User talk:SteelerFan1933

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 2021[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Eagles247. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Kyle Juszczyk, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did at Ryan Fitzpatrick, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I am about to cite a source. I got the link ready. Expect it within the next hour, Eagles247. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteelerFan1933 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Players cannot sign with teams until March 17 at 4PM ET, and you are supposed to include citations with your edits anyway. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I forgot. Thanks! I am a very new user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteelerFan1933 (talk • contribs) 03:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay, I've posted a welcome message below with some helpful links for you. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eagles 24/7, I made a minor update to Kyle Juszczyk. I changed the wording of one of the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteelerFan1933 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The |title= parameter in references is just supposed to be a direct copy-paste of whatever the title of the source is, it's not your own summary of the article. I've fixed it here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eagles247, can you tell me when I can change Andy Dalton's team to the Chicago Bears? Also, please tell me how they would announce it. That's ok, somebody already did it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteelerFan1933 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Teams will announce it on their official websites using language like "we have signed..." or "it's official". If they say "agreed to terms" or "reportedly", it's not. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:58, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Hi SteelerFan1933! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Emmanuel Sanders[edit]

The deal with Sanders doesn't become official until later today at 4:00 PM EST. Unless the Bills already announced the signing then Sanders is still a free agent. Agreed to and signing to are different meanings. Check Wikipedia:Reliable sources for more info. Swagging (talk) 12:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate the above, signings aren't official until teams announce them. I'm reverting your changes from today. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
oh. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter[edit]

Please be aware that Twitter is not a reliable source. Please check Wikipedia:Reliable sources TheKinkdomMan talk 19:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Teams announcing "reports" are meaningless[edit]

The Patriots announcing that "reports" exist about Bourne signing with the team is not the same as the team announcing the move. Please see WP:RSBREAKING and WP:SPORTSTRANS and carefully read the sources before updating articles. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC) Thank you for telling me.[reply]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure![edit]

Hi SteelerFan1933! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 01:25, Wednesday, November 10, 2021 (UTC)

Mission 1 Mission 2 Mission 3 Mission 4 Mission 5 Mission 6 Mission 7
Say Hello to the World An Invitation to Earth Small Changes, Big Impact The Neutral Point of View The Veil of Verifiability The Civility Code Looking Good Together

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure![edit]

Hi SteelerFan1933! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 01:26, Wednesday, November 10, 2021 (UTC)

Mission 1 Mission 2 Mission 3 Mission 4 Mission 5 Mission 6 Mission 7
Say Hello to the World An Invitation to Earth Small Changes, Big Impact The Neutral Point of View The Veil of Verifiability The Civility Code Looking Good Together

Adoption[edit]

Unfortunately I am going to have to unadopt you because I have run into personal issues and must take a WikiBreak. I am terribly and sorry, but know that you can still contact me for any quick questions through email. bop34 • talk • contribs 02:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok! No problem! SteelerFan1933 (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022[edit]

Hello, I'm Muboshgu. Your recent edit to the page Russell Wilson appears to have added premature information about a reported sports transaction, so it has been removed for now. The transaction is based on anonymous sources and/or awaiting an official announcement. If you believe the transaction has been completed, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Nice Thing to Do[edit]

I wanted to say I appreciate your note on my talk. I see through your edit summaries you have ambitions of bringing the ACW article to GA status and that's a worthy (but daunting) goal. Edit summaries are a useful way to "swing your elbows" so to speak and make space for yourself on pagespace. For something as lofty as bringing a very visible core content area article to good article status, you'll need help from the entire talk page community so you might look on the talk page for others who've attempted this feat.

I see you've recently lost a mentor. If I can fill any gaps, please call on me. I've been around a while and maintain the Portal:American Civil War. Don't be shy about asking for help. That's exactly how I got started, working on the ACW page and asking others for help. Glad to be there if you need someone to answer your questions. BusterD (talk) 05:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Berry[edit]

please stop changing eric berry to free agent. I understand that Berry himself has said within the last year that teams have reached out to him and that he wishes to play again. none of that matters until he is brought in for an official workout with a team. he has not worked out with/been a member of an nfl team in over one year, which is why we list him as former. This is a standard that we follow for all players, so please refrain from changing this again. Bears247 (talk) 01:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uh we literally discussed last month. Seriously bro stop it. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 02:52, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SteelerFan1933 - you're right, Berry himself states he's not retired. Just wanted to let you know that most are in agreement with you, despite a persistent editor. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Votes[edit]

On Wikipedia, we avoid voting. We discuss using words like support, oppose, keep, delete, but these are not votes; they are assertions. If I were to rewrite your proposal on T:ACW, I'd stage it as a survey, not a vote. Many users use the abbreviation "!vote" to represent voting behaviors. BusterD (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Sorry about that! Let's begin remaking the article to be a good article. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 00:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to sign your talk page posts[edit]

It's always a bad sign when any editor fails to sign their posts, since it's not particularly difficult. Users have been blocked for consistently failing to sign posts. Good communication with others is huge here, especially helping if there's any sort of disagreement. A person wants to know who to shout at... BusterD (talk) 02:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought my posts get automatically signed. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 15:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, you were correct in taking Bears247 to AIV to admin attention[edit]

Since you and I are working together as mentor/mentee, I'm not inclined to help directly. On the other hand, their determination and refusal to participate in discussing these edits seems to indicate they are not willing to apply WP:Civility in a reasonable manner. Let's see what an uninvolved admin at AIV thinks. BusterD (talk) 02:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! SteelerFan1933 (talk) 04:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Admin User:ToBeFree says: this is at the wrong board. And they are correct, I guess. They'd prefer to see a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring or if nothing else helps, WP:ANI (which I'd call a last resort). BusterD (talk) 13:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, hi, thanks for the ping! Yeah, AIV is for clear intentional disruption (vandalism) and obvious spam, but this rather seems to be a case of stubborn disruptive editing, perhaps a case of failing to get the point, or at least a case of edit warring. I didn't just remove the report, though! I have blocked the user for three months from editing the page in question. They have not made any edit since, so we can only guess if that helps with any other problems. If disruptive behavior extends to other articles or returns after the block, the specialized WP:ANEW or the general WP:ANI noticeboards are good places to report this. 🙂 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok! Thanks! SteelerFan1933 (talk) 19:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We appreciate the direct explanation, User:ToBeFree. Relatively new user SteelerFan1933 is trying to learn how to do the right thing in a difficult content area. Not all the rough is worn away yet. As one might expect, our SteelerFan is not lacking in WP:BOLD so we're off to a great start, but we're bound to hit the sides of the track from time. BusterD (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
😊 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

free agents[edit]

i’ve noticed that when you edit free agent pages such as tim tebow and eric berry, you capitalize “free agent” in the lead. make sure that you are leaving both of those as lower cases. thanks Bears247 (talk) 20:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can User:ToBeFree confirm this? Because you're the guy who got banned for 3 months from editing Eric Berry. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 23:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t need to confirm this. go over and look at any other nfl free agents page. You will see exactly what i told you. This ban is pretty ridiculous considering Berry hasn’t played in 3 years. Bears247 (talk) 02:31, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously bro I get it. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 03:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’d appreciate it if you made this change then, as I can not. Bears247 (talk) 13:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reply bro SteelerFan1933 (talk) 15:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i’m here man. Take a look at any nfl free agent page. “free agent” is not capitalized in any leads Bears247 (talk) 20:09, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok ok stop it or I will report you for not accepting that I understood. There must be a rule in Wikipedia somewhere that says you can't do this. Anyways, excuse me, I have to edit Encanto (film) now. Bye! SteelerFan1933 (talk) 00:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bears247 has a specific block for Eric Berry, but that does not include Talk pages. David notMD (talk) 09:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At this point i’m understanding that i’m not going to change the fact that berry will be listed as a free agent, but please list him as a free agent correctly or i’ll have to bring another user into this Bears247 (talk) 13:28, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok bro i'll do it or i'll report you on WP:Aggression or something. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 15:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty inappropriate to threaten another user in that way. You've already made a complaint on an admin's page about this issue (35 hours ago), posted on the talk page, and then you make this comment on a user's page? That's ridiculous. Get a grip, let it go and keep it on Eric Berry's talk page instead of this user's page. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking to me or to Bears247 Hey man im josh? SteelerFan1933 (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not to you, talking about Bears247. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if anything here i said came off as aggressive. I did leave a message on the eric berry talk page but after i didn’t recieve a response I figured I would bring it to his user talk page. This is just an issue that is still unresolved and i’m just here trying to get everything sorted out. sorry again if anything I said came off as an aggressive or threatening tone. Bears247 (talk) 00:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At this point i’m understanding that i’m not going to change the fact that berry will be listed as a free agent, but please list him as a free agent correctly or i’ll have to bring another user into this Bears247 (talk) 13:28, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
You said that, not me. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 14:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

yes i did. I’m just wanting berry’s page to be formatted correctly Bears247 (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you making this talk page section so messy bro? Stop it. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Julio Jones GA review[edit]

Sorry to bother you but when are you going to start reviewing Julio Jones, it's been almost a week since you took up the nomination. NSNW (talk) 15:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ill do it soon SteelerFan1933 (talk) 16:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anyways how do I do it again? I seriously don't know as this is my first nomination. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the Good Article Instructions in the GA page, it will tell you everything you need to know. NSNW (talk) 01:04, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop by the page again to arrange for its deletion, as you had wished to do. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you send me the link? I cannot find the good article nomination page. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 00:06, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You should be able to find the location in your own contribution history. And it's on the talk page of the article linked... BusterD (talk) 00:10, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I got it. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 00:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Félix Madrigal[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Félix Madrigal requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 04:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I probably should have kept it at a Draft. It definitely needs more than 2 sentences of content. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 04:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is edit warring[edit]

This page history (that you yourself brought to RfPP) says you're at 5 reverts. So that's a blockable offense, even if you are edit warring with someone who gets themselves blocked as well. If someone came along and blocked you I could not blame them. You do not cover yourself with glory when you act almost as recklessly as someone who is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Remember that any admin can make such an assessment and you would have no legs to stand on. Another issue: this is NOT a page protection issue. You should take edit warring to the WP:ANEW venue. Please take this as a lesson. BusterD (talk) 02:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have over-reacted a bit. Your reversions were good edits. All of them. The blocking admin endorses your position. I can admit when I'm wrong. But still, if you get into 3RR even for the best of reasons, be aware that things spiral out of control. I'm anxious NOT to see you blocked. We should talk more about how to better to use the noticeboards. I see you dealt weakly with a sock puppetry issue last week and we didn't talk about it. At your convenience. BusterD (talk) 03:14, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry about any inconveniences. I just wanted to make sure that UglyDolls was not the picture for the featured wikipedia article. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 03:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What sockpuppetry issue are you talking about again? I can't quite remember what it was. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 03:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BusterD: The edits being reverted were obvious vandalism, which falls under WP:NOT3RR. The process SteelerFan1933 was generally correct, although vandals are typically reported to WP:AIV after vandalism past final warnings, not just at first sign of vandalism. And we'd like to see warnings from the Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace/Multi-level templates family as opposed to hand-written ones, especially until you gain more experience in this field. As BusterD said, no need to request page protection ([1]) since this was one isolated vandal. This edit summary is borderline disruptive, however, and I suggest you keep edit summaries (and discussion posts) on topic. Eagles 24/7 (C) 12:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, got it. I'm relatively new, so sometimes I go off the rails. I was right in reverting the edits to Coropuna but I got mad and edited the UglyDolls wikipedia page. On top of that, my edit summary was just some lyrics by a fictional person who isn't even in UglyDolls, Mirabel Madrigal (She's from Encanto, as you probably already know). My first edit to the article was disruptive and I would like to apologize. I will not do this disruptive editing again. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries[edit]

Hello! I saw and appreciated your edits on Encanto. I wanted to stop by and request that you make sure your edit summaries are clear and understandable. For example, "Removed the Thousand Days' War link because it was based on WP:OriginalResearch" is a clear, useful summary, thank you! But, for instance, "Made some edits I forgot to make earlier" ([2]) is very vague and not really a sufficient explanation for removing two sourced sentences. There are others, but I don't need to list a ton of edits here for you to get the idea :) I strongly recommend taking a look at Help:Edit summary for further information, and if you have any questions, feel free to ask! Aerin17 (t • c) 04:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Got it! Thanks! SteelerFan1933 (talk) 04:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022[edit]

Information icon Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Cory Littleton, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, got it! SteelerFan1933 (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Pamzeis (talk) 14:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok, I am extended confirmed and I was confused about that Mirabel Madrigal thing on the Isabela Madrigal talk page. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of John Johnson (safety)[edit]

The article John Johnson (safety) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:John Johnson (safety) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. — GhostRiver 18:46, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dude! Before you nominate another page to GA, please consult me. I have no interest in being gatekeeper, but I do want you to experience some success in the reviewing process. In the case of this nominee, it appears to be a quick fail to my eyes as well. Let's choose an article about a person who interests you, get it to at least B-class, then submit to GA. I'm here to help. BusterD (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the idea! It was a week ago, but I believe that I want a successful good article, maybe something like Encanto later on when it is good enough. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I also may start translating the Kashmiri Wikipedia and Hindi Wikipedia pages.
    एन्कैंटो!
    SteelerFan1933 (talk) 19:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I like Encanto; I can see you're playing nice with folks trying to improve it. Good for you. IMHO, it's easier to build your first GA when it's less visible. I like one of the sports figures you've put up. But tell me first, why is Encanto only a C-class? In your opinion, what basic information is missing which would bring it up to B-class? This is not a trick question. What do you see missing? BusterD (talk) 22:32, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe you've avoided my question. I've asked you to identify why the article hasn't been rated "B" class. Is there something missing? How would you know? This is not a test. If you aren't sure, where would you look? If you haven't already, go over to Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Assessment#Film grading scheme. The criteria for each kind of rating are clearly listed under each type. Read that. Then come back and re-read Encanto. What is missing in the article? When was the last time it was rated? BusterD (talk) 16:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, I have zero clue why Encanto isn't B-class. Sorry for avoiding your question. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 18:43, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Encanto should definitely be a B-class article. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Declarative statements don't help us improve pagespace. Let's use the criteria written in the B-class assessment table I linked. BusterD (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • B-class criteria (evaluating Encanto film article):
    • 1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. (yes or no)=
    • 2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. (yes or no)=
    • 3. The article has a defined structure. (yes or no)=
    • 4. The article is reasonably well-written (yes or no)=
    • 5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. (yes or no)=
      • Write your opinion after the equals sign in each numbered criteria. We'll talk when you're done. Don't worry about signing here; it's your page, you can do what you want. BusterD (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC) Gotta walk the dogs. Back in a short time. BusterD (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. (yes or no)=yes
    • 2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. (yes or no)=yes
    • 3. The article has a defined structure. (yes or no)=yes
    • 4. The article is reasonably well-written (yes or no)=yes
    • 5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. (yes or no)=yes
    SteelerFan1933 (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's go over to the Encanto talk page and raise the checklist there. BusterD (talk) 19:58, 14 April 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. New York (state) 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. Christmas Island AryKun, with 1172 points from two featured articles, one good article and a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews.
  3. Kingdom of Scotland 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. United States Panini!, with 549 points from 1 FA, 4 GAs and several other sources.
  7. England 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:

  • Zulu (International Code of Signals) BennyOnTheLoose, with 746 points, a tally built both on snooker and other sports topics, and on more general subjects.
  • Kingdom of Scotland 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]

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of Encanto characters has been accepted[edit]

List of Encanto characters, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as List-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Dwaipayan (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on your new list page. Good for you. Add a brief introduction (lead) section and you are looking good. BusterD (talk) 05:57, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of Encanto characters for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Encanto characters is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Encanto characters until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Aerin17 (t • c) 02:05, 29 August 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) 12:45, 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

  • England 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
  • Kingdom of Scotland 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
  • Zulu (International Code of Signals) BennyOnTheLoose (1238), another cue sports enthusiast, also interested in songs, followed by
  • New York City 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,
  • United Nations 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
  • Chicago PCN02WPS (292), who scored with good articles and DYKs on sporting and other topics and
  • Toronto 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.

  • England 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.
  • United Nations 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.
  • Toronto Z1720 wins the featured article reviewer prize, for 35 FARs in round 4.
  • New York (state) 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.
  • England 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.
  • Kingdom of Scotland 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) 19:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons Greetings[edit]

Merry Christmas! SteelerFan1933 (talk) 15:58, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you celebrate at this time of year, whether it's Christmas or some other festival, I hope you and those close to you have a happy, restful time! Have fun, Donner60 (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)}} [reply]

Donner60 (talk) 07:08, 24 December 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) 14:17, 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.
  • New York (state) Epicgenius was in second place with 789 points; a seasoned WikiCup competitor he specialises in buildings and locations in New York.
  • Germany 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.
  • United States TheJoebro64, another WikiCup newcomer, came next with 600 points gained from two featured articles on video games.
  • Byzantine Empire 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 Berkelland LunaEatsTuna, Thebiguglyalien, Sammi Brie, New England Trainsandotherthings, England Lee Vilenski, Indonesia Juxlos, Unexpectedlydian, Washington (state) SounderBruce, Wales Kosack, BennyOnTheLoose and Chicago 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) 19:37, 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, Chicago PCN02WPS, and London 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

  • New York (state) 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)

WikiCup 2023 November newsletter[edit]

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

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

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

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

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the 2024 WikiCup![edit]

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2024 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close on 31 January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), Epicgenius (talk · contribs · email), and Frostly (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2024 February newsletter[edit]

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

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

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

WikiCup 2024 March newsletter[edit]

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

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

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

Remember that any content promoted after 27 February but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2024 April newsletter[edit]

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

Our current top scorers are as follows:

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

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please read Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2024 May newsletter[edit]

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

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

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

Remember that any content promoted after 28 April but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed during Round 3, which starts on 1 May at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SteelerFan1933&oldid=1221361529"