User talk:Ealdgyth/Archive 97

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Please help a relative newbie to Wikipedia
Hi Victoria. 👋 I like the boxes down the right side of your User page (at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ealdgyth). I want to add some of them to my User page. Is there an easy way to add a box to my User page from yours or is it necessary to use the page editor to add each box to my User page? OneSkyWalker (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Never mind.
 * I now know that the boxes are called 'userboxes'.
 * I edited the Userboxes page and added the following:
 * "If you do not have any userboxes on your user page yet, you want to begin using them, and you want to add them down the right side of your user page starting at the top, then edit your user page and, at or near the top of the source for your user page, add, add the transclusion(s) for the userbox(es) you wish to include, and add   just after the last userbox transclusion."
 * My edit might be reverted on the Userboxes page, but I hope that it will remain here for at least a while. OneSkyWalker (talk) 20:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you know...
what really needs to be irredeemably improved? Hmm... Drmies (talk) 01:27, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * .... are you trying to say I need to work on that? Not my subject nor time period. Not to mention I am digging out from unexpected snow overnight, have a spouse underfoot until Monday, and really need to be worrying/working on Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland, which basically involves reading a bunch of our articles and comparing them to the sources to make sure that things are really sourced reliably. At this moment, I'm up to 23K words and counting on THAT effort. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

World War II and the history of Jews in Poland: Arbitration case opened
Hello ,

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 04, 2023, which is when the first evidence phase closes. Submitted evidence will be summarized by Arbitrators and Clerks at Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence/Summary. Owing to the summary style, editors are encouraged to submit evidence in small chunks sooner rather than more complete evidence later.

Details about the summary page, the two phases of evidence, a timeline and other answers to frequently asked questions can be found at the case's FAQ page.

For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Paulsson
The quote from Paulsson is: It was only those Jews who escaped whose fate was in the hands of the Polish population, and, as we have seen, the rate of survival among these Jews was relatively high, despite adverse conditions. (pg. 35) The "escape" refers to escaping the deportations (see paragraph right above it). The "adverse conditions" refers to the severity of German measures although for this one I guess one could argue that this is too specific of a paraphrase.

This is an edit from Jan 2021 (so more than two years ago) and the original removal was never explained on talk.  Volunteer Marek  15:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is a clear-cut support of the information - but you're welcome to rebut the evidence. As I hope I made clear on the talk page - I'm not using the G&K paper as the basis for my research here - I'm just going to each page and comparing the article text to the sources (both those used and those not used but applicable). My main goal is to get the articles to reflect the state of research in the topic area - i don't give a crap if everyone involved gets punished or if no one involved gets punished ... in fact, I'd rather the second happen and we all concentrate on making the articles better. I'm going to try to finish up my detailed source comparision of Treblinka extermination camp in the next few days and I'll be posting that as a subpage of my user space so folks can correct it. Its in very bad shape. Unfortunately, I'm extremely busy with off-wiki stuff and the research into the wiki articles is tedious and difficult. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Urf. Thanks to both you and, I've corrected the copy-paste error. I'm working from a large "notes on problems" file (which details all the errors/problems I'm finding in the articles, no matter age or who caused them) .. which I then copypasted parts to a "evidence file" where I tried to make the connections, and somewhere in there I got the notes for another error mixed up with the notes for this problem. I appreciate folks finding it and pointing it out to me! Ealdgyth (talk) 16:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Couple of notes about your statement on AC
I simply wanted to provide answers to some of the questions you raised.

As far as Koło is concerned, mass shootings certainly occurred in that town; it was part of the deportation of Jews from Polish lands directly annexed to the German Reich to the General Gouvernment, on the occasion of which executions took place (mainly of the elderly, sick, etc.). The Gendarmerie were always Germans or Volksdeutsche, from the context it seems that the witness is talking about the second case. You are correct that the Gendarmerie was not part of the Wehrmacht, but the Orpo.

The Reinhard camps also include Majdanek. The guards in these camps were the so-called Trawniki men, they were usually former Soviet POWs or Ukrainian volksdeutsche. Some of them may have been Polish citizens before 1939, but there were no ethnic Poles among them.

As for the size of the section in the article on the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, in my opinion it is due to the fact that the article is unfinished. Someone cared to describe the assistance of Polish troops, so he did so in detail.

I added the AK and GL as "supporting" forces simply by adapting the infobox to the article. I purposely did it in a collapsed form so as not to give the impression that these forces participated to the same extent as the ŻOB or ZŻW. Marcelus (talk) 15:50, 14 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I'll note that Arad's work on the Operation Reinhard death camps only includes Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka. Even the USHMM says that Majdanek was a labor camp in Operation Reinhard - not a killing center - see here. Also - the USHMM directly says of Belzec's staff that "However, the bulk of the guard unit, between 90 and 120 men, were either former Soviet prisoners of war (POWs) of various nationalities or Ukrainian and Polish civilians selected or recruited for this purpose." - see here. I think it's pretty clear that we cannot say that "there were no Polish guards at the camps" - yes, most were not Poles, but the categorical statement that none were isn't possible. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * USHMM is actually saying: Also among the forced labor camps was Lublin-Majdanek before it was formally converted into a concentration camp in February 1943. For a time, Majdanek also served as a killing site for Jews whom the SS could no longer kill at Belzec in the late autumn of 1942. Marcelus (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Copyedit vs original text
On your list for the arbitration case, in the second point for the Holocaust in Poland you list Special:Diff/826962453 which is a copyedit (and labelled as such); the original edit looks like Special:Diff/794933161. I personally would tend to agree that someone copyediting text on a controversial topic should check the source if the info summarised from the source is possibly controversial - copyediting text makes it looks better and more serious, and if it's misleadingly or wrongly sourced, then the risk is a chatGPT-like effect - text that looks serious but is nonsense. Though I do myself do some copyediting without checking sources (especially when I can't check them); I generally trust others to do that checking. Anyway, I would suggest that you add 794933161, which appears to be the original edit. Boud (talk) 15:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

In point 4 of Holocaust in Poland, you gave Special:Diff/791174510 by Poeticbent. This time, as explained in the edit description, at least for "no Polish guards" part, the edit seems to be a shift in position, not an addition of new text. The original contribution appears to be Special:Diff/224719117, also by Poeticbent, in 2008.

I generally find WikiBlame to be useful for finding original edits. We now have many different interfaces, but for me: (1) click on 'View history', (2) click on External tools: 'Find addition/removal', (3) enter a reasonably long string (3-6 words) in 'Search for', (4) for a heavily edited article like this, increase from 500 in 'Versions to check' to e.g. 5000, (5) Start, (6) wait (heavy cpu/disk task), (7) find the line with bold here, e.g. Insertion found between 17:11, 05 July 2008 and 02:58, 10 July 2008: here. There's also an "alternate" tool next to 'Find addition/removal' (that I haven't tried for a long time).

Just to be clear: I'm unlikely to do the work of searching for evidence for this case myself - this is just meant to be a few random items of support for finding/presenting the evidence. Boud (talk) 16:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I found the "who to blame" part of the evidence the most annoying - partly I'm not looking for scalps here, and partly because so much text keeps getting shifted around in these articles ... usually without the sourcing that was originally with it. With this first round of evidence, I'm just trying to show a representative sample of problems... if you want scary - look at User:Ealdgyth/Treblinka audit where I'm only halfway through Treblinka extermination camp with comparing the article text to the sources attached to it... and I'm showing a LOT of problems. (And Treblinka extermination camp is a freaking GA!) Ealdgyth (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I only used the string "blame" because that's in the name of the tool - not for assigning negative intent in the edits. But I admit that I may still be confused on the goals of the arbitration - let's see if Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/FAQ gets an answer (or a FAQ entry with an answer). I certainly don't see any harm in documenting a systematic bias in Wikipedia: if one result of the case is, "yes, as of 2023-mm-dd, Wikipedia itself agrees with G&K that a systematic bias similar to that claimed by G&K exists in articles on the topic", then I agree that that would be useful. It wouldn't count as a source, but it would at least answer (for internal purposes) the question of whether G&K just lack understanding of Wikipedia or whether we have a real community problem and maybe come up with a proposal for handling it. Based on your list, it does sound like Treblinka extermination camp should be nominated at Good article reassessment for quality demotion. Boud (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * My understanding of the is that the aim of the arbitration is to attribute responsibility for editing patterns, i.e. "conduct", to specific people, without presupposing the connotations of intent that tend to be associated with the word "blame". My guess is that the result of the process could be a decision that some editors lack the WP:COMPETENCE to make sufficiently nuanced summaries that accurately represent the peer-reviewed (or other high-quality) sources or to seek community consensus for content that could be contested, and to limit their editing rights in relation to that. The question of whether the overall thesis of G&K is right - that a systematic bias exists - appears to be only on-topic to the extent that who wrote or edited what and when and how is clearly traced within the overall pattern of systematic bias. Anyway, I haven't looked much at Arbitration issues before, though I'm aware of the topics to which Arbitration applies. It could be that I still misunderstand what is in scope versus what is not. Boud (talk) 00:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Judenrat evidence
I've had it drawn to my attention through email (which I'm not going to respond to through email again) that the problem with this edit being sourced to Trunk's Judenrat isn't made clear. Trunk, in his chapter "Conclusions" states "The situation became morally unbearable when, during the mass "resettlement actions", the Germans forced the Councils and Jewish police to carry out the preparatory work and to participate in the initial stages of the actual deportation. The latter task was forced mainly upon the Jewish police. The Councils then faced a tragic dilemma never before experienced by a community representative organ. Cooperation then reached the morally dangerous borderline of collaboration. The Councils were called upon to make fateful decisions on the life and death of certain segments of their coreligionists. There were Council chairmen in the large ghettos who even then found justification for cooperating with the authorities. However, there were numerous instances where Council members, including chairmen, resisted this delusive temptation, committing suicide or going to execution in the gas chambers together with their families. Others took the perilous path of resistance." (pp. 570-571) Trunk then considers a definition of collaboration put forth by Stanley Hoffman, which Hoffman called collaboration d'Etat, which Trunk considers to be "cooperation" whereas "collaboration" is defined not just cooperation but also a desire to imitate the Germans. Trunk's statement on p. 572 says "We think that the Councils' collaboration with the Germans can, mutatis mutandis, be defined as collaboration d'Etat, a term which is closer to our definition of "cooperation". Considering their tasks, cooperation with the authorities was unavoidable for the Councils." and the rest of this chapter basically comes down to Trunk not defining all the Councils and their members as collaborators - some individuals may have collaborated as well as cooperated, but Trunk's conclusion is that it's not possible to say that all did collaborate. This is a problem with not giving the nuance of the source fully - it's easy to look at one sentence or paragraph in a source on google books, but it takes reading the entirety of the source and digesting it to get all the context and avoid issues. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I think you make a fair point. Please tell me how would you propose to reword that sentence? Or would you recommend removing it completely for now? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You are generally right, such problem exists in many pagaes.
 * The USHMM defines the Holocaust as "the systematic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of six million European Jews by the Nazi German regime and its allies and collaborators." https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/introduction-to-the-holocaust
 * This Wikipedia says "Between 1941 and 1945, Nazi Germany and its collaborators".
 * "Wartime collaboration is cooperation with the enemy against one's country of citizenship in wartime,". The page quotes Stanley Hoffmann, but does not inform about the collaboration d'Etat.
 * I hope that this disussion will be continued in that places.
 * Xx236 (talk) 07:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I have written about the general definition of the Wartime collaboration, especially collaboration of the Holocaust perpetrators. I have not written anything about the ghettos. Xx236 (talk) 14:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ealdgyth "Jewish collaboration" is controversial topic, some scholars argue you cannot say about collaboration in case of Jews, some argue it's possible in selected cases. Evgeny Finkel says that some Judenrats crossed that line; see Jewish collaboration section in the aricle Collaboration with the Axis powers. To quote Finkel:
 * "Both “cooperation” and “collaboration” mean working with the enemy by either participating in or facilitating persecution. It is important to emphasize that in this definition persecution is not restricted to the process of killing. The registration of Jews, the confiscation of Jewish property, the organization and supervision of Jewish forced labor, and the guarding of ghetto entries to prevent smuggling and escape were also acts of cooperation and collaboration. The key distinction between the two lies in the intended goals of the actions taken. Those who cooperated acted to preserve the community and its individual members; those who collaborated knowingly worked to the detriment of the community’s or individual Jews’ survival. Cooperation was open and visible, while collaboration could be of two basic types— public, as in the case of corrupt and self- serving chairs of the Judenrats ; or private (often, but not always secret), as in the case of paid informants."
 * Marcelus (talk) 13:15, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think a number of you aren't getting the point of my evidence. I'm not saying that the issue of whether the Jewish Councils collaborated or not isn't controversial nor am I saying that some scholars haven't called the Councils collaborators - what I'm saying is that the sourcing attached to the information does not support the statement given. It's entirely possible that there ARE sources that would support the information (in fact there are) - but it is a problem when we as wikipedia editors attach sources to article text .. if those sources as given do not support the information. In this case, you can't support a broad brush statement ("described the institution of the Judenrats as a collaborationist one" which means the institution as a whole) by sources that (1) is to a specific Council in a specific locale since the source isn't discussing the institution as a whole across all locales (2) source that does discuss the institution as a whole but does not say that all the Councils were collaborationist. We must always make sure that our sourcing practices in this topic area are iron-clad and of the best ... we can't get sloppy. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * But the point is precisely that the sources cited by @Piotrus support the sentence he introduced ("While some scholars have described the institution of the Judenrats as a collaborationist one..."); most notably the source that your report omitted, namely Isaiah Trunk: We think that the Councils' collaboration with the Germans can , mutatis mutandis, be defined as collaboration d'Etat, a term that is closer to our definition of 'cooperation,' and further, The collaboration of non-Jews was on a voluntary basis (...) this category includes Jewish Gestapo agents and demoralized members of the Councils. He explicitly says that the term collaboration can be used in relation to the Judenrats.
 * Going further, even if Dawidowicz rejects Arendt's conclusions, first of all, the fact is that she notes Arendt's harsh opinion of the Judenrats, and furthermore, the other work he cites is Trunk, who, as you can see, allowed the use of the term "collaboration" in relation to the Judenrats. It is not Dawidowicz who is the scholar allowing the use of the term collaboration, but Arendt, whose work she describes.
 * As for Glass he states at the very beginning: Two major form of political organization dominated the Jewish community during the period of the Holocaust. One is derived from the Judenrat, a collaborationist political administration that worked with the Germans. This is a general statement about all Judenrats, not about Vilnius itself, so I don't know why you dismissed it.
 * Perhaps Piotrus' use of sources is not perfect, but I do not agree that we are dealing here with a misrepresentation of sources.
 * Moreover, in the larger scheme of things, we are not dealing here with a situation where a false statement is corroborated by misrepresented sources to make it credible. The sentence introduced by Piotrus is hardly controversial: While some scholars have described the institution of the Judenrats as a collaborationist one the question of whether participation in the Judenrat constituted collaboration with the Germans remains a controversial issue to this day.
 * Citing it as evidence in a case that is supposed to apparently (because no one has explained it) investigate the existence of a "conspiracy by Polish nationalists to misrepresent the history of the Holocaust in Poland" I find uncool and frankly quite a stretch. Marcelus (talk) 14:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I give up - I deleted my further comment and I'm not going to engage further. If folks can't see that cherrypicking one sentence out of various sources without considering the fuller context of the article/work is a bad use of sources, I'm not going to get folks to understand that and I'm not needing to elevate my blood pressure further for a talk page conversation.
 * @Ealdgyth You don't quite understand what I'm saying. Trunk recognizes that the activities of the Juednrats can be considered a manifestation of collaboration in the sense that is accepted in literature (collaboration d'Etat), but he believes that such an approach does not take into account the context, which is why he proposes the term "cooperation." Glass and Arendt (whose view is referenced by Dawidowicz) explicitly call the Judenrats collaborationist organizations. I understand your point, but I think, however, calling it a misrepresentation of sources is going too far. Besides, the whole sentence is not categorical and does not leave the reader with the impression that the Judenrats were collaborating, only that the situation was more complicated. In this sense, it captures the spirit of the sources.Marcelus (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Wow
You've done so much content work. I'm seriously impressed. I wish I could be like you. Clovermoss 🍀 (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I am not allowed to answer your comments
World War II and ... Xx236 (talk) 07:36, 16 March 2023 (UTC)


 * To compare the quality of a similar article:
 * Propaganda in Nazi Germany
 * Two short sections unsourced.
 * "More than 60 Norwegian newspaper editors were executed and 3000 were sent to concentration camps." - no such information in the quoted article. The article is rather about Norwegian antisemitism.
 * Two of three 1940 antisemitic films not mentioned.
 * Nazi propaganda outside Germany is described very selectively. Lack of basic informations is not mentioned.
 * Xx236 (talk) 14:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Johannes Stubberud OK, any more?Xx236 (talk) 14:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Plural verb
Hi Ealdgyth. I'm confused by this revert of yours and its edit summary. The verb was changed to plural by User:Lestify and you reverted it back to singular. I'm certainly not an expert on grammar, but Lestify's edit was correct. It varies; they vary -- DB 1729 talk 15:03, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

A thought
There is a zillion related problems to fix. And our time would be better spend fixing this than ArbComing, IMHO. Btw, regarding the stuff in your audits, I strongly encourage you to tag stuff in articles using citation needed, verification needed, verification failed, and like, so that others - editors and readers - can see the problems more easily (or just remove such claims, or move them to talk). Btw, User:Elinruby is doing something similar recently. It's badly needed. Thank you, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 15:04, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:43, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2023
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2023).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Aoidh
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg KillerChihuahua



CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Ferret

Guideline and policy news
 * A community RfC is open to discuss whether reports primarily involving gender-related disputes or controversies should be referred to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

Technical news
 * Some older web browsers will not be able to use JavaScript on Wikimedia wikis starting this week. This mainly affects users of Internet Explorer 11.
 * The rollback of Vector 2022 RfC has found no consensus to rollback to Vector legacy, but has found rough consensus to disable "limited width" mode by default.
 * A link to the user's page will now appear in the subtitle links shown on . This was voted #17 in the Community Wishlist Survey 2023.

Arbitration
 * The Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 case has been closed.
 * A case about World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been opened, with the first evidence phase closing 6 April 2023.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Query re: WP:AN
Concerning your comment here, I am curious what you mean by see some productive editing? Do you not regard my currently visible contributions on Wikipedia Talk:Manual of Style/Biography, or edits to Herbert Marcuse or White demographic decline, as productive? What would you regard as "productive editing" in this context? Newimpartial (talk) 13:06, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The tban was imposed just a month and a half ago... in that time you've edited a few articles, yes, but you've also edited a lot of "project" spaces (I'd guess about half your edits since the tban are "meta" edits). I stated my opinion, which is that I think you should consider waiting a bit longer before asking for relaxation of your recently imposed tban. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:23, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That's fine; I don't think the balance between my article and my project edits has been altered by the ban, except that I am no longer active in anti-vandalism on BLP articles in the GENSEX area. Some editors are more active in article space, some are more active in project space, and I have been under the impression that in both cases it is the quality of contributions (in relation to policy, effective collaboration and community values) that determines effective/productive editing.
 * I prefer to contribute in areas where my contribution can help the encyclopedia improve, or at least actively to prevent its deterioration, and often those are "meta" areas. I am quite proud of my contribution to the WP:SNG section, for example, which was entirely a "meta" contribution. Newimpartial (talk) 13:30, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Charles III
Hello - if you're interested, Charles III has recently been nominated for a GA review. You're welcome to review it yourself if you'd like. Regards, Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:31, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

WikiCup 2023 May newsletter
The second round of the 2023 WikiCup has now finished. Contestants needed to have scored 60 points to advance into round 3. Our top five scorers in round 2 all included a featured article among their submissions and each scored over 500 points. They were:


 * Iazyges (1040) with three FAs on Byzantine emperors, and lots of bonus points.
 * Unlimitedlead (847), with three FAs on ancient history, one GA and nine reviews.
 * Epicgenius (636), a WikiCup veteran, with one FA on the New Amsterdam Theatre, four GAs and eleven DYKs
 * BennyOnTheLoose (553), a seasoned competitor, with one FA on snooker, six GAs and seven reviews.
 * 🇩🇪 FrB.TG (525), with one FA, a Lady Gaga song and a mass of bonus points.

Other notable performances were put in by Sammi Brie,  Thebiguglyalien,  MyCatIsAChonk,  PCN02WPS, and  AirshipJungleman29.

So far contestants have achieved thirteen featured articles between them, one being a joint effort, and forty-nine good articles. The judges are pleased with the thorough reviews that are being performed, and have hardly had to reject any. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on 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. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)