User talk:Footlessmouse

A bowl of strawberries for you!

 * Can I second this? Great work on Analytical Dynamics of Particles and Rigid Bodies. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity
The article A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Forbes72 -- Forbes72 (talk) 03:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Carbonaceous sulfur hydride
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

DYK for A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

AfD notice
Hi. Please see this AfD following on from the RfC you commented on. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 10:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow! I thought about leaving a !vote a couple of times, but it was just so contentious with so many responses. It is crazy to me how many people argued on there for keep after there was clear consensus on the page itself to send it to AfD. It seems we will need to open yet another RfC to rehash out the split propositions in light of the deletion request failing. Something will have to change on there, the page is over 500kb now and will likely double in the next couple of months, so not doing anything isn't a very good option. (I did notice one keep !vote that argued the page shouldn't be split and they said the list wasn't that long - I strongly disagree) Footlessmouse (talk) 02:57, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi. Quite a few of the keep comments are "it's useful", but I doubt any admin would favour deletion. Once the AfD is done, I plan to start the ball rolling with an idea on how to split the article.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 08:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography
Hello, Footlessmouse,

I was looking over this RfC and your comments on David Eppstein's talk page and I think you might be taking normal disagreement over policy and editing on Wikipedia too personally. Disputes happen every day here and some folks argue forcefully against each other about some policy guideline one day and a week later collaborate on writing an article. It's not about you, as a person, but about the argument you are putting forward and people can take issue in your policy interpretation without it meaning that they are attacking you. And you don't need to withdraw from participating when there are disagreements or apologize for taking a stand opposed to someone else's point of view. I went through a grueling Request for adminship when I became an administrator and I still go for help to people who voted against me becoming an admin! And they often went into detail about why I wasn't qualified. But you move on and you don't hold grudges. There are occasionally personal attacks that do happen on Wikipedia but in that RfC I just saw normal debate occurring. When there is harassment, that is punished by an editing block.

Conflict and disagreement is a part of the messy process of collaborative editing and I hope you will shrug this off and tomorrow continue with the editing work that interests you. Liz Read! Talk! 03:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I have a lot going on right now and maybe its not the best time for me to be starting potentially controversial conversations. You are probably right, but I felt attacked because I kept trying to emphasize the singular nature of the question, I even struck out the comment mentioning the article and they just kept berating me over it. Then I wrote the comments on their wall after I said I wanted out and their response was to imply my RfC is invalid because I was acting in bad faith by opening the RfC after the whole template incident on that page, which I was also wrong for (or at least that's how I read it). I really did just want to have on record whether or not they counted, for future reference for much more than that page. I was under the impression it would be helpful either way, as then we would all be sure that fellow of the AMS and APS are notable and to avoid voting for their deletion. I don't hold grudges for any length of time, but I unfollow pages if I become overwhelmed. Some I may add back to my watchlist sometime in the future. I'm honestly at a cross roads on Wiki, I think it is best if I take some time off and re-evaluate what I'm doing here, we'll see how that goes... Footlessmouse (talk) 04:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Precious
You are recipient no. 2484 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Wow, I appreciate that more than you know. Given all my recent trip-ups, I do not feel as though I deserve it, I was honestly preparing to exit the Wiki platform for good. I am honored to be considered for such an award, though, thank you so much!


 * , I also wanted to take a moment to step in and echo 's views. As I have mentioned earlier, I really think quite highly of your work here. If you want to take some time to recharge yourself offline (perhaps over the Thanksgiving break, if you are in this geography) that is definitely good. But, please know that your good work is definitely appreciated. Please prioritize your well being and do not let anything that happens here affect your personal well being. Good luck with everything. Ktin (talk) 23:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you! That sounds like a good plan: I'll spend a week or so catching up on Netflix and Hulu and re-evaluate then. I'm sure I'll be back—I'm honestly addicted to the platform—I just need to force myself to keep a little distance and not get too wrapped up in everything. Footlessmouse (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice to wake up to this ;) - Footlessmouse, I normally wait until the first DYK but was a bit afraid you might not read it then. This is from the cabal of the outcast, - I hope you don't mind. See rather on top of my talk that my first wish is for editors to return. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you again. This immediately brightened my day and I am very grateful for it. I will continue editing, I just need a few self-imposed rules on how I interact in discussions here. In hindsight, I feel foolish for not taking Liz's advice more seriously and just giving the whole thing more time. Here is to learning to shrug it off and move along! Thank you all for your kindness and sound advice. Footlessmouse (talk) 20:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Footlessmouse

Thank you for creating The Meaning of Relativity.

User:Gazal world, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with. Please remember to sign your reply with ~.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Gazal world (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of The Meaning of Relativity
Hello! Your submission of The Meaning of Relativity at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! David Eppstein (talk) 07:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Introduction to Solid State Physics
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Nice job!
Thank you! I have grown fond of working on articles about books as well. I think WP is the best possible place to summarize their reviews and impact. Many of these books, especially ones like Jackson, are extremely important, given their influence on physics. Also, writing book articles is relatively simple for WP, as all of the literature is self-contained in the reviews. I'm probably going to keep at it until I am satisfied that all the standard physics textbooks have an article here. Footlessmouse (talk) 19:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The surprising thing was that Classical Electrodynamics was listed as an example on the WikiProject Physics importance scale, but it didn't exist yet! XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That's really funny! I'm glad I went and looked at that: "High impact physics journals. Books famous enough to be known by their author only to most of the physics community. Famous popular science publications" are all mid importance, I can use that, as I've created at least four books that I believe qualify: Purcell and Morin, Born and Wolf, Ashcroft and Mermin, and Kittel. You could make an argument that the CM books aren't broad enough, but Principles of Optics and Electricity and Magnetism undeniably qualify. Also, all three of Whittaker's History and his Analytical Dynamics would both have qualified if WP was started a few decades earlier, but time has worn down his name recognition. Footlessmouse (talk) 07:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * One we still seem to be missing is Sakurai, or as of 2010 Sakurai and Napolitano. It's often mentioned alongside Shankar, which we do have an entry for, and it's a point of comparison for aspiring QM textbooks. I've had a bit of trouble finding reviews of the more recent edition, though. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Funny enough, I have Sakurai on my to do list, which was my primary book when learning the subject, there are references for it there. I have also seen a lot about Shankar but can only find two non-trivial reviews: 12. According to WP:NBOOK, though, the books are notable if they are the subject of at least two non-trivial reviews or "The book is, or has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools". I don't think its an exaggeration to say that every book we would consider writing a page for qualifies under these guidelines. This review calls it one of the "classic introductory texts" for QM. Would you like to work on one while I work on the other? If so, which one would you like to work on? Footlessmouse (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I apologize, I misread your comment. Yes, unfortunately I cannot find any reviews of the second or third editions of Sakurai which was coauthored with Napolitano, but there are three or four reviews of earlier editions and lots of recommendations. I have some references on my to do list if you are wanting to work on it, otherwise I can throw a page together in a bit. Thanks! Footlessmouse (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I have created the page for Modern Quantum Mechanics, it is just a stub for now but we can work on it over time. I apologize again for misreading your comment earlier. Footlessmouse (talk) 08:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries! By the time I'd gotten myself sufficiently organized to reply (i.e., just now), you'd already created the page. And it looks like it's off to a good start! Thanks again for all the work you've put into this area. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Subtle is the Lord
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you! I'm glad I have been able to help. Thank you for all your hard work! Footlessmouse (talk) 11:21, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

DYK for The Color of Law
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

DYK for The Meaning of Relativity
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of The End of the Certain World
Hello! Your submission of The End of the Certain World at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 18:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2021 WikiCup!
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. We thank Vanamonde93 and Godot13, who have retired as judges, and we thank them for their past dedication. The judges for the WikiCup this year are and. Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Nancy Thorndike Greenspan
Hello & Happy New Year! You wrote (I believe) an article on a book by Nancy Thorndike Greenspan called 'The End of the Certain World: The Life and Science of Max Born' which is excellent. I an trying to create a page for the author, Nancy Thorndike Greenspan. However I am getting pushback and a bit confused as to why she is not deemed notable enough when I see other authors with less citations approved. I am rather new but read the documentation on notability and it seems very arbitrary and subjective. Can you assist or provide some advice? Thank you! Fergyman (talk) 13:26, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking initiative! I am under the impression the draft should not have been rejected for notability purposes and I stated such in a help ticket I opened here. Footlessmouse (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you and I must admit your draft was better than mine! Would you mind if I lifted some info from your draft for snippets?Fergyman (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It is all yours. I don't know if all the sources are the best (one of the reasons I gave up on making the article), but you should be able to sort it out with the editors at AfC. Footlessmouse (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Greenspan's article was approved. I can not thank you enough for your help. What a great learning process watching how you fought for the page and not backing down. Outstanding. Now if I could only get a photo of her uploaded around commons compyrights! Thanks again Footlessmouse! Fergyman (talk) 15:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Congradulations! It is highly unlikely you will get a pic while she is still living, though you can try. She is involved with several organizations.


 * APS Gala - "APS encourages the redistribution of the materials included in this newspaper provided that attribution to the source is noted and the materials are not truncated or changed." - You can write them an email asking for official permission to use one of their photographs of her. See WP:Requesting copyright permission The official picture we see everywhere is under copyright (Gary Grieg) and is highly unlikely to be released for a hundred years or so. Footlessmouse (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK for The End of the Certain World
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Principles of Optics
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Subtle is the Lord
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Subtle is the Lord 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 Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Uncertainty (book)
— Maile (talk) 12:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Beyond Uncertainty
— Maile (talk) 12:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Subtle is the Lord
The article Subtle is the Lord you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Subtle is the Lord for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Atomic Spy (book)
—valereee (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Lectures on Theoretical Physics
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK for A Promised Land
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Priest of Nature
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Just Mercy (book)
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of E. T. Whittaker
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article E. T. Whittaker 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 Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of E. T. Whittaker
The article E. T. Whittaker you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:E. T. Whittaker for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Good article backlog drive in March
In order to receive notifications about future drives, sign up for the Good articles newsletter. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

WikiCup 2021 March newsletter
Round 1 of the competition has finished; it was a high-scoring round with 21 contestants scoring more than 100 points. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 55 contestants qualifying. You will need to finish among the top thirty-two contestants in Round 2 if you are to qualify for Round 3. Our top scorers in Round 1 were:


 * Epicgenius led the field with a featured article, nine good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 945 points.
 * Bloom6132 was close behind with 896 points, largely gained from 71 "In the news" items, mostly recent deaths.
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 ImaginesTigers, who has been editing Wikipedia for less than a year, was in third place with 711 points, much helped by bringing League of Legends to featured article status, exemplifying how bonus points can boost a contestant's score.
 * 🇷🇼 Amakuru came next with 708 points, Kigali being another featured article that scored maximum bonus points.
 * Flag of the United Nations.svg Ktin, new to the WikiCup, was in fifth place with 523 points, garnered from 15 DYKs and 34 "In the news" items.
 * 🇧🇼 The Rambling Man scored 511 points, many from featured article candidate reviews and from football related DYKs.
 * Standard of Oliver Cromwell (1653–1659).svg Gog the Mild, last year's runner-up, came next with 498 points, from a featured article and numerous featured article candidate reviews.
 * Bennington Flag.svg Hog Farm, at 452, scored for a featured article, four good articles and a number of reviews.
 * 🇺🇸 Le Panini, another newcomer to the WikiCup, scored 438 for a featured article and three good articles.
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski, last year's champion, scored 332 points, from a featured article and various other sport-related topics.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start again from scratch. In Round 1, contestants achieved eight featured articles, three featured lists and one featured picture, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. They completed 97 good article reviews, nearly double the 52 good articles they claimed. Contestants also claimed for 135 featured article and featured list candidate reviews. There is no longer a requirement to mention your WikiCup participation when undertaking these reviews.

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 a good article candidate, a featured process, or something 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 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. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Mass–energy equivalence
Hi, instead of reviewing the article for you, I want to go ahead and make some of the minor edits I'm sure a reviewer would ask for in a GAN process (e.g MOS, prose, punctuation etc.). I know enough physics to understand the article well enough, but not enough to do a full review of it for you. Please revert me if I blunder! Cheers Amitchell125 (talk) 20:58, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mass–energy equivalence
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mass–energy equivalence 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 AhmadLX -- AhmadLX (talk) 17:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussions you may be interested in
I didn't realize you were busy. I'm sorry I did not contact you sooner. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. Perhaps it is related to what you have pointed out that an expert needs it. Also, you (and I) didn't merge, so I moved my discussion with you to an archive of Several complex variables. Thank you for your time.--SilverMatsu (talk) 01:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Analytical Dynamics of Particles and Rigid Bodies
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Analytical Dynamics of Particles and Rigid Bodies 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 Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Analytical Dynamics of Particles and Rigid Bodies
The article Analytical Dynamics of Particles and Rigid Bodies you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Analytical Dynamics of Particles and Rigid Bodies 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 Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 15:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

WikiCup 2021 May newsletter
The second round of the 2021 WikiCup has now finished; it was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 61 points to advance to Round 3. There were some impressive efforts in the round, with the top eight contestants all scoring more than 400 points. A large number of the points came from the 12 featured articles and the 110 good articles achieved in total by contestants, as well as the 216 good article reviews they performed; the GAN backlog drive and the stay-at-home imperative during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been partially responsible for these impressive figures.

Our top scorers in Round 2 were:


 * 🇧🇼 The Rambling Man, with 2963 points from three featured articles, 20 featured article reviews, 37 good articles, 73 good article reviews, as well as 22 DYKs.
 * Epicgenius, with 1718 points from one featured article, 29 good articles, 16 DYKs and plenty of bonus points.
 * Bloom6132, with 990 points from 13 DYKs and 64 "In the news" items, mostly recent deaths.
 * Bennington Flag.svg Hog Farm, with 834 points from two featured articles, five good articles, 14 featured article reviews and 15 good article reviews.
 * Standard of Oliver Cromwell (1653–1659).svg Gog the Mild, with 524 points from two featured articles and four featured article reviews.
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski, with 501 points from one featured article, three good articles, six featured article reviews and 25 good article reviews.
 * Transgender Pride flag.svg Sammi Brie, with 485 points from four good articles, eight good article reviews and 27 DYKs, on US radio and television stations.
 * Flag of the United Nations.svg Ktin, with 436 points from four good articles, seven DYKs and 11 "In the news" items.

Please remember that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of Round 2 but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in Round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (except for at the end of each round, when you must claim them before the cut-off date/time). When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on 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. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

The Core contest
Given your work at mass-energy equivalence, you might be interested in WP:The Core Contest :). It start June 1st. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

"Pseudophysics" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Pseudophysics. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 22 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 19:51, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the abandoned GA review
In regards to the GA review I promised to do some months ago. I sincerely apologize for leaving you hanging on that. I've been on a Wikibreak for the last few months, mostly on the need to free up time/energy for off-wiki reasons. I intend to return to editing now, though probably not to return to GA reviews just yet. Thanks for your understanding, I'll try and leave a note in the future if something like this comes up again. &#12296; Forbes72 &#124; Talk &#12297; 22:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mass–energy equivalence
The article Mass–energy equivalence you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Mass–energy equivalence 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 AhmadLX -- AhmadLX (talk) 17:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Very happy to review it again when you've refound some time for Wikipedia. It's not too far off and an important article to have right. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:03, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive - July 2021
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

WikiCup 2021 July newsletter
The third round of the 2021 WikiCup has now come to an end. Each of the sixteen contestants who made it into the fourth round had at least 294 points, and our top six scorers all had over 600 points. They were:


 * 🇧🇼 The Rambling Man, with 1825 points from 3 featured articles, 44 featured article reviews, 14 good articles, 30 good article reviews and 10 DYKs. In addition, he completed a 34-article good topic on the EFL Championship play-offs.
 * Epicgenius, a New York specialist, with 1083 points from 2 featured article reviews, 18 good articles, 30 DYKs and plenty of bonus points.
 * Bloom6132, with 869 points from 11 DYKs, all with bonus points, and 54 "In the news" items, mostly covering people who had recently died.
 * Standard of Oliver Cromwell (1653–1659).svg Gog the Mild, with 817 points from 3 featured articles on historic battles in Europe, 5 featured article reviews and 3 good articles.
 * Bennington Flag.svg Hog Farm, with 659 points from 2 featured articles and 2 good articles on American Civil War battles, 18 featured article reviews, 2 good articles, 6 good article reviews and 4 DYKs.
 * ICS Zulu.svg BennyOnTheLoose, a snooker specialist and new to the Cup, with 647 points from a featured article, 2 featured article reviews, 6 good articles, 6 good article reviews and 3 DYKs.

In round three, contestants achieved 19 featured articles, 7 featured lists, 106 featured article reviews, 72 good articles, 1 good topic, 62 good article reviews, 165 DYKs and 96 ITN items. We enter the fourth round with scores reset to zero; 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 (one contestant in round 3 lost out because of this). When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on 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. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Underland Macfarlane 2020 Penguin paperback cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Underland Macfarlane 2020 Penguin paperback cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

WikiCup 2021 September newsletter
The fourth round of the competition has finished with over 500 points being required to qualify for the final round. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants, 🇧🇼 The Rambling Man and Epicgenius, each scoring over 3000 points, and six contestants scoring over 1000. All but one of the finalists achieved one or more FAs during the round, the exception being Bloom6132 who demonstrated that 61 "in the news" items produces an impressive number of points. Other contestants who made it to the final are Gog the Mild, 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski,  BennyOnTheLoose, 🇷🇼 Amakuru and  Hog Farm. However, all their points are now swept away and everyone starts afresh in the final round.

Round 4 saw the achievement of 18 featured articles and 157 good articles. Bilorv scored for a 25-article good topic on Black Mirror but narrowly missed out on qualifying for the final round. There was enthusiasm for FARs, with 89 being performed, and there were 63 GARs and around 100 DYKs during the round. As we start round 5, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it to the final round; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. For other contestants, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.

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 Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

WikiCup 2021 November newsletter
The WikiCup is over for another year and the finalists can relax! Our Champion this year is, who amassed over 5000 points in the final round, achieving 8 featured articles and almost 500 reviews. It was a very competitive round; seven of the finalists achieved over 1000 points in the round (enough to win the 2019 contest), and three scored over 3000 (enough to win the 2020 event). Our 2021 finalists and their scores were:


 * 1) with 5072 points
 * 2) with 3276 points
 * 3) with 3197 points
 * 4) with 1611 points
 * 5) with 1571 points
 * 6) with 1420 points
 * 7) with 1043 points
 * 8) with 528 points

All those who reached the final round will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. Awards will be handed out in the next few days.


 * wins the featured article prize, for 8 FAs in round 5.
 * wins the featured list prize, for 3 FLs in round 5.
 * wins the featured topic prize, for 13 articles in a featured topic in round 5.
 * wins the good article prize, for 63 GAs in round 4.
 * wins the good topic prize, for 86 articles in good topics in round 5.
 * wins the reviewer prize, for 68 FAC reviews and 213 GAN reviews, both in round 5.
 * wins the DYK prize, for 30 did you know articles in round 3 and 105 overall.
 * wins the ITN prize, for 71 in the news articles in round 1 and 284 overall.

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether they made it to the final round or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup, some of whom did very well. Wikipedia has benefitted greatly from the quality creations, expansions and improvements made, and the numerous reviews performed. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition, not forgetting User:Jarry1250, who runs the scoring bot.

If you have views on whether the rules or scoring need adjustment for next year's contest, please comment on the WikiCup talk page. Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2022 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. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive – January 2022
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Good articles at 21:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC).

Welcome to the 2022 WikiCup!
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2022 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: and. Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2022 WikiCup!
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2022 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: and. Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

WikiCup 2022 March newsletter
And so ends the first round of the WikiCup. Last year anyone who scored more than zero points moved on to Round 2, but this was not the case this year, and a score of 13 or more was required to proceed. The top scorers in Round 1 were:


 * Epicgenius, a finalist last year, who led the field with 1906 points, gained from 32 GAs and 19 DYKs, all on the topic of New York buildings.
 * 🇨🇽 AryKun, new to the contest, was second with 1588 points, having achieved 2 FAs, 11 GAs and various other submissions, mostly on the subject of birds.
 * Bloom6132, a WikiCup veteran, was in third place with 682 points, garnered from 51 In the news items and several DYKs.
 * GhostRiver was close behind with 679 points, gained from achieving 12 GAs, mostly on ice hockey players, and 35 GARs.
 * 🇺🇳 Kavyansh.Singh was in fifth place with 551 points, with an FA, a FL, and many reviews.
 * Flag of Provo, Utah (1989–2015).svg SounderBruce was next with 454 points, gained from an FA and various other submissions, mostly on United States highways.
 * 🇺🇳 Ktin, another WikiCup veteran, was in seventh place with 412 points, mostly gained from In the news items.

These contestants, like all the others who qualified for Round 2, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews of a large number of good articles as the contest ran concurrently with a GAN backlog drive. Well done all! To qualify for Round 3, contestants will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two participants.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Anything that should have been claimed for in Round 1 is no longer eligible for points. 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 Needed.

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. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Missing
I have added you on the missing Wikipedians list, as you have not edited since April 2021. If you ever do come back, you can remove your name from the list. Thank you for your efforts back when you were prolific, and have a great time. Lazman321 (talk) 04:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed
Hello Footlessmouse! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! &mdash; MusikBot II  talk  17:16, 12 April 2022 (UTC)