I joined the task force you recommended.--Did Q28 make a mess today? 15:04, 30 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Q28! Following up from here, your current signature is quite confusing, and it took me a minute at TfD to figure out what was happening. For the convenience of others, I'd suggest changing it to something that doesn't begin with plain unlinked text and/or adding some formatting to set it apart. Regards, ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 19:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sdkb, I replaced it with a more recognizable signature.--Did Q28 make a mess today? 15:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just so you know if you find something that's useless and more or less single authored often the easiest way to get it deleted is just requesting a WP:G7 on the creator's page assuming they're currently active. It doesn't always work, but when it does it can save community time in xfds. Anyway, it's an option to consider if the circumstances allow. Due to the app I'm using my IP is currently hopping all over the place every couple of hours, eventually I hope get back on a static IP; in the meantime if I don't follow up on any replies it's not because I don't like you. Regards, 79.126.122.14 (talk) 03:48, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hope that I'm reading it correctly that you're suggesting asking the user in question to G7 their own creation, and not suggesting putting a G7 tag placed on their page in the hopes that a passing administrator isn't going to notice you trying to delete someone's page out from under them.

Either way, I think this is a pretty terrible idea - why would someone who wrote an article want to nominate it for deletion? Primefac (talk) 08:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@primefac, I agree with you that many users are inactive, so our best approach is still to use TFD.--Did Q28 make a mess today? 08:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Primefac: Yeah, that should have read "on the creator's talk page". I was speaking in the context of templates specifically, and I agree that asking for g7s when doing NPP for articles would be silly. However if I had created a template/module, or even something in projectspace a ways back that has since been superseded, rendered redundant, or otherwise useless by intervening developments and someone showed up on my talk page and asked me to g7 it to save everyone time I would oblige them, wouldn't you? Anyway I agree I should have been clearer, it's what I get for editing as filler in between my other early morning tasks, and I'll try to make a mental note of this so I minimise similar mistakes in the future. Regards, 188.168.21.24 (talk) 19:05, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hrm, fair enough, and now that I think about it there have been a few template creators that reply to a TFD notice with "well if you had asked I'd have G7'd it", though they're few and far between. Primefac (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Basically, it doesn't have much to do with me.--Did Q28 make a mess today? 07:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since all of your Hebrew template nominations (at TfD) are with the same logic, could you please group them up? Gonnym (talk) 15:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gonnym, someone else has already divided me into groups.--Did Q28 make a mess today? 09:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[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) 00:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not interested in that.--Q28 left a message at 07:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At TfD, please give actual deletion rationales in plain English, not round-about or meaningless phrasing. The entries Unfortunately, that's out of date, Okay, I still don't understand what this template is for, I don't know if I need to delete it at TfD/2021-11-22 are utterly meaningless so others have to guess at your intent. I know that Pppery has also raised this with you. There are extensive notes on what makes a good or bad rationale at WP:AADD. User:GKFX^talk 19:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@GKFX These templates are all unused. In the future, I will optimize my reasons to prevent this from happening.--Q28 left a message at 07:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I came here to say this same thing. Please use one of the reasons given at WP:TFD#REASONS. Making up a different message for each nomination may seem creative, but it is actually harmful to the TFD process. If your proposed reason for deletion does not appear at WP:TFD#REASONS, please consider whether the template is really eligible for deletion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jonesey95 Okay, I get it.--Q28 hope you pay attention to TFD 00:03, 25 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Q28,

Any time you tag a page for deletion (CSD, PROD, AFD/RFD/TFD/etc.), you have to post a notice on the talk page of the page creator. It is part of the deletion process. I see you are using Twinkle, which is great, so please check your Twinkle Preferences, make sure that "Notify page creator" is checked and that every criteria of speedy deletion is also checked. I think the default is that only a few of the more popular options are selected but they all need to be. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Liz, thank you for reminding me. But in my opinion, at least CSD R3 needs not to inform the user. Twinkle also did not notify users.--Q28 hope you pay attention to TFD 02:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Q28 - just a note that your signature is confusing at the moment. I saw it at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 November 22 and other similar entries, and thought at first that it was a comment by some other user, asking if you'd "made a mess". Per WP:SIG, although you can customise your signature up to a point, it still needs to be recognisable as a signature, not look like part of a comment, and it looks like other editors have said the same thing at User_talk:Q28/0#Signature_legibility and User_talk:Q28/0#Your_signature. This may seem like a minor issue, but it's a distraction for other editors so I'd request you to please amend it. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Amakuru Is my signature good now?--Q28 left a message at 07:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, I think that will be fine. It looks like a signature now. Thanks for updating it!  — Amakuru (talk) 10:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Amakuru Oh, you're welcome.--Q28 hope you pay attention to TFD 04:26, 27 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I came here with this exact issue. I had no idea what user was nominating templates at TfD with your current signature: "--Q28 hope you pay attention to TFD" which to me looks like someone telling Q28 to pay attention. Gonnym (talk) 09:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gonnym I modified my signature a little. Is there any problem with your signature now? --Q28 remind you that pay more attention to TFD 11:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm afraid the signature "Q28 remind you that pay more attention to TFD" contains a couple of grammar errors (remind should be reminds, and that should be to). I also don't think it is an ideal signature, even if you were to fix the grammar. First of all, it only makes sense when you post to TFD discussions. Secondly, it is a little impolite to say to people that they need to be reminded to pay more attention, every time you respond to them – I'm sure most of the people you interact with in template discussions pay a lot of attention to TFD. And finally, it is a little odd to ask people to pay attention to a deletion process. --bonadea contributions talk 11:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's also a little weird to use WP:MBR as the link, given that you're probably the only person in a decade who has done so. Primefac (talk) 13:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now that I'm using my default signature, there should be no problem.--Q28 (talk) 01:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Bonadea, Primefac: I changed my signature.--Q28 (talk) 03:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When you tag a TemplateStyles page for TFD, please ensure that you use the expanded form. Review the last instruction in item I: Tag the Template in the TFD instructions. Thanks! Izno (talk) 07:41, 19 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Izno: However, I use twinkle. Twinkle does not provide an option for TemplateStyles' options.--Q28 (talk) 06:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do it manually then and/or request Twinkle be updated. Using an automated tool does not excuse doing it the wrong way. Izno (talk) 06:21, 20 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Izno: Okay, I got it. Thanks for the heads up. --Q28 (talk) 10:11, 23 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Q28 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

My IPBE has been to expire, request renewal. Block ID is 12542404.

Accept reason:

Extended for another year. Please avoid any further blocks, though. IPBE should have been revoked at that time. Still, it looks like you are constructive and I expect no problems at all here, and lots more valuable edits. Yamla (talk) 10:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Yamla:,  Thanks.--Q28 (talk) 07:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:Talkback/preload. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. – radar³³ 19:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Q28,

Maybe you could focus your patrolling efforts on main space articles and edits rather than Draft space. Editors are allowed a lot of leeway in Draft space to work on their pages over time so we don't judge them by the same standards that we judge content in the main space. A draft could be a blank page and it isn't deleted while that would be unaccepted in the main space of the project. The only content in Draft space that needs to be deleted is advertising, vandalism, hoaxes, copyright& BLP violations and attack pages. Thank you for your work though. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:59, 28 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Liz: But CSD G1 also applies to drafts. So although it doesn't seem necessary, I can still do it.--Q28 (talk) 09:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

China at the 2008 Summer Olympics is not eligible to score points in the WikiCup at the moment, but will be eligible if it is passed as a GA by a reviewer. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Cwmhiraeth: Okay, I see.  Thanks.--Q28 (talk) 10:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, you're receiving this note because you're currently signed up for the 2022 WikiCup and don't yet have any points in the competition. As you may know, scoring any points in the first round is traditionally sufficient to advance to the second, and a fast way to get 5 points is to complete a good article review. Given that the January 2022 Good Article Nomination Backlog Drive is active for another 10 days, you might be interested in pitching in. Complete one review, and you'll be on to the next round in WikiCup; complete two or three, and you'll also be eligible to win some barnstars. As always, quality reviews with attention to detail are expected. Cheers, --Usernameunique (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have warned you once before. Please ensure you are tagging sanitized CSS pages for deletion correctly.

Thanks. Izno (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Izno:Sorry. I will reduce this problem happen in the future.--Q28 (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The other party@Izno: has not replied to the topic for a long time and topic has been closed.((archive now))--⸺Q28 has 5K edits *ଘ(੭*ˊᵕˋ)੭* ੈ✩‧₊˚ 09:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just a note that this should be requested at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for edits to a protected page. Happy editing! ― Qwerfjkltalk 16:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Qwerfjkl:Okay, I see. Thank you for your comment.--Q28 (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Qwerfjkl did not reply to the topic for a long time, this topic is closed. ((archive now))--⸺Q28 is preparing for the senior high school entrance examination 09:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect GET STICK BUGGED LOL and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 29#GET STICK BUGGED LOL until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a pity that it has been deleted. Anyway, this topic is over. ((archive now))--⸺Q28 is preparing for the senior high school entrance examination 09:12, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Recommend user name, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Recommend user name and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Recommend user name during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Tiger (Talk) 13:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I've speedy deleted the page per WP:G3 as blatant and obvious misinformation as there is no such process. You really should not just imagine new policies or procedures and try to put them into practice without a consensus to do so. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  @Beeblebrox: Now I think I created this page too hastily. This page will be part of the Username Wizard in the future, but I don't have time to finish it.--⸺Q28 is preparing for the senior high school entrance examination 06:19, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  No one has replied to my message for two months. So this discussion will soon be archived. ((archive now)) Q28 (talk) 03:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect So When You Go Solo, You Hold Your Own Hand and Remember That Depth Is the Greatest of Heights and If You Know Where You Stand, Then You Know Where to Land and If You Fall It Won't Matter, Cuz You'll Know That You're Right and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 8#So When You Go Solo, You Hold Your Own Hand and Remember That Depth Is the Greatest of Heights and If You Know Where You Stand, Then You Know Where to Land and If You Fall It Won't Matter, Cuz You'll Know That You're Right until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was deleted because it is too long then to be unused. ((archive now)) Q28 (talk) 03:37, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Q28,

I just deleted a redirect that you created that directed editors from a Wikipedia project page to a User talk page for a bot! I can't think of a reason why you thought this redirect was a good idea or even could foresee it being helpful. I see on your talk page that some of your redirects are raising questions. Please do not create questionable or unnecessary redirect pages. Make sure they make logical sense and cross-namespace redirects aren't generally useful.

Thank you for all of your contributions! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

liz, are you saying WP:CBR? Cite Bot Request 's TLA. He's not unbelievable.--⸺Q28 is preparing for the senior high school entrance examination 04:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

However, in nearly two months, the other party did not reply to me, so I will have to put it on file. ((archive now)) Q28 (talk) 03:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect 0rz and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 11#0rz until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result of the discussion was to maintain the status quo. ((archive now)) Q28 (talk) 09:05, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Set out and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 2#Set out until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Fram (talk) 08:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, this page is deleted anyway. ((archive now)) Q28 (talk) 09:15, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]

I have checked the message. It needs no further reply. ((archive now)) Q28 (talk) 09:08, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of acronyms: Q, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page QX. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In fact, it was intentional. ((archive now)) Q28 (talk) 09:06, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]

I have checked the message, and it doesn't need any further reply. ((archive now)) Q28 (talk) 09:09, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]