User talk:DendroNaja

Angelina Jolie
Hi DendroNaja. Please note your recent edits to Angelina Jolie are being discussed on the BLP noticeboard. I have also requested a quotation from the Morton source to enable other editors to verify the information you added to the article. Please add the quotation requested to the reference or the sentence may be removed. Helen Online  09:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * FYI your edits have been removed, please see archived BLP noticeboard discussion for further details. Helen  Online  06:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Jeffrey Dahmer
Hi, DendroNaja,

Thanks for populating the Dahmer article. As you possibly know, I have been doing so myself as of late and only the trial section needed expanding before external links etc. Good job and thanks.

The pathology etc. added is in the trial section I had yet to add. Do you think it could/should be added into the trial section as it is expanded? Btw as for Palermo's opinion, Judge Gram on the day he imposed sentence made a reference to his opinions as to Dahmer killing out of loathing for his sexuality and destroying that part of him in others and only Palermo had voiced this opinion.

Regards and thanks.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Moved the Pathology section to where you agreed with me it belongs. Hope you have no objections.

PS Added a few Wikilinks to Dr. Park Dietz etc. Removed 4 or 5 multiple links to borderline personality disorder as already in article. --Kieronoldham (talk) 01:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Shall we try again to address the final points left by the reviewer who failed the GA submission for the Dahmer article? Even though it's disappointing it was failed, it was not a total failure and we're obviously close. Just need a few more references in the Sinthasomphone section and maybe someone to read The Shrine of Jeffrey Dahmer or at least verify the links' accuracy. (The transcribed book can be found online.).--Kieronoldham (talk) 08:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jeffrey Dahmer
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jeffrey Dahmer you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ritchie333 -- 16:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

My edits on the black mamba and venomous snakes articles.
Hi! Sorry to disturb.

I did some changes on these pages where you have recently worked on. Basically, I agree with the point you added on the natural predators section of the black mamba article but the problem is the lack of references. And I'm highly doubtful that crocodiles only prey on "very young" mambas since they're capable to overwhelm not just these. It'll be great if verifiable sources are added. Moreover, I replaced tiger snake bites with king cobra ones for elaborating the "time span towards death after envenomation" on the venomous snake page, since the prior ones usually cause death in 6-24 hours and that 30 minute fatality was a result of allergy only (as suggested by the own source provided). Additional citations were done to support the claim of king cobra bites being among the most rapid-fatal if untreated.

I'm also a devotee of herpetology, especially venomous snakes. Hope to learn from your edits!

Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.176.234.103 (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Messages were left on my talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.176.234.103 (talk) 04:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Contribution reproduced
Thanks for your contribution on the article of snakebite! This is to inform you that your edit has been used on another page.

Since I'm just a long time reader of articles about Chinese venomous species (in particular) without any skill of adding elegant wordings, I copied the information regarding the hyperbole of king cobra's temperament and posted it onto the behaviour section of the corresponding page. You may want to have a look on that.

Thanks again for your time and output!

Biomedicinal (Contact) 16:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Besides the examples previously listed, you may consider to add the Bothrops asper (terciopelo) which exhibits strong aggressiveness and agility when disturbed, although its venom isn't considered deadly based on the clinical mortality rate. Moreover, large fangs & venom yields & striking range, serious tissue necrosis capably caused, and proximity to human beings add to its danger which is, in my opinion, not lower than Gabon and Puff adders.


 * Biomedicinal (Contact) 16:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi again! I read your work and do appreciate your output! See my talk page if you have time.

Biomedicinal (Contact) 16:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jeffrey Dahmer
The article Jeffrey Dahmer you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Jeffrey Dahmer 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. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ritchie333 -- 08:42, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Black mamba as the deadliest snake
Hello! I just finished reading your final expansion on the snakebite page and that's a great job!

Here, I have a problem regarding the article of the black mamba where I spotted that the inclusion of Austin Stevens as one of the herpetologists who agree that the black mamba is the deadliest snake was previously removed by a user with the reason of the lack of a supportive reference. However, Austin Stevens does consider the black mamba as the deadliest venomous snake in the world with unpredictable striking behaviour and abilities as mentioned in his "in search of the black mamba" documentary. I think we should add his name there since this is a fact but I'm not sure if wikipedia allows citation of a video as a source, or do you have any other source so that this can be proven true?


 * Biomedicinal (Contact) 16:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Vipers VS Elapids for defensive aggression
Hello, snakeman!

I got a question here. Someone said in a forum that vipers are generally more aggressive than elapids since they're more likely to stand for their ground, unlike the latter ones which usually display defensive postures and flee if possible (even mambas, esatern browns or taipans). But I'm really not sure if this is the case as I only see few species of venomous snakes personally so can't conclude it in a professional way. I think vipers are mostly ambush predators with a lower metabolic rate thus higher reluctance of moving, and they do give warnings first despite the inconspicuous nature. However, I do admit that cobras often deliver feigned bites, unlike, say, the Brown spotted pit viper or Russell's viper here. Again yet, I'd sincerely like to know your view since you're a professional of this field. Just the general trend not a single exception of this two types of front-fanged snakes. Thanks!

Biomedicinal (Contact) 16:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014
Hi, if you haven't already, you should consider signing up for WikiCup 2014. Cheers, --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 02:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hope you have some fun participating in the WikiCup --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 04:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Further BLP issues
DendroNaja, a short time ago, I had blocked you for BLP violations regarding a living person (Angelina Jolie), including speculation about her. As part of your unblock request, you agreed to avoid such edits in the future. Indeed, you stated you would avoid editing in regards to living persons altogether, though you are not required to go that far. You are, however, required to avoid making gossip-style speculations about living persons, including on talk and user talk pages. I have received several reports that you are doing the very same thing again, and indeed about the same person. I will listen to what you have to say, but at this point I do not see a good reason not to reinstate the block. If you continue editing without responding here, I will do so. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Writing "...which is why I am not going to edit any such article. I am only making suggestions..." suggests DendroNaja does not fully understand our BLP policy. DendroNaja, you cannot make such suggestions for BLP's on talk pages without providing reliable sources that specifically mention your suggestions.
 * The literature indicates subject x is a psychopath - Not acceptable
 * The NY Times reported on a recently released clinical diagnosis indicating subject x is a psychopath (link) - Acceptable
 * -- Neil N  talk to me  15:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * NeilN has it exactly correct here. Your own speculation on some person's mental state or condition has no place on Wikipedia, including talk pages. Now, if you do have a good source (not a gossip blog or site, but a real, highly reliable source) and that source states that someone has been diagnosed with a given condition by a qualified professional, and you'd like to suggest utilizing that source in the article, that's a different story. But the type of thing you're doing is exactly what WP:BLPTALK is written to prohibit. Your unreferenced speculations as to a person's medical condition, mental or otherwise, are neither relevant nor appropriate. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Black mamba
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Black mamba you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of HueSatLum -- 16:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Good luck on this one! I'm happy to see this up for GA. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The article in its current state is satisfactory, but requires many improvements. Most problems are related to sources which aren't of high quality. Accuracy of information on this species is generally good, but there still are some issues that I am going to tackle. The problem is this species of snake has a sort of mythical status which brings all sorts of anonymous and even registered editors to write some myths, half-truths and exaggerations regarding aspects of this snakes size, behavior and venom lethality as if they were facts. This is common to many species of animals which get mythical attributes attached to them. We see it done with species like tigers, lions, elephants, etc. As an individual who has been fascinated and studied herpetology for much of my life, I can't help but see problems when reading many of the articles on venomous snakes on Wikipedia. Most are generally okay, but problems with poor sources and inaccurate information are just too much in certain articles. The black mamba article is not too bad, but requires some serious work to make it an article which can be looked upon as a reliable source of information on this amazing species of snake. --DendroNaja (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you mean that you don't think it's ready for GA? If so, you might consider withdrawing the nomination until you've had a chance to work on it. Normally GA nominations are intended for work that the nominator already believes is at GA level. In any case, good luck! -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe this article can easily achieve GA level status if the right people work on it (eg, editors who have strong biology background, especially those whose area of study happens to be herpetology - like myself). I nominated it for GA status because I can turn this article into one, but it will take some time unless I get some assistance from another editor. It may take up anywhere from one week to ten days for this article to be in pristine shape (my opinion and estimation). This is my field of study, so I will work hard to write an article which is factual, reliable and I'll be weeding out all sources which aren't of high-quality. Everything will be scholarly - peer-reviewed journal work, textbook material and the like. Of all the articles on venomous snakes, with exception to a select few (Bitis gabonica), Daboia russelli, etc), this article is the one which is ready to be given GA level status, after some improvements. I will not let this article fail. --DendroNaja (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * PS..I also think this article should be protected. It is regularly used by anonymous and registered editors alike, to add their own opinions to the article as if they were facts or you'll get those who violate the WP:OR policy. Chronic vandalism is also an issue. So I believe that this should be protected, at least during this GA nomination period ofreview. --DendroNaja (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

December 2013
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to Black mamba does not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history.

The edit summary appears in:
 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision differences
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list and
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! ''You've been doing many good edits, but please explain them in the edit summary. It reduces the workload of others who are watching the page. A good edit summary means we don't need to check the edit.'' Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=585167544 your edit] to Naja may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "<>"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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page]. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Inland taipan
I have semiprotected the page Inland taipan as per your request, but I only did it for one day. What I expect is that you will initiate a discussion on the talk page, where you discuss the content that is under dispute (the mouse thing is what it looks like). Note that it looks like you are in violation of the three revert rule, as the IPs edits are not blatant vandalism. Take this as a warning not to revert that content again or you may be blocked for it. Also be mindful of what you call vandalism. I think you are greatly exaggerating the need for semiprotection on this page, the only reason I semiprotected it is so the IP would have to discuss it on the talk page rather than simply reverting any changes, I expect you to do that as well. Thank you, --kelapstick(bainuu) 13:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Black mamba, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British (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) 08:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Black mamba
The article Black mamba you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Black mamba for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of HueSatLum -- 01:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2014 WikiCup!
Hello DendroNaja, and welcome to the 2014 WikiCup! Your submission page can be found here. The competition will begin at midnight tonight (UTC). There have been a few small changes from last year; the rules can be read in full at WikiCup/Scoring, and the page also includes a summary of changes. One important rule to remember is that only content on which you have completed significant work, and nominated, in 2014 is eligible for points in the competition- the judges will be checking! As ever, this year's competition includes some younger editors. If you are a younger editor, you are certainly welcome, but we have written an advice page at WikiCup/Advice for younger editors for you. Please do take a look. 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! , and  17:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Forest cobra
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Forest cobra you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Reid,iain james -- 16:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Forest cobra
The article Forest cobra you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Forest cobra 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. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Reid,iain james -- 23:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I just never realized that and the article was getting lower and lower on the GA standards. This might go against procedure, but if I get comments back on Wikipedia Talk:Good articles, I might be able to continue. Iainstein (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

While I'm waiting, could you try to fix all the comments. Iainstein (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

No comments, renominate it and i'll review it. Sorry. Iainstein (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, will do after I deal with an IP user who is edit warring and harassing me. --DendroNaja (talk) 15:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Many-banded krait
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Many-banded krait you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Reid,iain james -- 17:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Black Mamba homeopathy section
Hi, I just wanted to explain why I removed the homeopathy section from the Black mamba article as there are a few reasons. First is that it gives undue weight to the information; it was a very large section which went into great detail as to how these treatments were allegedly meant to work. Second, the sources used (largely the Homoeopathic Medical Publishers journal) are unreliable, and we must be careful when dealing with fringe theories. More importantly, the content read as medical advice which is strictly prohibited on Wikipedia. You may be right in saying that it is an important aspect to consider for the article, and that may be the case, but it should reflect what reliable sources have to say, and if there is no reliable source coverage, it isn't suitable for the article at all.

Besides this I'm slightly concerned about the edit as you added it just two days after the article achieved GA status, as though to pass this information off as genuine due to being part of a Good Article. That's my own speculation however, and I'm happy to assume good faith if you didn't intend for that. Samwalton9 (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I see how it comes off as medical advice, so I will not argue or debate the deletion. Like I told another editor, it was to demonstrate how man relates to the mamba. I tried to show a spectrum of relation from fear to use as a remedy. But if you look at my sandbox, you'll see I had been preparing it way before it got to GA status. I just had more important things to work on. --DendroNaja (talk) 12:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Forest cobra
The article Forest cobra you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Forest cobra for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Reid,iain james -- 23:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Please start fixing my comments. If you do not make large changes accordingly in the next 3 days I will have to fail the article because it has been well over a week since the article was last edited. Iainstein (talk) 14:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Many-banded krait
The article Many-banded krait you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Many-banded krait for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Reid,iain james -- 03:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Portal:Venomous Snakes


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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, you can place a request here. DendroNaja (talk) 07:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup/History/2014/Submissions/DendroNaja
Hi there; I'm afraid I've had to remove Talk:Methamphetamine/GA2 from your submission page, as this seems to be a shorter, "rubber-stamp" pass and so is not eligible for WikiCup points. This is not a reflection of the quality of the review, which may have been completely appropriate for the article. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page. Thanks, J Milburn (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 January newsletter
The 2014 WikiCup is off to a flying start, with, at time of writing, 138 participants. The is the largest number of participants we have seen since 2010. If you are yet to join the competition, don't worry- the judges have agreed to keep the signups open for a few more days. By a wide margin, our current leader is newcomer, whose set of 14 featured pictures, the first FPs of the competition, was worth 490 points. Here are some more noteworthy scorers:


 * and were the first people to score, for the good article Tropical Storm Bret (1981) and its good article review respectively. 12george1 was also the first person to score in 2012 and 2013.
 * scored the first ITN points for 2014 North American polar vortex.
 * scored points for an early good topic, finishing off Featured topics/She Wolf.
 * scored the first bonus points of the competition, for his work on Typhoon Vera.
 * has scored the highest number of bonus points for a single article, for the high-importance Jurassic Park (film).

Featured articles, featured lists, featured topics and featured portals are yet to play a part in the competition. The judges have removed a number of submissions which were deemed ineligible. Typically, we aim to see work on a project, followed by a nomination, followed by promotion, this year. We apologise for any disappointment caused by our strict enforcement this year; we're aiming to keep the competition as fair as possible.

Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may be interested to take part in The Core Contest; unlike the WikiCup, The Core Contest is not about audited content, but, like the WikiCup, it is about article improvement; specifically, The Core Contest is about contribution to some of Wikipedia's most important article. Of course, any work done for The Core Contest, if it leads to a DYK, GA or FA, can earn WikiCup 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 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 WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 19:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014
Please do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 February newsletter
And so ends the most competitive first round we have ever seen, with 38 points required to qualify for round 2. Last year, 19 points secured a place; before that, 11 (2012) or 8 (2011) were enough. This is both a blessing and a curse. While it shows the vigourous good health of the competition, it also means that we have already lost many worthy competitors. Our top three scorers were:


 * , a WikiCup newcomer whose high-quality scans of rare banknotes represent an unusual, interesting and valuable contribution to Wikipedia. Most of Godot's points this round have come from a large set of pictures used in Treasury Note (1890–91).
 * , a WikiCup veteran and a finalist last year, Adam is also a featured picture specialist, focusing on the restoration of historical images. This month's promotions have included a carefully restored set of artist William Russell Flint's work.
 * , another WikiCup newcomer. WikiRedactor has claimed points for good article reviews and good articles relating to pop music, many of which were awarded bonus points. Articles include Sky Ferreira, Hannah Montana 2: Meet Miley Cyrus and "Wrecking Ball" (Miley Cyrus song).

Other competitors of note include:


 * , who helped take Thirty Flights of Loving through good article candidates and featured article candidates, claiming the first first featured article of the competition.
 * , who claimed the first featured list of the competition with Natalia Kills discography.
 * , who takes the title of the contributor awarded the highest bonus point multiplier (resulting in the highest scoring article) of the competition so far. Her high-importance salamander, now a good article, scored 108 points.

After such a competitive first round, expect the second round to also be fiercely fought. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2, but please do not update your submission page until March (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 equally.

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 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 WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 00:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Forest cobra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Terrestrial (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) 09:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Hurricane Irene
Please do not nominate articles that clearly isn't ready for GA status and you have done no work with it like you done with Hurricane Irene. There is still cleanup tags with the article, and it's very unlikely you will have anything to do with fixing the content, as looking at some of the warnings above. Thanks Secret account 17:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=598106965 your edit] to Western green mamba 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * injection|IV]] for this species is 0.79 mg/kg and 0.71 mg/kg, respectively  Christensen and Anderson (1967). Another experimental IV LD50 toxicity

Your GA nomination of Forest cobra
The article Forest cobra you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Forest cobra for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Reid,iain james -- 23:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Western green mamba
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Western green mamba you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Reid,iain james -- 02:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Forest cobra
Hi, congratulations on the recent GA. I have nominated it for Did you know, which will hopefully result in the article appearing on the main page. The link is Template:Did you know nominations/Forest cobra. Thanks, Mat  ty. 007 19:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eastern green mamba, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scottish (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) 08:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

GA nomination of Bromazepam
Hello there. I am now in the process of reviewing Bromazepam and should be done within the next few days.AioftheStorm (talk) 05:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bromazepam
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bromazepam you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AioftheStorm -- 18:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Forest cobra
The DYK project (nominate) 01:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Your Map requests at Map Workshop
Hello. Your map requests on Graphics Lab/Map workshop are taking a lot of space. It makes it difficult for mappers to navigate. Since all your requests are related to each other ("Naja "), please tie them up in one single request.Here's how you tie similar requests in one grand request: Graphics Lab/Map workshop. Anyone interested in helping will easily reach you. Thanks. --Fasi100 (talk) 13:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Western green mamba
The article Western green mamba you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Western green mamba for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Reid,iain james -- 13:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have also nominated this for DYK, here. Please feel free to suggest alts, as your superior knowledge of the subject will likely be able to find a better hook. Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  18:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Replied on my talk. Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  15:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Naja-mossambica map
Please check Graphics_Lab/Map_workshop for a first version and give me feedback. thanks. --DLommes (talk) 18:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I did all the other african snake maps. Please tell me which you like, and which need further work. THanks. --DLommes (talk) 19:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I will do the Naja Naja now. Please tell me if the African maps are all okay. I will mark them as resolved then. Best. --DLommes (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The Naja naja is done. Again, please tell me exactly which are okay, and which need work (OR "all are okay") so that i can mark them as Resolved. Thanks.--DLommes (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You can also mark them using the tag in the section.--DLommes (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And you get a Nigricollis for free. Cheers! --DLommes (talk) 01:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much, I like them all! -- Dendro†Naja Talk to me!  01:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I did all your other snakes. In most cases I also added them to the article in question. With Naja kaouthia there is a distribution problem, though. Please re-check all, with a special eye on Naja kaouthia. Contact me for any changes to the images.DLommes (talk) 11:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Update kaouthia and added to the article. Cheers.DLommes (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Taxonomy
Sorry DendroNaja, I am not experienced enough with editing the taxobox template like that to make the first edit you requested. If I were you, I you make the request on User talk:Dinoguy2's page, as from what I can tell, he designed the original taxobox. Sorry. IJReid (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Daboia
Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Map_workshop#Daboia --DLommes (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

LD50
Why did you remove a link I added to this term in the introduction at Black mamba? It is not explained at all and most people do not know what it means. Srnec (talk) 20:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 March newsletter
A quick update as we are half way through round two of this year's competition. WikiCup newcomer (Pool E) leads, having produced a massive set of featured pictures for Silver certificate (United States), an article also brought to featured list status. Former finalist (Pool G) is in second, which he owes mostly to his work with historical images, including a number of images from Urania's Mirror, an article also brought to good status. 2010 champion (Pool C) is third overall, thanks to contributions relating to naval history, including the newly featured Japanese battleship Nagato. , who currently leads Pool A and is sixth overall, takes the title for the highest scoring individual article of the competition so far, with the top importance featured article Ian Smith.

With 26 people having already scored over 100 points, it is likely that well over 100 points will be needed to secure a place in round 3. Recent years have required 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) and 100 (2010). Remember that only 64 will progress to round 3 at the end of April. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page; if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally. 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 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 WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 22:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup error
Hi there- this is just a quick note to apologise for a small but important mistake in the last WikiCup newsletter; it is not 64 users who will progress to the next round, but 32. J Milburn (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bromazepam
The article Bromazepam you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Bromazepam 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. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AioftheStorm -- 02:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Eastern green mamba
With regard to your 16:19, 16 March 2014 edit of Eastern green mamba you left an unfinished trailing sentence at the end. I went ahead and removed it for you, but hopefully you have the full version someplace and might like to put it up? Am interested to learn more about the etymology of "green mamba". Thanks! Monban (talk) 02:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Impala
slakr \ talk / 09:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Western green mamba
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 14:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eastern green mamba
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Eastern green mamba you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Reid,iain james -- Reid,iain james (talk) 04:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eastern green mamba, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Natal (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) 08:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eastern green mamba
The article Eastern green mamba you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Eastern green mamba for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Reid,iain james -- Reid,iain james (talk) 23:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

CVUA Assignments
Hi Dendro Naja its Jeffrd10. First of all I would like to say that I'm quite honored that you chose me as your instructor for the CVUA. That being said you are my first student so this will be a learning experience for both of us. If at any point you want to chat with me feal free to use wikipedia IRC channels. Usually I'll be on #wikipedia-en between 12:00-20:00 GMT and my username is Wikipeden. Now without further ado your first few assignments are on your new CVUA page User talk:DendroNaja/CVUA. Good luck and happy editing.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 12:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup/History/2014/Submissions/DendroNaja
Hi DendroNaja- I'm afraid I've had to remove impala from your submission page. First of all, articles eligible for DYK only because they have been recently promoted to GA status are not eligible for WikiCup points, and, secondly, because "drive-by" nominations (that is, nominations of articles to which you have not substantially contributed) are not eligible for points. For more information, please see WikiCup/Scoring, and if you have any questions, you're welcome to contact me on my talk page or leave a question on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup. Thanks, J Milburn (talk) 16:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Hook
Hi again, just on your Eastern green mamba hook, have you considered something about the fact is has the most "rapid-acting snake venom toxin known" (more exciting for people who have minute knowledge of snakes such as me)? Anyway, if you need any help with the nom let me know. Thanks, Mat  ty. 007 18:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Bianca Del Rio
Hi, by undoing my revert on that page you left again references messed up, so I repaired them again manually. Optimale Gu 09:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I have reported your fraudulent editing in the black mamba article, (same ip editor)79.178.6.4 (talk) 16:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 April newsletter
Round 3 of the 2014 WikiCup has just begun; 32 competitors remain. Pool G's was Round 2's highest scorer, with a large number of featured picture credits. In March/April, he restored star charts from Urania's Mirror, lithographs of various warships (such as SMS Gefion) and assorted other historical media. Second overall was Pool E's, whose featured list Silver certificate (United States) contains dozens of scans of banknotes recently promoted to featured picture status. Third was Pool G's who has produced a large number of good articles, many, including Falkner Island, on Connecticut-related topics. Other successful participants included, who saw three articles (including the top-importance Ian Smith) through featured article candidacies, and , who saw three lists (including the beautifully-illustrated list of plantations in West Virginia) through featured list candidacies. High-importance good articles promoted this round include narwhal from, tiger from and The Lion King from. We also saw our first featured topic points of the competition, awarded to and  for their work on the Sega Genesis topic. No points have been claimed so far for good topics or featured portals.

192 was our lowest qualifying score, again showing that this WikiCup is the most competitive ever. In previous years, 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) or 100 (2010) secured a place in Round 3. Pool H was the strongest performer, with all but one of its members advancing, while only the two highest scorers in Pools G and F advanced. At the end of June, 16 users will advance into the semi-finals. 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 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 WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 17:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Appeal
Considering your past despicable engagement with me, it is an honor to pay my dues:

You have some nerve requesting an unblock. your old account? how about Six old accounts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/VeronicaPR/Archive You didn't only violate multiple account policy repeatedly but "You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for long-standing abuse of editing privileges, including insidious vandalism, misrepresentation of references, and abusing multiple accounts." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:VeronicaPR

The damage and anguish you have spread with your fraudulent and deliberately misrepresenting citations and gaming the system, has been a constant theme in every reincarnation. including your current account https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive838#Disruptive.2C_authoritarian_editor_in_Snake_articles

In which even other editors, not related to that ANI subject article, noted your same behaviour on a different article "I can vouch for the fraudulent citations by this user, we had a similar incident on Angelina Jolie, which eventually earned them an indefinite block (which was subsequently removed). HelenOnline ".

Enjoy Siberia my friend, you deserve it in spades79.182.17.127 (talk) 00:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cape cobra
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cape cobra you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Black mamba
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Black mamba, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/accounts/Dendroaspis_polylepis/ http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/177584/0 and many other sources - see article talk, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Black mamba and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Black mamba, in your email. See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Black mamba with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Black mamba. See Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at [ this temporary page]. Leave a note at Talk:Black mamba saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

More copyright problems
Your major text additions to Benzodiazepine misuse have been removed in accordance with Copyrights and Copyright violations. The first phrase I looked at was a direct match to content in. Given that your edit here substantially reproduced content directly from Hildebrand and Ruiter's paper, I am opening a contributor copyright investigation to invite review of your other contributions for copyright issues.

Except for brief and clearly marked quotations, Wikipedia cannot accept copied content unless the source is demonstrably public domain or compatibly licensed, and in those cases proper attribution must be provided to avoid plagiarism and to meet any necessary license conditions.

By policy, content that violations any copyrights must be deleted. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cape cobra
The article Cape cobra you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Cape cobra 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. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 June newsletter
After an extremely close race, Round 3 is over. 244 points secured a place in Round 4, which is comparable to previous years- 321 was required in 2013, while 243 points were needed in 2012. Pool C's was the round's highest scorer, mostly due to a 32 featured pictures, including both scans and photographs. Also from Pool C, finished second overall, claiming three featured articles, including the high-importance Grus (constellation). Third place was Pool B's, whose contributions included featured articles Russian battleship Poltava (1894) and Russian battleship Peresvet. Pool C saw the highest number of participants advance, with six out of eight making it to the next round.

The round saw this year's first featured portal, with taking Portal:Literature to featured status. The round also saw the first good topic points, thanks to and the 2013 Atlantic hurricane season. This means that all content types have been claimed this year. Other contributions of note this round include a featured topic on Maya Angelou's autobiographies from, a good article on the noted Czech footballer Tomáš Rosický from and a now-featured video game screenshot, freely released due to the efforts of.

The judges would like to remind participants to update submission pages promptly. This means that content can be checked, and allows those following the competition (including those participating) to keep track of scores effectively. This round has seen discussion about various aspects of the WikiCup's rules and procedures. Those interested in the competition can be assured that formal discussions about how next year's competition will work will be opened shortly, and all are welcome to voice their views then. 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 WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. and 18:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 August newsletter
The final of the 2014 WikiCup begins in a few short minutes! Our eight finalists are listed below, along with their placement in Round 4:


 * , a WikiCup newcomer, finished top of Pool A and was the round's highest scorer. Godot is a featured picture specialist, claiming large numbers of points due to high-quality scans of historical documents, especially banknotes.
 * 1) is a WikiCup veteran, having been a finalist every year since 2010. In the semi-final, he was Pool B's highest scorer. Cas's points primarily come from articles on the natural sciences.
 * 2) was Pool A's runner-up. Czar's points come mostly from content related to independent video games, including both articles and topics.
 * 3) was Pool B's runner-up. Another featured picture specialist, many of Adam's points come from the restoration of historical media. He has been a WikiCup finalist twice before.
 * 4) won the WikiCup in 2012 and 2013, and enters this final as the first wildcard. She focuses on biology-related articles, and has worked on several high-importance articles.
 * 5) is the second wildcard. George's points come primarily from meteorology-related articles. This year and last year, George was the first person in the competition to score.
 * , the third wildcard, was the 2010 champion and a finalist last year. His writes mostly on military history, especially naval history.
 * , the fourth and final wildcard, has participated in previous WikiCups, but not reached any finals. Bloom's points are mostly thanks to did you knows, featured lists and good articles related to sport and national symbols.

We say goodbye to this year's semi-finalists. ,, , , , and  have all performed well to reach this stage of the competition, and we hope they will all be joining us again next year.

There are two upcoming competitions unrelated to the WikiCup which may be of interest to those who receive this newsletter. The Stub Contest will run through September, and revolves around expanding stub articles, especially high-importance or old stubs. In addition, a proposal has been made for a new competition, the GA Cup, which the organisers plan to run next year. This competition is based on the WikiCup and aims to reduce the good article review backlog.

There is now a thread for brainstorming on how next year's WikiCup competition should work. Please come along and share your thoughts- What works? What doesn't work? What needs changing? Signups for next year's competition will be open soon; we will be in touch. If, at this stage of the competition, you are keen to help the with the WikiCup, please do what you can to participate in review processes. Our finalists will find things much easier if the backlogs at good article candidates, featured article candidates, featured picture candidates and the rest are kept at a minimum. As ever, 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 WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. and 22:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 September newsletter
In one month's time, we will know our WikiCup 2014 champion. Newcomer has taken a strong lead with a featured list (historical coats of arms of the U.S. states from 1876) and a raft of featured pictures. Reigning champion is in second place with a number of high-importance biology articles, including new FA Isopoda and new GA least weasel. , who is in his fifth WikiCup final, is in third, with featured articles Pictor and Epacris impressa.

Signups for the 2015 WikiCup are open. All Wikipedians, new and experienced, are warmly invited to sign up for the competition. Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may also like to sign up for the GA Cup, a new WikiCup-inspired competition which revolves around completing good article reviews. As ever, 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 WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. and 22:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014: The results
The 2014 WikiCup champion is, who flew the flag of the Smithsonian Institution. This was Godot13's first WikiCup competition and, over the 10 months of the competition, he has produced (among other contributions) two featured lists and an incredible 292 featured pictures, including architectural photographs and scans of historical documents. , 2012 and 2013 WikiCup champion, came in second, having written a large number of biology-related articles. , WikiCup finalist every year since 2010, finished in third.

A full list of our prize-winners follows:


 * wins the prize for first place and the FP prize for 181 featured pictures in the final round.
 * wins the prize for second place and the DYK prize for 65 did you knows in the final round.
 * wins the prize for third place and the FA prize for four featured articles in the final round.
 * wins the prize for fourth place
 * wins a final 8 prize.
 * wins a final 8 prize.
 * wins a final 8 prize.
 * wins the GA prize for 27 good articles in round 2 and the review prize for 28 good article reviews in round 1.
 * wins the FL prize for three featured lists in round 2.
 * wins the FPo prize his work on featured portals.
 * wins the topic prize for a nine-article featured topic in round 3.
 * wins the news prize for 28 in the news articles in round 3.

Congratulations to everyone who has been successful in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and a particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have participated this year. We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, and all are welcome to participate. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2014 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 WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. and 22:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 is just around the corner...
Hello everyone, and may we wish you all a happy holiday season. As you will probably already know, the 2015 WikiCup begins in the new year; there is still time to sign up. We have a few important announcements concerning the future of the WikiCup.


 * We would like to announce that Josh (J Milburn) and Ed (The ed17), who have been WikiCup judges since 2009 and 2010 respectively, are stepping down. This decision has been made for a number of reasons, but the main one is time. Both Josh and Ed have found that, over the previous year, they have been unable to devote the time necessary to the WikiCup, and it is not likely that they will be able to do this in the near future. Furthermore, new people at the helm can only help to invigorate the WikiCup and keep it dynamic. Josh and Ed will still be around, and will likely be participating in the Cup this following year as competitors, which is where both started out.
 * In a similar vein, we hope you will all join us in welcoming Jason (Sturmvogel 66) and Christine (Figureskatingfan), who are joining Brian (Miyagawa) to form the 2015 WikiCup judging team. Jason is a WikiCup veteran, having won in 2010 and finishing in fifth this year. Christine has participated in two WikiCups, reaching the semi-finals in both, and is responsible for the GA Cup, which she now co-runs.
 * The discussions/polls concerning the next competition's rules will be closed soon, and rules changes will be made clear on WikiCup/Scoring and talk pages. While it may be impossible to please everyone, the judges will make every effort to ensure that the new rules are both fair and in the best interests of the competition, which is, first and foremost, about improving Wikipedia.

If you have any questions or concerns, the judges can be reached on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, on their talk pages, or by email. We hope you will all join us in trying to make the 2015 WikiCup the most productive and enjoyable yet. You are receiving this message because you are listed on WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk), The ed17 (talk), Miyagawa (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Figureskatingfan (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 launch newsletter
Round one of the 2015 WikiCup has begun! So far we've had around 80 signups, which close on February 5. If you have not already signed up and want to do so, then you can add your name here. There have been changes to to several of the points scores for various categories, and the addition of Peer Reviews for the first time. These will work in the same manner as Good Article Reviews, and all of the changes are summarised here.

Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round, and one of the new changes this year is that all scores must be claimed within two weeks of an article's promotion or appearance, so don't forget to add them to your submissions pages! 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 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 are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! , and

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter
That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. 64 competitors made it into this round, and are now broken into eight groups of eight. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups. Round 1 saw some interesting work on some very important articles, with the round leader owing most of his 622 points scored to a Featured Article on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, as had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge,  led round 1 with 601 points in 2013.

In addition to Freikorp's work, some other important articles and pictures were improved during round one, here's a snapshot of a few of them:
 * took Bumblebee, a level-4 vital article, to Good Article;
 * worked-up the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 article, also to Good Article status;
 * developed an extremely timely article to Good Article, taking Magna Carta there some 800 years after it was first sealed;
 * And last but not least, worked up a number of Featured Pictures during round 1, including the 1948 one Deutsche Mark (pictured right), receiving the maximum bonus due to the number of Wikis that the related article appears in.

You may also wish to know that The Core Contest is running through the month of March. Head there for further details - they even have actual prizes!

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 WikiCup/Reviews. 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 WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. , and

Thanks for your assistance! Miyagawa (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiCup.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter
That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. 64 competitors made it into this round, and are now broken into eight groups of eight. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups. Round 1 saw some interesting work on some very important articles, with the round leader owing most of his 622 points scored to a Featured Article on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, as had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge,  led round 1 with 601 points in 2013.

In addition to Freikorp's work, some other important articles and pictures were improved during round one, here's a snapshot of a few of them:
 * took Bumblebee, a level-4 vital article, to Good Article;
 * worked-up the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 article, also to Good Article status;
 * developed an extremely timely article to Good Article, taking Magna Carta there some 800 years after it was first sealed;
 * And last but not least, worked up a number of Featured Pictures during round 1, including the 1948 one Deutsche Mark (pictured right), receiving the maximum bonus due to the number of Wikis that the related article appears in.

You may also wish to know that The Core Contest is running through the month of March. Head there for further details - they even have actual prizes!

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 WikiCup/Reviews. 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 WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. , and

Thanks for your assistance! Miyagawa (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiCup.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 May newsletter
The second round one has all wrapped up, and round three has now begun! Congratulations to the 34 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our second round. Leading the way overall was in Group B with a total of 777 points for a variety of contributions including Good Articles on Corona Borealis and Microscopium - both of which received the maximum bonus. Special credit must be given to a number of high importance articles improved during the second round.
 * was one of several users who worked on improving Ulysses S. Grant. Remember, you do not need to work on an article on your own - as long as each person has completed significant work on the article during 2015, multiple competitors can claim the same article.
 * took Dragonfly to Good Article for a 3x bonus - and if that wasn't enough, they also took Damselfly there as well for a 2x bonus.
 * worked up Alexander Hamilton to Good Article for the maximum bonus. Hamilton was one of the founding fathers of the United States and is a level 4 vital article.

The points varied across groups, with the lowest score required to gain automatic qualification was 68 in Group A - meanwhile the second place score in Group H was 404, which would have been high enough to win all but one of the other Groups! As well as the top two of each group automatically going through to the third round, a minimum score of 55 was required for a wildcard competitor to go through. We had a three-way tie at 55 points and all three have qualified for the next round, in the spirit of fairness. The third round ends on June 28, with the top two in each group progressing automatically while the remaining 16 highest scorers across all four groups go through as wildcards. Good luck to all competitors for the third round! , and  16:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 September newsletter
The finals for the 2015 Wikicup has now begun! Congrats to the 8 contestants who have survived to the finals, and well done and thanks to everyone who took part in rounds 3 and 4.

In round 3, we had a three-way tie for qualification among the wildcard contestants, so we had 34 competitors. The leader was by far in Group B, who earned 1496 points. Although 913 of these points were bonus points, he submitted 15 articles in the DYK category. Second place overall was at 864 points, who although submitted just 2 FAs for 400 points, earned double that amount for those articles in bonus points. Everyone who moved forward to Round 4 earned at least 100 points.

The scores required to move onto the semifinals were impressive; the lowest scorer to move onto the finals was 407, making this year's Wikicup as competitive as it's always been. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:


 * , who is competing in his sixth consecutive Wikicup final, again finished the round in first place, with an impressive 1666 points in Pool B. Casliber writes about the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy.  A large bulk of his points this round were bonus points.
 * , second place both in Pool B and overall, earned the bulk of his points with FPs, mostly depicting currency.
 * , first in Pool A, came in third. His specialty is natural science articles; in Round 4, he mostly submitted articles about insects and botany.  Five out of the six of the GAs he submitted were level-4 vital articles.
 * , second in Pool A, took fourth overall. He tends to focus on articles about cricket and military history, specifically the 1640s First English Civil War.
 * , from Pool A, was our highest-scoring wildcard. West Virginia tends to focus on articles about the history of (what for it!) the U.S. state of West Virginia.
 * , from Pool A, likes to work on articles about British geography and places. Most of his points this round were earned from two impressive accomplishments: a GT about Scheduled monuments in Somerset and a FT about English Heritage properties in Somerset.
 * , from Pool B, came in seventh overall. RO earned the majority of her points from GARs and PRs, many of which were earned in the final hours of the round.
 * , also from Pool B, who was competing with RO for the final two spots in the final hours, takes the race for most GARs and PRs—48.

The intense competition between RO and Calvin999 will continue into the finals. They're both eligible for the Newcomers Trophy, given for the first time in the Wikicup; whoever makes the most points will win it.

Good luck to the finalists; the judges are sure that the competition will be fierce!

, and  11:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits to Jeffrey Dahmer article
Hi, DendroNaja. Just to keep you in the loop, another editor has made extensive reverts and edits to the diagnoses etc. of the Jeffrey Dahmer article which you expanded two years ago. You were the individual who largely populated these sections when we were working almost in tandem to bring the article to the status it is currently at (and I still think it deserves GA status).

Anyhow, this user has cited - at least in the bibliography and further reading sections - alternate literature as his/her justification for adjusting and extensively removing the material you added with citations. One edit was explained thus:

"It is full of inaccuracies, is poorly sourced, and much of it seems to be the editor's opinion."

The main reason I am informing yourself as opposed to tackling this myself is that, although I may be able to challenge a few edits, you are the individual who owns/ has read the sources you used, which go into greater depth than the literature I own. Maybe the literature the editor in question is using (assuming they've also read the sources you have used) simply does not go in depth to the degree you have used. I'd welcome an explanation as to just how he/she believes you are "wrong". If I can help in areas, feel free to ask. Regards--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015: The results
WikiCup 2015 is now in the books! Congrats to our finalists and winners, and to everyone who took part in this year's competition.

This year's results were an exact replica of last year's competition. For the second year in a row, the 2015 WikiCup champion is. All of his points were earned for an impressive 253 featured pictures and their associated bonus points (5060 and 1695, respectively). His entries constituted scans of currency from all over the world and scans of medallions awarded to participants of the U.S. Space program. came in second place; she earned by far the most bonus points (4082), for 4 featured articles, 15 good articles, and 147 DYKs, mostly about in her field of expertise, natural science. , a finalist every year since 2010, came in third, with 2379 points.

Our newcomer award, presented to the best-performing new competitor in the WikiCup, goes to. Everyone should be very proud of the work they accomplished. We will announce our other award winners soon.

A full list of our award winners are:


 * wins the prize for first place and the FP prize for 330 featured pictures in the final round.
 * wins the prize for second place and the DYK prize for 160 did you knows in the final round (310 in all rounds).
 * wins the prize for third place and the FA prize for 26 featured articles in all rounds.
 * wins the prize for fourth place
 * wins a final 8 prize.
 * wins a final 8 prize.
 * wins a final 8 prize and the FL prize for 11 featured lists.
 * wins the most prizes: a final 8 prize, the GA prize for 41 good articles, and the topic prize for a 13-article good topic and an 8-article featured topic, both in round 3.
 * wins the news prize for the most news articles in round 3.

We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, and all are welcome to participate. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2016 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 WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.

, and  18:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 is just around the corner...
Hello everyone, and we would like to wish you all a happy holiday season. As you will probably already know, the 2016 WikiCup begins in the new year; there is still time to sign up. There are some changes we'd like to announce before the competition begins.

After two years of serving as WikiCup judge, User:Miyagawa has stepped down as judge. He deserves great thanks and recognition for his dedication and hard work, and for providing necessary transition for a new group of judges in last year's Cup. Joining Christine (User:Figureskatingfan) and Jason (User:Sturmvogel 66) is Andrew (User:Godot13), a very successful WikiCup competitor and expert in Featured Pictures; he won the two previous competitions. This is a strong judging team, and we anticipate lots of enjoyment and good work coming from our 2016 competitors.

We would also like to announce one change in how this year's WikiCup will be run. In the spirit of sportsmanship, Godot13 and Cwmhiraeth have chosen to limit their participation. See here for the announcement and a complete explanation of why. They and the judges feel that it will make for a more exciting, enjoyable, and productive competition.

The discussions/polls concerning the next competition's rules will be closed soon, and rules changes will be made clear on WikiCup/Scoring and talk pages. The judges are committed to not repeating the confusion that occurred last year and to ensuring that the new rules are both fair and in the best interests of the competition, which is, first and foremost, about improving Wikipedia.

If you have any questions or concerns, the judges can be reached on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, on their talk pages, or by email. We hope you will all join us in trying to make the 2015 WikiCup the most productive and enjoyable yet. You are receiving this message because you are listed on WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Figureskatingfan (talk), and Godot13 (talk).--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016: Game On!
We are about to enter the second week of the 2016 WikiCup. The most recent player to sign up brings the current total to 101 contestants. Signups close on 5 February. If you’re interested, you can join this year's WikiCup here.

We are aware that in some areas the scoring bot’s numbers are a little bit off (i.e., overly generous) and are working to have that corrected as soon as possible.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016: Game On!
We are about to enter the second week of the 2016 WikiCup. The most recent player to sign up brings the current total to 101 contestants. Signups close on 5 February. If you’re interested, you can join this year's WikiCup here.

We are aware that in some areas the scoring bot’s numbers are a little bit off (i.e., overly generous) and are working to have that corrected as soon as possible.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter


That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. Forty-seven competitors move into this round (a bit shy of the expected 64), and we are roughly broken into eight groups of six. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups.

Twenty-two Good Articles were submitted, including three by, and two each by , , , and. Twenty-one Featured Pictures were claimed, including 17 by (the Round 1 high scorer). Thirty-one contestants saw their DYKs appear on the main page, with a commanding lead (28) by. Twenty-nine participants conducted GA reviews with completing nine.

If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. 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 WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Thanks to everyone for participating, and good luck to those moving into round 2. ,, and --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 March newsletter (update)
Along with getting the year wrong in the newsletter that went out earlier this week, we did not mention (as the bot did not report) that claimed the first Featured Article Persoonia terminalis of the 2016 Wikicup. ,, and .--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 May newsletter


Round 2 is over and 35 competitors have moved on to Round 3.

Round 2 saw three FAs (two by and one by ), four Featured Lists (with three by ), and 53 Good Articles (six by  and five each by, , and ). Eleven Featured Pictures were promoted (six by and five by ). One Featured Portal, Featured Topic and Good Topic were also promoted. The DYK base point total was 1,135. scored 265 base points, while and  each scored 150 base points. Eleven ITN were promoted and 131 Good Article Reviews were conducted with completing a staggering 61 reviews. Two contestants, and, broke the 700 point mark for Round 2.

If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. 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 WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Thanks to everyone for participating, and good luck to those moving into round 2. ,, and -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 November newsletter: Final results
The final round of the 2016 WikiCup is over. Congratulations to the 2016 WikiCup top three finalists:
 * First Place -
 * Second Place -
 * Third Place -

In addition to recognizing the achievements of the top finishers and everyone who worked hard to make it to the final round, we also want to recognize those participants who were most productive in each of the WikiCup scoring categories:
 * Featured Article – Cas Liber (actually a three-way tie with themselves for two FAs in each of R2, R3, and R5).
 * Good Article – MPJ-DK had 14 GAs promoted in R3.
 * Featured List – produced 2 FLs in R2
 * Featured Pictures – Adam Cuerden restored 18 images to FP status in R4.
 * Featured Portal – produced the only FPO of the Cup in R2.
 * Featured Topic – and Calvin were each responsible for one FT in R3 and R2, respectively.
 * Good Topic – MPJ-DK created a GT with 9 GAs in R5.
 * Did You Know – MPJ-DK put 53 DYKs on the main page in R4.
 * In The News – and, each with 5 ITN, both in R4.
 * Good Article Review – MPJ-DK completed 61 GARs in R2.

Over the course of the 2016 WikiCup the following content was added to Wikipedia (only reporting on fixed value categories): 17 Featured Articles, 183 Good Articles, 8 Featured Lists, 87 Featured Pictures, 40 In The News, and 321 Good Article Reviews. Thank you to all the competitors for your hard work and what you have done to improve Wikipedia.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

We will open up a discussion for comments on process and scoring in a few days. The 2017 WikiCup is just around the corner! Many thanks from all the judges. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. ,, and

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup December newsletter: WikiCup 2017
On 1 January 2017, WikiCup 2017 (the 10th Annual WikiCup) will begin. This year we are trying something a little different – monetary prizes.

For the WC2017 the prizes will be as follows (amounts are based in US$ and will be awarded in the form of an online Amazon gift certificate):
 * First place – $200
 * Second & Third place – $50 each
 * Category prizes – $25 per category (which will be limited to FA, FL, FP, GA, and DYK for 2017). Winning a category prize does not require making it to the final round.

Note: Monetary prizes are a one-year experiment for 2017 and may or may not be continued in the future. In order to be eligible to receive any of the prizes above, the competing Wikipedia account must have a valid/active email address. After two years as a WikiCup judge, Figureskatingfan is stepping down. We thank her for her contributions as a WikiCup judge. We are pleased to announce that our newest judge is two-time WikiCup champion Cwmhiraeth.

The judges for the 2017 WikiCup are, , and.

Signups are open now and will remain open until 5 February 2017. You can sign up here.

If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

March 2017 WikiCup newsletter
And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. It would have been 5 points, but when a late entrant was permitted to join the contest in February, a promise was made that his inclusion would not result in the exclusion of any other competitor. To achieve this, the six entrants that had the lowest positive score of 4 points have been added to the 64 people who otherwise would have qualified. As a result, some of the groups have nine contestants rather than eight. Our top four scorers in round 1 were:


 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 Cas Liber, last year's winner, led the field with two featured articles on birds and a total score of 674.
 * 🇪🇺 Iry-Hor, a WikiCup newcomer, came next with a featured article, a good article and a tally of 282 bonus points for a score of 517. All these points came from the article Nyuserre Ini, an Ancient Egyptian pharaoh,
 * 🇯🇵 1989, another WikiCup newcomer, was in joint third place at 240. 1989 has claimed points for two featured lists and one good article relating to anime and comedy series, all of which were awarded bonus points.
 * Peacemaker67 shared third place with five good articles and thirteen good article reviews, mostly on naval vessels. He is also new to the competition.

The largest number of DYKs have been submitted by Vivvt and The C of E, who each claimed for seven, and MBlaze Lightning achieved eight articles at ITN. Carbrera and Peacemaker67 each claimed for five GAs and Krishna Chaitanya Velaga was well out in front for GARs, having reviewed 32. No featured pictures, featured topics or good topics yet, but we have achieved three featured articles and a splendid total of fifty good articles.

So, on to the second round. 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 equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on 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 WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

May 2017 WikiCup newsletter
The second round of the competition has now closed, with just under 100 points being required to qualify for round 3. YellowEvan just scraped into the next round with 98 points but we have to say goodbye to the thirty or so competitors who didn't achieve this threshold; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Our top scorers in round 2 were:


 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 Cas Liber, led the field with five featured articles, four on birds and one on astronomy, and a total score of 2049, half of which came from bonus points.
 * 🇯🇵 1989 was in second place with 826 points, 466 of which were bonus points. 1989 has claimed points mostly relating to anime and Japanese-related articles.
 * Peacemaker67 took third place with two FAs, one GA and seven GARs, mostly on naval vessels or military personnel, scoring 543 points.
 * Other contestants who scored over 400 points were Freikorp, Carbrera, and Czar. Of course all these points are now wiped out and the 32 remaining contestants start again from zero in round 3.

Vivvt submitted the largest number of DYKs (30), and MBlaze Lightning achieved 13 articles at ITN. Carbrera claimed for 11 GAs and Argento Surfer performed the most GARs, having reviewed 11. So far we have achieved 38 featured articles and a splendid 132 good articles. Commendably, 279 GARs have been achieved so far, more than double the number of GAs.

So, on to 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 10 days of "earning" 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 equally.

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 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 WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

WikiCup 2017 July newsletter
The third round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 288 points being required to qualify for round 4. It was a hotly competitive round with all but four of the contestants exceeding the 106 points that was necessary to proceed to round 4 last year. Coemgenus and Freikorp tied on 288, and both have been allowed to proceed, so round 4 now has one pool of eight competitors and one of nine.

Round 3 saw the achievement of a 26-topic Featured topic by MPJ-DK as well as 5 featured lists and 13 featured articles. PanagiotisZois and SounderBruce achieved their first ever featured articles. Carbrera led the GA score with 10, Tachs achieved 17 DYKs and MBlaze Lightning 10 In the news items. There were 167 DYKs, 93 GARs and 82 GAs overall, this last figure being higher than the number of GAs in round 2, when twice as many people were taking part. 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 4, we say goodbye to the fifteen or so competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 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 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! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 05:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

WikiCup 2017 September newsletter
Round 4 of the WikiCup has ended and we move forward into the final round. In round 4, a total of 12 FAs, 3 FLs, 44 GAs, 3 FLs, 79 DYKs, 1 ITN and 42 GARs was achieved, with no FPs or FTs this time. Congratulations to Peacemaker67 on the Royal Yugoslav Navy Good Topic of 36 items, and the 12 featured articles achieved by Cas Liber (5), Vanamonde93 (3), Peacemaker67 (2), Adityavagarwal (1) and 12george1 (1). With a FA scoring 200 points, and bonus points available on top of this, FAs are likely to feature heavily in the final round. Meanwhile Yellow Evan, a typhoon specialist, was contributing 12 DYKs and 10 GAs, while Adityavagarwal and Freikorp topped the GAR list with 8 reviews each. As we enter the final round, we are down to eight contestants, and we would like to thank those of you who have been eliminated for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. The lowest score needed to reach round 5 was 305, and I think we can expect a highly competitive final round.

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 WikiCup/Reviews Needed. 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 reduce 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 man (or woman) win! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 06:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

WikiCup 2017 November newsletter: Final results
The final round of the 2017 WikiCup is over. Congratulations to the 2017 WikiCup top three finalists:
 * First Place -
 * Second Place -
 * Third Place -

In addition to recognizing the achievements of the top finishers and everyone who worked hard to make it to the final round, we also want to recognize those participants who were most productive in each of the WikiCup scoring categories:
 * Featured Article – Cas Liber (actually a two-way tie with themselves for an astonishing five FAs in R2 and R4).
 * Good Article – Adityavagarwal had 14 GAs promoted in R5.
 * Featured List – and  both produced 2 FLs in R2
 * Featured Pictures – improved an image to FP status in R5, the only FP this year.
 * Featured Topic – has the only FT of the Cup in R3.
 * Good Topic – Four different editors created a GT in R2, R3 and R4.
 * Did You Know – Adityavagarwal had 22 DYKs on the main page in R5.
 * In The News – had 14 ITN on the main page in R2.
 * Good Article Review – completed 31 GARs in R1.

Over the course of the 2017 WikiCup the following content was added or improved on Wikipedia: 51 Featured Articles, 292 Good Articles, 18 Featured Lists, 1 Featured Picture, 1 Featured Topics, 4 Good Topics, around 400 Did You Knows, 75 In The News, and 442 Good Article Reviews. Thank you to all the competitors for your hard work and what you have done to improve Wikipedia.

Regarding the prize vouchers - please send  an email from the email address to which you would like your Amazon voucher sent. Please include your preference of global Amazon marketplace as well. We hope to have the electronic gift cards processed and sent within a week.

We will open up a discussion for comments on process and scoring in a few days. The 2018 WikiCup is just around the corner! Many thanks from all the judges. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. ,, and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018
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? , and. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 March newsletter
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 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 WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) and Vanamonde (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 May newsletter
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 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 WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 July newsletter
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 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 WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk), Vanamonde (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)