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)
New Page Reviewing
I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
I notice that you have the "administrator someday" userbox. Reviewing new pages is one of the best ways to develop experience needed to successfully wield the mop. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 10:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
- Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
- Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
- Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
List of Metro Systems
Hi Philroc, I just read your message on my talk page about List of metro systems: you did the right thing reverting my last edit, since the gargantuan removal of content wasn't actually neither a desired action nor some sort of experiment. I was merely editing a record (São Paulo Metro, as my edit summary points out) in the list section, but something went wrong while the "save changes" operation was under way, due a sudden restart of my browser, and therefore things turn out completely screwed up. Again, thanks a lot for your help! 126.96.36.199 (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
The image was already on Wikipedia.
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated
<font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.
You are encouraged to change
[[User:Philroc|<font color="#009933">Phil</font>]][[User talk:Philroc|<font color="#9A0002">roc</font>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Philroc|''My contribs'']]</sup>: PhilrocMy contribs
[[User:Philroc|<span style="color: #009933;">Phil</span>]][[User talk:Philroc|<span style="color: #9A0002">roc</span>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Philroc|''My contribs'']]</sup>: PhilrocMy contribs
How is this libel?
It's national news here in the netherlands https://nos.nl/artikel/2211303-vs-ambassadeur-weigert-uitleg-over-bewering-in-brand-gestoken-politici.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 14:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- @184.108.40.206: Your edit to the linked article made it appear that Hoekstra was lying in an interview. Wikipedia maintains a neutral point of view on political issues such as this and does not attempt to accuse certain politicians of lying. PhilrocMy contribs 14:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Libel in Pete Hoekstra wiki?!
It's in the Dutch National News. See the video. He's refusing to answer questions about his 'inaccurate statement'. How is this libel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 14:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)