Ealdgyth

FACs needing feedback view • 1914 FA Cup final Review it now Iron Man Review it now Empire of the Sultans Review it now Featured article removal candidates Pokémon Channel Review now Borobudur Review now William Wilberforce Review now Polio Review now Concerto delle donne Review now Galaxy Review now The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask Review now Geography of Ireland Review now Edward III of England Review now USS Wisconsin (BB-64) Review now Doolittle (album) Review now

Arbitration Committee proceedings recent changes purge this page view or discuss this template Case requests Currently, there are no requests for arbitration. [edit] Open cases Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024 Mzajac (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) — Case suspended [edit] Recently closed cases (Past cases) Case name Closed Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024 Clarification and Amendment requests Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open. Arbitrator motions No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Signups open for The Core Contest

The Core Contest—Wikipedia's most exciting contest—will take place this year from April 15 to May 31. The goal: to improve vital or other core articles, with a focus on those in the worst state of disrepair. Editing can be done individually, but in the past groups have also successfully competed. There is £300 of prize money divided among editors who provide the "best additive encyclopedic value". Signups are open now. Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24.

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.

WikiCup 2023 September newsletter

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)

Welcome to the drive!

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

Fix a random page lacking sources

CactiStaccingCrane (talk)18:46, 1 February 2024 UTC [refresh]via JWB and Geardona (talk to me?)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
62		Abbey of Saint-Étienne, Caen (talk)	Add sources
136		Vertebral subluxation (talk)	Add sources
378		Anglo-Normans (talk)	Add sources
1,184		Godavari River (talk)	Add sources
280		Long Turkish War (talk)	Add sources
4		Half tide dock (talk)	Add sources
24		Governance of England (talk)	Cleanup
39		National mysticism (talk)	Cleanup
460		France in the Middle Ages (talk)	Cleanup
1,661		Edward V of England (talk)	Expand
253		Denialism (talk)	Expand
1,030		Ancient Aliens (talk)	Expand
254		Richard de Clare, 2nd Earl of Pembroke (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
333		Caucasus campaign (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
259		Pseudoarchaeology (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
317		Black Legend (Spain) (talk)	Merge
590		Disinformation (talk)	Merge
2,260		Floppy disk (talk)	Merge
1,514		Graham Hancock (talk)	Wikify
29		Geoffrey II, Count of Anjou (talk)	Wikify
11		Kasatochi Island (talk)	Wikify
1		Miaohephyton (talk)	Orphan
4		Odionwere (talk)	Orphan
4		Andrzej Rybiński (talk)	Orphan
4		Picophagea (talk)	Stub
29		Odo II, Duke of Burgundy (talk)	Stub
29		Syllabogram (talk)	Stub
21		Raoul II of Tosny (talk)	Stub
14		Council of Lillebonne (talk)	Stub
12		Bicosoecida (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 April newsletter

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) 15:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
49		Magnum Concilium (talk)	Add sources
5,363		Louis XIV (talk)	Add sources
473		Henry the Young King (talk)	Add sources
27		Count of Évreux (talk)	Add sources
1,932		Normans (talk)	Add sources
106		Adeliza of Louvain (talk)	Add sources
10		Roman Catholic Diocese of Meaux (talk)	Cleanup
440		New chronology (Fomenko) (talk)	Cleanup
258		Pitzer College (talk)	Cleanup
22		Culture of the Basque Country (talk)	Expand
82		Mycenaean religion (talk)	Expand
316		History of monarchy in the United Kingdom (talk)	Expand
563		Raël (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
170		Reparations for slavery in the United States (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
145		New England (medieval) (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
138		Philip of Swabia (talk)	Merge
14		Gaya, Nigeria (talk)	Merge
8		Medina of Salé (talk)	Merge
50		Little People of the Pryor Mountains (talk)	Wikify
5		Peter Price (bishop) (talk)	Wikify
116		Peace and Truce of God (talk)	Wikify
41		Lysergide d-tartrate (talk)	Orphan
2		Anders Christian Hougård (talk)	Orphan
2		Burj Araian (talk)	Orphan
20		Ƅ (talk)	Stub
22		Fisher Caldera (talk)	Stub
17		Reginald de Dunstanville, Earl of Cornwall (talk)	Stub
36		Catch a Rising Star (comedy clubs) (talk)	Stub
57		Gyrista (talk)	Stub
21		Exning (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

GA reviews

Ealdgyth, you opened three GA review pages back on 15 March, but haven't returned to begin any of them for over five weeks:

• Talk:Ahi Ayna/GA1
• Talk:Enhydriodon/GA1
• Talk:Phintella parva/GA1

Will you be starting these soon, or should they be put back into the pool of unreviewed nominations for another reviewer to select? Thank you for giving this your attention. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Go ahead and put them back in... I had a rush of clients wanting rush work right after I got those signed up for. I might have free time for them but better to turn to others. Ealdgyth (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

GAN Review Enhydriodon

Hi, may you start the review for the GAN, please? Thanks. PrimalMustelid (talk) 10:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

PrimalMustelid, as you will see from the section above, Ealdgyth has asked me to put this nomination, along with the other two, back into the pool of nominations awaiting review with no loss of seniority. I hope this is okay; I have begun the process for the other two, but will hold off in this case for the moment. Please let me know; many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Edward IV

I was debating the use of the word "claim" vs "right" as, according to the Act of Accord, the Yorkists did have the right to throne as they were now legally the successors of Henry VI. Do you not agree? Ychc1n19 (talk) 13:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

(stalking) @Ychc1n19: I suspect it's as much your preference for using dubious websites and blogs in place of reliable, third-party sources. I mean, if you want to spam the R3 Society, at least use The Ricardian. But frankly, there's nothing you're adding to articles that need to be sourced by anything other than the major texts anyway. I'm sure you know whose they are. Also, the lead does not need citations, as it reflects what is in the body of the article already, and that itself is sourced (per WP:CITELEAD).

As an example, please see this discussion regarding an article (here) on a subject similar to that which you have been editing on and see the potential. Cheers, ——Serial Number 54129 13:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

There’s no need to be so rude. I simply asked your opinion through a fair historical question. Richard III has nothing to do with this conversation. Which of the websites I have linked do you have issue with? They’re simply reputable websites (such as Wars of the Roses.org) which people can click and go straight to if they want to know more. I appreciate the point about citations in the lead, this is something I was not aware of and have corrected (fixing some other pages I had previously included them on). Ychc1n19 (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Richard III has nothing to do with this conversation... claims claims an editor who repeatedly links to the education website of The Richard III Society. *facepalm* I suggest you upgrade to the immediate usage of high-quality sources. Thanks! ——Serial Number 54129 14:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

You must have me confused with another user because I've never linked to the Richard III society. It's not a website I have ever visited. Was this on the Edward IV page? I linked the Richard III page on the Wars of the Roses site, that was all. If you can find the specific version on the history and show me where the Richard III site was linked, I'd be happy to have a look. Ychc1n19 (talk) 14:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Hey, check the passive-aggression in at the door, Ychc1n19. You literally linked to the Richard III Soc's education site twice. Now "have a look": Edward IV, here and in Act of Accord, here. Front page of that website states: Welcome to Wars of the Roses: the education website of The Richard III Society. H'mmm. Does this indicate the depth with which you assess your sources before putting them in articles? Incidentally, this discussion is for the article talk page, not a user page. Have with ye to User:Celia Homeford's and establish a centralised point of discussion. ——Serial Number 54129 16:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)