User talk:Drchriswilliams/Archive 11

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)

September 2017: National Eligibility and Entrance Test
I would like to bring to your notice that the submitted information is not a promotion and I am in no way affiliated to any party in that webpage. The intention here is to share an information that a private party is also involved in collaboration with a govt agency to organise the entrance exams. This information was ruled out from the official webpage of the Govt websites. Hence I intend to make it open to public through Wikipedia, as I believe this portal is unbiased.

if you think the given informations and citations are inappropriate, citations can be removed. But the information is TRUE.

Help with Am Buidheann Dubh page.
Can you help with additions, and updating, please ? Johnny Glasgow (talk) 03:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

SCORM page
Sorry, don't know where I should be leaving my reply, so I'm putting it here. My entry on SCORM page is not different than other entries. Seems completely unfair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.195.17.118 (talk) 15:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

You are completely disregarding what I have to say and are just removing my entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.195.17.118 (talk) 16:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You are adding external links to promote your company, they will be removed as per WP:SPAM. Drchriswilliams (talk) 16:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

There are links to other company sites. Why are mine being removed?50.195.17.118 (talk) 16:55, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ian Bell (journalist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Herald ([//toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Ian_Bell_%28journalist%29 check to confirm] | [//toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Ian_Bell_%28journalist%29?client=notify 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) 10:43, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Apologies
I didn't mean to undo your edits on Lisa Kemmerer; I must've somehow had an old version open when I made the fix I was doing. You have my apology. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That's ok, I couldn't figure out what had happened there. I have caused similar slips in the past myself. Thanks for clearing things up. Drchriswilliams (talk) 11:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

User Peerreviewed
I removed the remaining edits from. They look like spam to me as well. I assume you didn't remove them all because you got sidetracked. If you think the spammed reference might be suitable to remain somewhere, let me know. --Ronz (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks for cleaning up the remaining articles and for checking I hadn't seen some value in the spammed journal paper. The articles I had left until last had a more narrow focus. Then my attention had turned to other things. Drchriswilliams (talk) 22:04, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Glad to help. It looks like part of a PhD thesis, so don't expect it should be used anywhere. --Ronz (talk) 00:43, 27 October 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)

WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest
Hi. This month The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There is over £3000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers and paid subscriptions. Wikimedia UK is putting up £250 specifically for editors who produce the most quality new women bios for British women, with special consideration given to missing notable biographies from the Oxford Dictionary of Biography and Welsh Dictionary of Biography. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate independently this is also fine, but please add any articles created to the bottom of the main contest page even if not competing. Your participation in the contest and contributing articles on British women from your area or wherever would we much appreciated. Thanks.

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)

Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Harold Shipman / Gavin & Stacey
Hello Drchriswilliams. You recently removed one of my edits on the Harold Shipman article, seemingly on the basis that I referenced a tabloid source. Please note that tabloid sources are perfectly fine to use on Wikipedia, especially for such a minor/trivial point. For more information, please see WP:PUS. For that reason, I have reverted your revert. Happy to discuss it further with you if you have any concerns. Thank you and kind regards LoveEverybodyUnconditionally (talk) 23:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello again Drchriswilliams. It is disappointing that you seem to have no interest or desire to discuss issues. Wikipedia is not your personal project, it is an encyclopaedia ruled by consensus. As I mentioned before, please refer to WP:PUS - tabloid sources are allowed on Wikipedia (whether you agree or not). Sourced trivia is also permitted on Wikipedia as far as I am aware. If I am mistaken, please point me to the correct guidance. Thanks again for your co-operation and understanding. LoveEverybodyUnconditionally (talk) 06:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello again Drchriswilliams. There is absolutely no prohibition on using the Daily Mail as a source on Wikipedia. There are limitations, and things to be watchful of, when using it as a source, but there is absolutely not a complete ban on using the Daily Mail as a source. I understand that you may frown upon it, but frankly, your personal opinions are irrelevant. We go by consensus and established Wikipedia policies/guidance. I also must tell you that I am thoroughly unimpressed with your conduct. I have shown willingness to discuss the issue with you in an attempt to reach agreement or better understand your position, but you have decided just to revert my edits instead with zero discussion. Perhaps you could work on this in the future. Anyway, I consider the matter closed. Thanks again for your understanding and have a great day :) LoveEverybodyUnconditionally (talk) 07:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Were you looking to discuss content? I pointed out in my edit summaries that your edits appeared to repeatedly insert poor quality material which did not have a reliable source to support it. I have added a neutral description of the associated trivia to these pages. Drchriswilliams (talk) 07:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello. Please have more consideration for other users here in the future and be less obtuse. Thank you LoveEverybodyUnconditionally (talk) 08:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello again Drchriswilliams. I just wanted to let you know that there is a reference to the Daily Mail within the Harold Shipman article that you must have missed. I have already alerted NASA and the Pentagon as a precaution. Should I find anymore references to the Daily Mail on Wikipedia, I will be sure to let you know here immediately. Peace be upon you. LoveEverybodyUnconditionally (talk) 13:54, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello again Drchriswilliams. I have caught another Wikipedia member editing your article about Harold Shipman. His name is Martinevans123. I have a contact at the FBI who assures me they are "closing the net on this guy". Please switch your radio to frequency 7 so that you may receive further updates from the RSPCA as and when they become available. I have also instructed Theresa May to issue a joint statement on this issue with President Trump, words along the lines of "Our two great nations will lead the fight against people editing Wikipedia articles that belong to Drchriswilliams". Stay strong, old boy. LoveEverybodyUnconditionally (talk) 15:34, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Information
Hello. As you seem to edit my page a lot, would you like to get in touch so I can give you firsthand information? Gail GailERoss (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Automatic deletion
I have permission to use the public access ISBT resources to assist in populating the wikipedia. I had done quite a lot of paraphrasing of this work but want to know how I can pass the copyright issue when these are freely accessible sources that I have been given permission to write and in some cases written myselfTransfusionDoctor (talk) 13:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I replied on your talk page. Drchriswilliams (talk) 14:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

DYK for James Robson (doctor)
Vanamonde (talk) 12:12, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Two years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

... and three --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Donna Kennedy
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The Back-Up Trust
The Back-up Trust — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkBackUp (talk • contribs) 16:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I've been trying to update The Back-Up Trust web page. I've got secondary sources for several of my additions, but you won't allow them. Here are my suggestions: The charity's working name is Back Up, and that is the name we use in the media, on our website and with the people we support. We never use the name 'The Back-Up Trust' - only in small print and for legal purposes.

We've also changed the services we offer. We don't do holidays or adventure trips, we provide the following services:

Wheelchair Skills Training: https://www.backuptrust.org.uk/support-for-you/wheelchair-skills | Citation: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2011/may/03/back-up-trust-wheelchair-skills Mentoring: https://www.backuptrust.org.uk/support-for-you/mentoring | Citation: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/julie-hill/realising-there-is-life-a_b_16308354.html Life skills and activity courses: https://www.backuptrust.org.uk/support-for-you/life-changing-courses Support returning to work: https://www.backuptrust.org.uk/support-for-you/back-up-to-work Support throughout your education: https://www.backuptrust.org.uk/support-for-you/children-young-people/school-life

I can find more citations to prove the accuracy of the charity's services if needs be.
 * I have previously updated the article using sources that appear neutral. I note that you have not suggested any further links that are independent of your organisation. Drchriswilliams (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Striking On-Point Verified Source
Can you please clarify what you are specifically objecting to? Is it the external link (which seems to me within the stated Wikipedia policy for external links), or is it also the - deleted - remainder of the text, which, as I already stated in my undo explanation, refers to an eminently relevant, professional contribution to the subject? If you object to the external link, what other form and substance reference to the source material do you find acceptable? Would a footnote be in order? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moyer55 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The material you added appears purely promotional. See WP:NOTADVERTISING. Drchriswilliams (talk) 19:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect, Chris, the appearance you detect is not supported by the legitimate philosophical substance of the source and its contributory value. Even if this philosopher and his work should be unknown to you, reading his work even in excerpts should convince you that he engages in a legitimate in-depth discussion of the subject and advances it. Advancement that philosophy desperately needs. Let's scrap all the links if you like to avoid the impression of promotion, but the article would lack completeness without a summary of this work. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moyer55 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 27 February 2018 (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)

Unfair delete of addition
Dear Dr Chris Thank you for drawing my attention to the rules but I'm kind of lost. Shouldn't the encyclopedia provide all information on the mentioned topic, especially when the latest info was in 2015. Doesn't the development of the topic require an update? Please guide me to a better solution than just deleting the update. Best of regards Souhad Lawand MD Ph.D Ophthalmologist Lawand Teleophthalmology (talk) 08:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have replied on your talk page. Drchriswilliams (talk) 08:11, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Grace Cadell
Dear Chris - Could you please look over this recently expanded article. Many thanks. Papamac (talk) 10:49, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Huatah copyright
Thanks for following up on those. hasn't edited since receiving any warnings, so I'm not blocking now, but feel free to ping me if they come back. 15:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC) ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 15:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

User:NARUTO FAN
Hi I took information from one of my books,so if I cause something wrong plz forgive me! NARUTO FAN (talk) 07:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi sorry about that I am a new guy plz correct my mistakes!!! NARUTO FAN (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

you are my hero, Dr Chris
your heroic refusal to accept the removal of Scotland's national language from the Wikipedia page for Orkney is truly inspiring. slàinte, mo charaid 80.2.184.162 (talk) 16:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Guid on ye
Guid on ye recreating Tom Devine so swiftly. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Glasgow Accies rugby
Hi - noticed you changed the page of the Glasgow Academical Rugby Club. The text you deleted has been restored by the Club itself - please do not edit this again as it is factually correct re recent sponsorship and results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.145.255 (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)


 * What is your problem with the history of this rugby club? You are now challenging copyright on the undisputed history of the club - and have not responded to the previous text?  The club's own historians have verified the facts from the SRU history - it is correct.  The recent seasons results are clear for all to verify per SRU - as are all the listed internationalists and SRU presidents — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.37.37 (talk) 22:40, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I now see your message on the text page - you seem to see the whole page we have as a copyright breach? Please clarify how this page will be restored - as all the history of the club is in public domain - this is one of the oldest clubs in Scotland and is an SRU founder member.  Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.37.37 (talk) 22:45, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi - can you please now email me (glasgowsteph@hotmail.com) or message here to tell me how our club's page will be restored - whether by removal of links to any book etc. or modifying the history text. I await your response. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.37.37 (talk) 23:08, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a major copyright problem with the article on Glasgow Accies. It may take some time to resolve. Drchriswilliams (talk) 22:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

 * please help translate this message into your local language via meta

Thanks again :-) --  Doc James  along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 02:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Deleting link
"What can normally be linked

Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a legally distributed copy of the work, so long as none of the § Restrictions on linking and § Links normally to be avoided criteria apply. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues,[4] amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons."

As well as the other links that are present. This one is also permitted. Please stop power tripping deleting it. - An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior.

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)

Tessa Jowell edit
I have absolutely no idea how those other changes (removal of refs and restoration of content I'd previously removed) occurred in my last edit - I never even went near that part of the article. Must have been a bug. My pc has been acting up this morning. Thanks for the corrections. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:49, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries, this sort of thing can occur during simultaneous editing. I figured that it hadn't been intentional. Drchriswilliams (talk) 08:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * My theory is that you were viewing when you clicked the edit tab. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 08:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. Drchriswilliams (talk) 08:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Possibly, though I can't recall seeing the 'you are editing an old version' template at the top of the page. There's something not right with how my pc loads pages this morning - everything takes a million years and 'server not available' pops up with irritating regularity. I suspect that might have something to do with it. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:22, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Additional Support Needs Tribunals for Scotland for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Additional Support Needs Tribunals for Scotland is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Additional Support Needs Tribunals for Scotland until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamacfarlane (talk • contribs) 01:42, 27 June 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)

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


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

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

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

WikiCup 2018 November newsletter
The WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is, who over the course of the competition has amassed 147 GAs, 111 GARs, 9 DYKs, 4 FLs and 1 ITN. Our finalists were as follows:



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


 * wins the FA prize, for three featured articles in round 2.
 * wins the GA prize, for 92 good articles in round 3.
 * wins the FL prize, for five featured lists overall.
 * wins the topic prize, for 30 articles in good topics overall.
 * wins the DYK prize, for 24 did you know articles in round 3.
 * wins the ITN prize, for 17 in the news articles overall.
 * wins the GAR prize, for 43 good article reviews in round 1.

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

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

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

Language thought - "spam" versus "promotional"
Hey, appreciated your revert here - but just a small suggestion to consider using less inflammatory words than "spam" - "promotional" communicates the same thing with less negative baggage. And I believe that people will be more receptive to such feedback. II | (t - c) 18:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

British Association for Immediate Care
I am the chairman of BASICS and had previously edited the page as BASICS_HQ. The information on the page as you have rolled it back to is factually incorrect and misleading in many areas. The page either needs tolling back to my evidenced revisions or should be deleted. Please advise. Thank you AEK1961 (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2018 (UTC)