Welcome!

Hello, RaqiwasSushi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.


If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

meco (talk) 07:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Reply


edit

Hi. When you recently edited Karen Handel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charity (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

Thanks for advice. Now I understand "talk" link too.


Spelling of offence. Since sentence was about North Dakota seemed more appropriate to use the U.S. version, offense. One of the DYK? items on the current 6.1.2012 English front page was about Puritan Sabbatarianism. (What?) Eventually ended up on a North Dakota page on newadvent.org. Found quote with ence spelling there. In the process I posted an all high & mighty explanation even tho whether it's "ce" or "se", the spelling doesn't matter; subject was a repealed law in North Dakota: and, I lost the original reference and the one I "discovered"


If can restore, please do.

edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Max Starks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Notre Dame (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks RaqiwasSushi (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)Reply


October 2013

edit

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Neil Diamond may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:


  • park]] changes.<ref>[http://www.boston.com/sports/video/?bctid=2762435865001&pconnect_name=870095}accessdate=2013-10-23 Boston.com sports video]</ref> The song is also played during the 8th inning


Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

July 2014

edit

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Murdoch Mysteries may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.


List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:


  • 有線娛樂台|i-Cable Enternment]] in Late 2010.<ref>[http://dubpark.acg.hk/dubdb/?p=968 Murdoch Mysteries >> DubPark (Chinese)]</ref>


  • series began airing on the [[Ovation (U.S. TV channel)|Ovation]] cable TV network in 2013.<ref>[http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/television/2013/10/09/murdoch_mysteries_picked_up_in_us.html

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)Reply


November 2014

edit

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Terry Bradshaw may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

  • That%E2%80%99s-how-you-play-Steelers-football/1882bedc-d7af-477c-a1f2-cc6880e8c8c1 Steelers.com]</ref>), they have not reissued Bradshaw's No. 12 since he retired, and it is generally understood

− It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

December 2014

edit

− −   Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to John Negroponte may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

  • Ambassador Negroponte serves on the [[Concordia Summit|Leadership Council of Concordia]],<ref>[http://concordia.net/about-us/our-story.html Concordia.net</ref> a nonpartisan, nonprofit based in

− It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

− −

You want to add your comment here

edit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shooting_of_John_Crawford_III regarding the Shooting of John Crawford III article. Comments on the Talk page may not influence the decision to keep or delete the article, the link I provided is the place to write. Benefac (talk) 06:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Reference errors on 28 July

edit

− −   Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

− 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, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

− −

edit

− − Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bob Kauffman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NAIA. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

− − As the wise ones say, sometimes shortcuts (didn't verify) actually take longer. Thanks. RaqiwasSushi (talk) 19:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

− −

September 2015

edit

− −

 

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Portal:Current events/2015 August 27. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

− Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.

  1. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

− If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

− −

Hear ya! RaqiwasSushi (talk) 18:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

− −

WP:AN

edit

− −   This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

The thread is here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive274#Edit warring - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

  • RaqiwasSushi, you were seriously wrong in this dispute--in your edit warring, that is. But because you at least tried to talk this out I have not blocked you, though you should consider this a warning. Edit warring is edit warring even if you're right, and none of the exemptions apply here. Thank you--and, Knowledgekid87, thank you too. Drmies (talk) 17:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Posted earlier on another alert about this. "Edit war(ning) alert to me, had been there since 10:46 EDT today. No more changes on item, which had been my intention yesterday until I jumped to the wrong conclusion last night. There is no conclusion." My first experience with repeated reversals; corrections yes, but not this. Taking advice. RaqiwasSushi (talk) 18:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

− −

ArbCom elections are now open!

edit

− − Hi,

− You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Reference errors on 27 November

edit

− −   Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

− 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, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Done RaqiwasSushi (talk) 09:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

− −

as per your request

edit
feel free to comment here User talk:NeilN#does an indefititely blocked editor have the right to post on user pages --68.231.26.111 (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Did not see this comment until just now. Removal of 178's post shocked me and I was working on asking NeilN# about editing on my talk page and blocked users. Posted that 17:45, 30 November 2015. No response yet. S/he is really busy on this task.
Re: climate change. Will add discussion I raised with you onto NeilN# page, but later. It's 3:20 am ET as I start this and my eyes are closing. When wake up.
New item: deletion of Belgian astrophysists findings. Again,I question the peer review requirement you refer to. But need some help to understand how these named scientists' calculations can be propaganda! I'm restoring that item and request you let it go until I get started again today. If you do it again really need to know what's propaganda.
Please leave this text. It is MY page. RaqiwasSushi (talk) 08:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Test to find my ISP

edit

not logged in ... RaqiwasSushi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.213.30.70 (talk) 16:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

It is 73.213.30.70 RaqiwasSushi (talk) 16:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
no what he means is click on his number and when it takes you to another page click on "geolocate" at the bottom--68.231.26.111 (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
now test ("geolocate") these two:

94.187.114.220 178.135.80.176
--68.231.26.111 (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

in your own words "How users are classified (sock, etc.) is of zero interest to me" - you dont seem to care that there are bad editors which worries me that you are one of them - are you a sock master which i have begun to suspect in the last few months? - otherwise what i just showed you should have been important unless you are in absolute denial or just DENYING that such things occur and damage this encyclopedia which the later i suspect is true!--68.231.26.111 (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Wow. Close to an attack?

Perhaps you missed what followed in my post on NeilN's talk page: "How users are classified (sock, etc.) is of zero interest to me. Like anyone else, that changes if a "sock" is destructive. I expect whatever Wikipedia has set up takes care of things, known or not even thought of, that could do harm." (emphasis added)
Your suspicions are unfounded. If you read my user page, I am what I say I am, neither better nor worse. A sock master? That's funny and sad. I don't participate and don't want to monitor. Not qualified and not interested in doing the research needed. A general understanding is what I've needed and received. Sock stuff can be, and is, handled by people interested and capable. Right?
My interest in 178 and 94 is limited to what they did in connection with these 2 posts. I would not have known about the Glacier deletion without 178's alert. Anything not related to my intention to restore the posts, are best handled by others. Finding my ISP was done to ensure I wasn't either of these two. I accept whatever sockpuppet decision is made like I didn't know there was one, which is my present position on socks.
When I post an event, I believe Wikipedia provides ways that others can make "it" better. Until now I thought that problem with the FLRB post was an aberration. Add these two, continually reverted, not so sure anymore.
I will submit a request for a third opinion around 11 pm ET tonight. If you want to add anything, let me know. (WP:DRR) RaqiwasSushi (talk) 23:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
P.S. 68.231.26.111, thanks for the information on geolocate. Will check that out later. :)

Summary of current events dispute (admin talk, removed by admin)

edit
Summary
The references for my post on glacier retreat were news items about US Glacier National Park which included information from Dan Fagre, a scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey, and about the Himalayas with info from Ann Rowan, who led the field study team from the universities of Sheffield and Leeds. 68.231.26.111 deletes this saying it's propaganda and requires a published pier-reviewed (sic) source. (A third reference reporting on Antarctic glaciers retreat was added later by another user.) (For TEXT - see Appendix I)
The item concerned two Belgian astrophysicists' assessment on the RU-24 take-down, concluding both Russia's and Turkey's explanations "be taken with a grain of salt." 68.231.26.111 deletes this one, with revised statement about propaganda and lack of source that's been "pier-reviewed" (sic) from a respected organization. (For TEXT - see Appendix I)
QUESTIONS
  1. Deletion of the 11/27 item is cited as propaganda. I'm guessing political views are involved because it supports international climate change assessments. Scientific findings, not propaganda.
  2. When, if ever, is a peer-review source required for a news item on a current events page?
  3. Same issues with 12/1 item on scientists conclusions about RU-24 shoot-down.
  4. Can a user remove information, not posted by said user, from owner's talk page?
  5. I don't know what resulted in indefinite blocking of users 178.135.80.151 and 94.187.75.183. I, for one, support removing these blocks. More than "their actions attempted to help me." Based on this recent experience, think both handled themselves responsibly and calmly. I didn't see evidence linking either to Xk9 in this reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Spliff_Joint_Blunt/Archive
  6. I don't think 68 intends to do harm.
Appreciate your assistance. If need any information or have questions, please let me know. RaqiwasSushi (talk) 20:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Text
(1) Glaciers
Science and technology
Deletion comment
endless polical propaganda crap mascrading as science not suitable for an "encyclopedia" - i read both secondary citations and NO WHERE AND I MEAN NO WHERE is there a statement of any published pier-reviewed source!
(2) Astrophysists - RU 24
Deletion comment
more propaganda = please explain in no uncertain terms where this item has been published in a "pier-reviewed" and respected organization.

About your Third Opinion request

edit

− − Your request for a Third Opinion has been removed (i.e. rejected) because all talk page discussion so far (and we do not consider discussion through edit comments) has been about conduct issues surrounding sockpuppetry and block evasion and 3O only handles, and requires thorough discussion of, content issues. For conduct issues, speak to an administrator or, after carefully reading the instructions, make a filing at ANI. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC) (3O volunteer) (Not watching this page) -->Reply

Content disputes CE

edit

Where can/should I go for help on current event questions: news item objectivity, and documentary requirement for news items posted to current events? User conduct issue involved but included now, already enough to deal with. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RaqiwasSushi#Summary_of_current_events_dispute) [that should have read, "User conduct issue involved but not included now.]

Two current event items (11/27, 12/1) deleted alleging propaganda and stating there is an original research requirement for posting CE scientific findings news. Earlier attempts to resolve unsuccessful. All, but one, talk page entries trying to start discussion were ignored and text removed from talk pages. When got first response from other user, happy to follow since 'at least is was something' but ended up as diversion to sockpuppets discussions rather than addressing content.

Prior experience (over unnecessary addition of "Obama Administration" instead of X) with same user hit edit war territory. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal_talk:Current_events/2015_August_27) A third party attempting to 'cleanup language' got caught in restore/revert series fell into an edit war. I received a warning and other user was temporarily suspended. (Don't recall if third user got hit.) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RaqiwasSushi#September_2015 and next section) (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Current_events/2015_August_27&action=history) Effect - nonobjective language decision/resolution deferred. Still at impasse, I followed admin advice ( "even if you're right" which I believe I was) and stopped interceding. Unfortunately, concern raised by redacted (top of CE talk page) afterwards has reappeared. User is currently changing entries that refer to the federal government to Obama Administration.

Examples:

1. Ref "Defense Secretary Ash Carter" to "The Obama Administration through Defense Secretary Ash Carter"

2. Ref "In the wake of Washington’s pledge" to "Following the Obama Administration's pledge "

3. Ref "The United States government" to "The Obama Administration"

this user keeps talking about multiple biased items they have attempted to add to wiki on the current events page. they try to say they have support, such as the user anon ip above that they quote redacted, all the support they actually get is from socks such as redacted (a user who posted only from august 23, 2015 till september 8, 2015, edit warred constantly, and then magically evaportated - POOF). Endless socks of indefinitely banned users seem to come to aid RaqiwasSushi which suggests to me that this user RaqiwasSushi is just the sock master trying to add biased material to wiki and using pseudo consensus support aided by these socks. Dont get me wrong RaqiwasSushi on a daily basis has added and continues to add useful material to the same current events page but there is an old saying "A doctor saves 1000 lives so now he gets one free murder, right? - NO!" RaqiwasSushi seems to imply the numerous other readers and editors of the current events page do not exist?! If the attempted biased additions by RaqiwasSushi had been so obviously warranted for inclusion would not these other numerous editors be also pushing for these items to be included?- No, because they were indeed biased and rightly so removed or edited to meet the standards of an "encyclopedia". Most of the items RaqiwasSushi states have been unfairly removed or altered have had many weeks for other editors to rightoutsly come to the aid of RaqiwasSushi to correct the supposed injustices, but no such injustices exist!, there is no vacuum, numerous other editors exist at the current events page and must have also found RaqiwasSushi's strange biased edits inappropriate because they all have remained silent.-- redacted
17:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I disagree with the above comments.
The reason administrative help has been requested: (1) Are the two CE items as written biased or "propaganda," and (2) is peer-reviewed research documentation required for scientific findings in the news to be posted to a Current Events page? The prior incident (8/27) and the cited current edits are counterpoint to the other user's statements about my bias.
8/27/15 was my first encounter with this other user. The issue: whether text should be (a)"The U.S. National Labor Relations Board ruling" or (b) "The Obama Administration, through its appointment of a majority of board members on the Democratic-controlled U.S. National Labor Relations Board?" I wrote (a), the other user wrote (b) with edit comment, "sorry but less bias in the presentation please - thanks." I believe the opposite was true, the bias was present with what the other user wrote (b).
I think sock discussions diverted attention away from these two issues. Sockpuppet research, block implementation, monitoring, etc., are necessary to prevent destructive actions, but not relevant to what the two IPs did. The statement about IP redacted--- (a user who posted only from august 23, 2015 till september 8, 2015, edit warred constantly, and then magically evaporated - POOF) is unwarranted and not completely true. His one edit war was with the other user on the NLRB text I wrote. Maybe, when the POOF happened, X thought may have been 'I don't need this stuff.' As likely as something about sockpuppets (which X denied), the weather, the 2015 NFL season, wonder who's going to be in the World Series, etc.
If a response is needed for any other points, please let me know. 17:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Something's missing

edit
QUESTION 1: What happened to the rest of my talk page? Nothing visible in history.
This. Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
QUESTION 2: Any information on my help request? Other user's talk page indicates IP "is currently blocked." RaqiwasSushi 16:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure. As far as I can tell, the wordings are synonymous as of 2015; the changed wordings may be even better from an archival standpoint since the person sitting in the White House will change. This doesn't seem like it needs an admin, just a more knowledgeable third party; you may want to try {{help me}} instead. Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
Hi (talk),
Thanks. Mass deletion of this page apparently was done by me. Baffles me since my practice it to open the smallest section of text for editing. Started restoring/editing info. :)
But, still up in the air on CE news items. When I first looked, 11/27 CE was present, 12/1 was not. Then later, both were missing. Surprised there was edits in my sandbox history, and misinterpreted what I saw. End result: Today I loaded, but hid from display, the two CE items. Still need some guidance. RaqiwasSushi (talk) 00:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC) SOReply
Is there a better way to resolve allegations of bias? How should these have been handled?
Ok to restore CE text?
redacted is currently blocked. If I edit CE pages so text is displayed, and it's deleted again when redacted has editing authority (12/13), then what?
My thinking is restore, and if deleted, report on first instance.
When is peer-reviewed research required for CE pages? Sometimes it's part of the story, other times not.
Is the sandbox open to any user?

Thank you. RaqiwasSushi (talk) 00:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

If the issue has already been discussed on the respective articles' talk pages and editors could not agree on a solution, WP:DR handles content disputes. If you have a problem with another editor's conduct, WP:AN/I is a good venue to get that resolved. In either case you should try to provide a succinct summary of the dispute, supported, if possible, by diffs as evidence, that will allow others to understand what the conflict is about without having to read a wall of text. Huon (talk) 02:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Current event items

edit

Reached own conclusion. The item on 12.1 about astrophysicists' calculations and analysis of RU-24 incident no longer news worthy enough for a CE page. Extraneous to international dispute resulting from incident. MOOT

Glacier Retreat item in 11.27: (1) W.Post article on U.S. Glacier National Park includes interview with "Dan Fagre, a scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey who monitors the park’s 25 remaining glaciers and plots each year’s losses" (2) BBC article includes information from Dr. Ann Rowan, PhD. Earth Sciences, University of Sheffield who led the field study team, "the first scientific team to visit the region after the devastating earthquake last April." "Ponds on the surface of the Khumbu glacier in the Himalayas have expanded and joined together to form larger bodies of water." (3) Radio New Zealand reports "Research by New Zealand geoscientists, published overnight in the journal Nature Communications," by Richard Jones, a postdoctoral research fellow at Victoria University.... Upcoming Monday (11/30), World Climate Change two-week summit began in Paris.

IP 68 was blocked for one week starting 12/6. Hopefully will accept and we all can move on to new things. RaqiwasSushi (talk) 20:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

A Barnstar for you!

edit
  The Barnstar of Diligence
In recognition of your extraordinary and continuous contributions at Portal:Current events. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 06:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Current Events

edit

Hi, I just changed the link to Forbes you put there. You need to remove that trailing number to make the link work for others. It's some kind of tracking cookie. Thanks for your good work at Current Events. 80.132.77.224 (talk) 03:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Potential weasel wording on Current Events item 2016-03-28

edit

Hello,

I am concerned about the wording:

"vetoes a religious liberties bill that would have protected people whose religious beliefs don't include same-sex marriage"

This could easily been restated from another perspective as:

"vetoes a religious oppression bill that would have discriminated against non-religious people, anti-religious people, and people whose religious beliefs don't exclude same-sex marriage"

I think a more neutral stance should be used.

Thanks for your contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.88.65.241 (talk) 23:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Unnamed Person. Didn't like wording myself though think weasel is a little strong and not sure "easily" applies since there's no rewording. Please try to improve it. RaqiwasSushi (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

3RR to an IP user

edit

Hi. You wrote that I was mentioned on the talk page of an IP user who has had a 3RR notice. The IP address that you left on my page does not pull up any talk page. You may wish to see if there is a typographical error. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 22:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Houthi insurgency

edit

Hi there, RaqiwasSushi. I've noticed you have used the page (Houthi insurgency in Yemen) in a few of your edits this past week on the Current events portal. See: (Portal:Current events/2016 October 16) and (Portal:Current events/2016 October 14). That page is outdated as the "insurgency" phase is technically over (18 June 2004 – 6 February 2015) now that the Houthis are in power. Your best off using the more relevant pages Yemeni Civil War (2015–present) or Yemeni Crisis (2011–present) when making future Yemen-related edits. Cheers and keep up the good work. GWA88 (talk) 01:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Replied on user GWA88's talk page. RaqiwasSushi (talk) 02:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Discussing streamlining US cannabis articles

edit

Your comments appreciated here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cannabis#Do_we_need_to_do_some_consolidation_of_multiple_overlapping_US_cannabis_articles.3F. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

edit

Hello, RaqiwasSushi. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Richter Scale

edit

Hey RaqiWasSushi,

You might find this video from Scott Manley interesting, it goes very in depth on the MMS and Richter scale. Thanks again for letting me know we actually don't use the Richter scale anymore, it's odd how our language constantly evolves yet some remnants last long beyond their useful lifetime.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtZYKcOdJp0

Have a great day!

SgThomas (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Read your articles more carefully

edit

Check the difference between your edit concerning the study about carbon emissions and mine. Then read the article you sourced the headline from. There is quite a difference between the end of this century and A.D 12,000.

We don't want to fear monger. Check your leftism at the door. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.118.132.115 (talk) 05:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

To whomever 216.118.132.115 is:
Thank you for correcting the oceanic carbon item.
I reread the phys.org article, as it is now. It's been updated. How - I don't know, the changes are not identified. I don't remember if the 6th and 7th paragraphs, as currently worded, appeared so yesterday at 3:36 pm EDT. If so, I missed it. Information I used came from the phys.org article's first five paragraphs and headline, and the MIT prof's abstract in Science Advances.
My goal is to post complete, accurate, objective information, avoiding my personal political views. Please do not presume I don't. And when it can improved or corrected by the Wikipedia community, great! RaqiwasSushi (talk) 18:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

WikiCup 2018

edit

So the 2017 WikiCup has come to an end. Congratulations to the winner, to the other finalists and to all those who took part. 177 contestants signed up, more than usual, but not all of them submitted entries in the first round. Were editors attracted by the cash prizes offered for the first time this year, or were these irrelevant? Do the rules and scoring need changing for the 2018 WikiCup? If you have a view on these or other matters, why not join in the WikiCup discussion about next year's contest? Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

edit

Hello, RaqiwasSushi. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

WikiCup 2018 March newsletter

edit

And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. With 53 contestants qualifying, the groups for round 2 are slightly smaller than usual, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining users.

Our top scorers in round 1 were:

  •   Aoba47 led the field with a featured article, 8 good articles and 42 GARs, giving a total of 666 points.
  •   FrB.TG , a WikiCup newcomer, came next with 600 points, gained from a featured article and masses of bonus points.
  •   Ssven2, another WikiCup newcomer, was in third place with 403 points, garnered from a featured article, a featured list, a good article and twelve GARs.
  •   Ceranthor,   Numerounovedant,   Carbrera,   Farang Rak Tham and   Cartoon network freak all had over 200 points, but like all the other contestants, now have to start again from scratch. A good achievement was the 193 GARs performed by WikiCup contestants, comparing very favourably with the 54 GAs they achieved.

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

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) and Vanamonde (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Deaths in Current Events

edit

Hey, RaqiwasSushi. We seem to disagree over whether the death of a certain physicist belongs in current events; could I get you to come to the talk page for the date in question and better explain your position? I think we are interpreting the guidelines differently, and I'd like to understand where you are coming from. Thanks! Icarosaurvus (talk) 04:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

WikiCup 2018 May newsletter

edit

The second round of the 2018 WikiCup has now finished. Most contestants who advanced to the next round scored upwards of 100 points, but two with just 10 points managed to scrape through into round 3. Our top scorers in the last round were:

  •   Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with three featured articles
  •   Iazyges, with nine good articles and lots of bonus points
  •   Yashthepunisher, a first time contestant, with two featured lists
  •   SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with seventeen good topic articles
  •   Usernameunique, a first time contestant, with fourteen DYKs
  •   Muboshgu, a seasoned competitor, with three ITNs and
  •   Courcelles, another first time contestant, with twenty-seven GARs

So far contestants have achieved twelve featured articles between them and a splendid 124 good articles. Commendably, 326 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2018 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met; most of the GARs are fine, but a few have been a bit skimpy.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. RaqiwasSushi (talk) 23:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

WikiCup 2018 July newsletter

edit

The third round of the 2018 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round had at least 227 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

  •   Courcelles, a first time contestant, with 1756 points, a tally built largely on 27 GAs related to the Olympics
  •   Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three GAs on natural history and astronomy topics
  •   SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with a variety of submissions related to transport in the state of Washington

Contestants managed 7 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 120 good articles, 1 good topic, 124 DYK entries, 15 ITN entries, and 132 good article reviews. Over the course of the competition, contestants have completed 458 GA reviews, in comparison to 244 good articles submitted for review and promoted. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process; several submissions, particularly in abstruse or technical areas, have needed additional work to make them completely verifiable.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk), Vanamonde (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

WikiCup 2018 September newsletter

edit

The fourth round of the 2018 WikiCup has now come to an end. The eight users who made it to the final round had to score a minimum of 422 points to qualify, with the top score in the round being 4869 points. The leaders in round 4 were:

  •   Courcelles scored a magnificent 4869 points, with 92 good articles on Olympics-related themes. Courcelles' bonus points alone exceeded the total score of any of the other contestants!
  •   Kees08 was second with 1155 points, including a high-scoring featured article for Neil Armstrong, two good topics and some Olympics-related good articles.
  •   Cas Liber, with 1066 points, was in third place this round, with two featured articles and a good article, all on natural history topics.
  • Other contestants who qualified for the final round were   Nova Crystallis,   Iazyges,   SounderBruce,   Kosack and   Ceranthor.

During round four, 6 featured articles and 164 good articles were promoted by WikiCup contestants, 13 articles were included in good topics and 143 good article reviews were performed. There were also 10 "in the news" contributions on the main page and 53 "did you knows". Congratulations to all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck, and let the best editor win! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

WikiCup 2018 November newsletter

edit

The WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is   Courcelles (submissions), who over the course of the competition has amassed 147 GAs, 111 GARs, 9 DYKs, 4 FLs and 1 ITN. Our finalists were as follows:

  1.   Courcelles (submissions)
  2.   Kosack (submissions)
  3.   Kees08 (submissions)
  4.   SounderBruce (submissions)
  5.   Cas Liber (submissions)
  6.   Nova Crystallis (submissions)
  7.   Iazyges (submissions)
  8.   Ceranthor (submissions)


All those who reached the final win awards, and awards will also be going to the following participants:

Awards will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved much this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition.

Next year's competition begins on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; it is open to all Wikipedians, new and old. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2019 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email) and Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email).

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

edit

Hello, RaqiwasSushi. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Welcome to the 2019 WikiCup!

edit

Hello and Happy New Year!

Welcome to the 2019 WikiCup, the competition begins today. If you have already joined, your submission page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and we will set up your submissions page. One important rule to remember is that only content on which you have completed significant work during 2019, and which you have nominated this year, is eligible for points in the competition, the judges will be checking! Any questions should be directed to one of the judges, or left on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will make it to round 2. Good luck! The judges for the WikiCup are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Reply

edit

The reason the tag remains is, as I said in my edit summary, the source is inaccessible to European readers. @Refsworldlee: is an editor in that region and is the one who’s been identifying which sources are accessible or not. The source presently used as well as the alternative one you suggested have both been inaccessible. Rusted AutoParts 23:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

WikiCup 2019 March newsletter

edit

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

Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

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

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

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

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk).

WikiCup 2019 May newsletter

edit

The second round of the 2019 WikiCup has now finished. Contestants needed to scored 32 points to advance into round 3. Our top four scorers in round 2 all scored over 400 points and were:

  •   Cas Liber (1210), our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three DYKs. He also made good use of the bonus points available, more than doubling his score by choosing appropriate articles to work on.
  •   Kosack (750), last year's runner up, with an FA, a GA, two FLs, and five DYKs.
  •   Adam Cuerden (480), a WikiCup veteran, with 16 featured pictures, mostly restorations.
  •   Zwerg Nase (461), a seasoned competitor, with a FA, a GA and an ITN item.

Other notable performances were put in by   Barkeep49 with six GAs,   Ceranthor,   Lee Vilenski, and   Canada Hky, each with seven GARs, and   MPJ-DK with a seven item GT.

So far contestants have achieved nine featured articles between them and a splendid 80 good articles. Commendably, 227 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2019 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. The judges are pleased with the thorough GARs that are being performed, and have hardly had to reject any. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sara Martins, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cape Verdean (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:32, 19 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Dear bot, thanks anyway but it stays. In part, it's a tribute to Death in Paradise -- was trying to fix an error on the lead actor's (Sara Martins) page; did that and, in process, created a different mistake (as bot points out). Saw this notice for first time on May 20th while watching the next Netflix episode of the series, the last one before lead detectives change. Producers had to; they killed first guy early in year 3. So in honor of a good new mystery series, and a new, enchanting and attractive actress, Sara Martins. And since the cyber world never really loses anything. Someday this will be a fun memory. RaqiwasSushi (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

WikiCup 2019 July newsletter

edit

The third round of the 2019 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round needed to score at least 68 points, which is substantially lower than last year's 227 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

  •   Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with 500 points derived mainly from a featured article and two GAs on natural history topics
  •   Adam Cuerden, with 480 points, a tally built on 16 featured pictures, the result of meticulous restoration work
  •   SounderBruce, a finalist in the last two years, with 306 points from a variety of submissions, mostly related to sport or the State of Washington
  •   Usernameunique, with 305 points derived from a featured article and two GAs on archaeology and related topics

Contestants managed 4 (5) featured articles, 4 featured lists, 18 featured pictures, 29 good articles, 50 DYK entries, 9 ITN entries, and 39 good article reviews. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them, and it is imperative to claim them in the correct round; one FA claim had to be rejected because it was incorrectly submitted (claimed in Round 3 when it qualified for Round 2), so be warned! When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

WikiCup 2019 September newsletter

edit

The fourth round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 454 points being required to qualify for the final round. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants with over 400 points being eliminated, and all but two of the finalists having achieved an FA during the round. Casliber, our 2016 winner, was the highest point-scorer, followed by Enwebb and Lee Vilenski, who are both new to the competition. In fourth place was SounderBruce, a finalist last year. But all those points are swept away as we start afresh for the final round.

Round 4 saw the achievement of 11 featured articles. In addition, Adam Cuerden scored with 18 FPs, Lee Vilenski led the GA score with 8 GAs while Kosack performed 15 GA reviews. There were around 40 DYKs, 40 GARs and 31 GAs overall during round 4. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.

As we start round 5, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

WikiCup 2019 November newsletter

edit

The WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is   Adam Cuerden (submissions), who over the course of the competition has amassed 91 featured pictures, including 32 in the final round. Our finalists this year were:

  1.   Adam Cuerden (submissions) with 964 points
  2.   Lee Vilenski (submissions) with 899 points
  3.   Casliber (submissions) with 817 points
  4.   Kosack (submissions) with 691 points
  5.   SounderBruce (submissions) with 388 points
  6.   Enwebb (submissions) with 146 points
  7.   Usernameunique (submissions) with 145 points
  8.   HaEr48 (submissions) with 74 points

All those who reached the final will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field. Awards will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved much this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition, not forgetting User:Jarry1250, who runs the scoring bot.

We have opened a scoring discussion on whether the rules and scoring need adjustment. Please have your say. Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2020 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth 14:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

edit
 Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Welcome to the 2020 WikiCup!

edit

Happy New Year, Happy New Decade and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders and improvers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. We are relaxing the rule that only content on which you have completed significant work during 2020 will count; now to be eligible for points in the competition, you must have completed significant work on the content at some time! Any questions on the rules or on anything else connected to the Cup should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. Good luck! The judges for the WikiCup are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

WikiCup 2020 March newsletter

edit

And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 57 contestants qualifying. We have abolished the groups this year, so to qualify for Round 3 you will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two contestants.

Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

  •   Epicgenius, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with a featured article, five good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 895 points.
  •   Gog the Mild came next with 464 points, from a featured article, two good articles and a number of reviews, the main theme being naval warfare.
  •   Raymie was in third place with 419 points, garnered from one good article and an impressive 34 DYKs on radio and TV stations in the United States.
  •   Harrias came next at 414, with a featured article and three good articles, an English civil war battle specialist.
  •   CaptainEek was in fifth place with 405 points, mostly garnered from bringing Cactus wren to featured article status.
  • The top ten contestants at the end of Round 1 all scored over 200 points; they also included   L293D,   Kingsif,   Enwebb,   Lee Vilenski and   CAPTAIN MEDUSA. Seven of the top ten contestants in Round 1 are new to the WikiCup.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. In Round 1 there were four featured articles, one featured list and two featured pictures, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. Between them, contestants completed 127 good article reviews, nearly a hundred more than the 43 good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Contestants also claimed for 40 featured article / featured list reviews, and most even remembered to mention their WikiCup participation in their reviews (a requirement).

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Some contestants made claims before the new submissions pages were set up, and they will need to resubmit them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

WikiCup newsletter correction

edit

There was an error in the WikiCup 2020 March newsletter;   L293D should not have been included in the list of top ten scorers in Round 1 (they led the list last year), instead,   Dunkleosteus77 should have been included, having garnered 334 points from five good articles on animals, living or extinct, and various reviews. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Invitation to WikiProject Current Events.

edit

Hello RaqiwasSushi. The project Wikipedia:WikiProject Current events became active again, so I wanted to invite you to the project as you have worked a good amount on Portal:Current events. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

WikiCup 2020 May newsletter

edit

The second round of the 2020 WikiCup has now finished. It was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 75 points to advance to round 3. There were some very impressive efforts in round 2, with the top ten contestants all scoring more than 500 points. A large number of the points came from the 12 featured articles and the 186 good articles achieved in total by contestants, and the 355 good article reviews they performed; the GAN backlog drive and the stay-at-home imperative during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been partially responsible for these impressive figures.

Our top scorers in round 2 were:

  •   Epicgenius, with 2333 points from one featured article, forty-five good articles, fourteen DYKs and plenty of bonus points
  •   Gog the Mild, with 1784 points from three featured articles, eight good articles, a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews and lots of bonus points
  •   The Rambling Man, with 1262 points from two featured articles, eight good articles and a hundred good article reviews
  •   Harrias, with 1141 points from two featured articles, three featured lists, ten good articles, nine DYKs and a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews
  •   Lee Vilenski with 869 points,   Hog Farm with 801,   Kingsif with 719,   SounderBruce with 710,   Dunkleosteus77 with 608 and   MX with 515.

The rules for featured article reviews have been adjusted; reviews may cover three aspects of the article, content, images and sources, and contestants may receive points for each of these three types of review. Please also remember the requirement to mention the WikiCup when undertaking an FAR for which you intend to claim points. Remember also that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth. - MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

WikiCup 2020 July newsletter

edit

The third round of the 2020 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it into the fourth round each had at least 353 points (compared to 68 in 2019). It was a highly competitive round, and a number of contestants were eliminated who would have moved on in earlier years. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

  •   Epicgenius, with one featured article, 28 good articles and 17 DYKs, amassing 1836 points
  •   The Rambling Man , with 1672 points gained from four featured articles and seventeen good articles, plus reviews of a large number of FACs and GAs
  •   Gog the Mild, a first time contestant, with 1540 points, a tally built largely on 4 featured articles and related bonus points.

Between them, contestants managed 14 featured articles, 9 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 152 good articles, 136 DYK entries, 55 ITN entries, 65 featured article candidate reviews and 221 good article reviews. Additionally,   MPJ-DK added 3 items to featured topics and 44 to good topics. Over the course of the competition, contestants have completed 710 good article reviews, in comparison to 387 good articles submitted for review and promoted. These large numbers are probably linked to a GAN backlog drive in April and May, and the changed patterns of editing during the COVID-19 pandemic. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

WikiCup 2020 September newsletter

edit

The fourth round of the competition has finished, with 865 points being required to qualify for the final round, nearly twice as many points as last year. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants with 598 and 605 points being eliminated, and all but two of the contestants who reached the final round having achieved an FA during the round. The highest scorers were

  •   Bloom6132, with 1478 points gained mainly from 5 featured lists, 12 DYKs and 63 in the news items;
  •  HaEr48 with 1318 points gained mainly from 2 featured articles, 5 good articles and 8 DYKs;
  •   Lee Vilenski with 1201 points mainly gained from 2 featured articles and 10 good articles.

Between them, contestants achieved 14 featured articles, 14 featured lists, 2 featured pictures, 87 good articles, 90 DYK entries, 75 ITN entries, 95 featured article candidate reviews and 81 good article reviews. Congratulations to all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

WikiCup 2020 November newsletter

edit

The 2020 WikiCup has come to an end, with the final round going down to the wire. Our new Champion is   Lee Vilenski (submissions), the runner-up last year, who was closely followed by   Gog the Mild (submissions). In the final round, Lee achieved 4 FAs and 30 GAs, mostly on cue sport topics, while Gog achieved 3 FAs and 15 GAs, mostly on important battles and wars, which earned him a high number of bonus points.   The Rambling Man (submissions) was in third place with 4 FAs and 8 GAs on football topics, with   Epicgenius (submissions) close behind with 19 GAs and 16 DYK's, his interest being the buildings of New York.

The other finalists were   Hog Farm (submissions),   HaEr48 (submissions),   Harrias (submissions) and   Bloom6132 (submissions). The final round was very productive, and besides 15 FAs, contestants achieved 75 FAC reviews, 88 GAs and 108 GAN reviews. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!

All those who reached the final will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field.

Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2021 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

edit
 Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Welcome to the 2021 WikiCup!

edit

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

WikiCup 2021 March newsletter

edit

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

WikiCup 2021 May newsletter

edit

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

WikiCup 2021 July newsletter

edit

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

WikiCup 2021 September newsletter

edit

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

WikiCup 2021 November newsletter

edit

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.

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

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

edit
 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) 00:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Welcome to the 2022 WikiCup!

edit

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

Welcome to the 2022 WikiCup!

edit

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

WikiCup 2022 March newsletter

edit

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

WikiCup 2022 May newsletter

edit

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

WikiCup 2022 July newsletter

edit

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

WikiCup 2022 September newsletter

edit

WikiCup 2022 September newsletter

edit

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

WikiCup 2022 November newsletter

edit

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

Welcome to the 2023 WikiCup!

edit

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

WikiCup 2023 March newsletter

edit

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

WikiCup 2023 May newsletter

edit

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:

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

WikiCup 2023 July newsletter

edit

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:

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

WikiCup 2023 September newsletter

edit

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)

You have been removed from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send due to inactivity

edit

Hi RaqiwasSushi! You're receiving this notification because you were previously listed at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over 2 years.

Because of your inactivity, you have been removed from the list. If you would like to resubscribe, you can do so at any time by visiting Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.

Thank you! Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:00, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply