User talk:Grapple X/Archive 3

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

192 was our lowest qualifying score, again showing that this WikiCup is the most competitive ever. In previous years, 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) or 100 (2010) secured a place in Round 3. Pool H was the strongest performer, with all but one of its members advancing, while only the two highest scorers in Pools G and F advanced. At the end of June, 16 users will advance into the semi-finals. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 17:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

June 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=612946185 your edit] to Giallo may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page]. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Roosters (Millennium)
Gatoclass (talk) 16:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The judges would like to remind participants to update submission pages promptly. This means that content can be checked, and allows those following the competition (including those participating) to keep track of scores effectively. This round has seen discussion about various aspects of the WikiCup's rules and procedures. Those interested in the competition can be assured that formal discussions about how next year's competition will work will be opened shortly, and all are welcome to voice their views then. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. and 18:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of ...Thirteen Years Later
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article ...Thirteen Years Later 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 Lemonade51 -- Lemonade51 (talk) 15:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of ...Thirteen Years Later
The article ...Thirteen Years Later you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:...Thirteen Years Later for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lemonade51 -- Lemonade51 (talk) 21:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

FA comment
Hello Grapple X. If you have some spare time these days, can you take a look at Megadeth, an FA candidate of mine? The review is here, so I'll be grateful if you can leave your comment/vote whether the article deserves to attain FA status. Cheers.--Retrohead (talk) 22:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not a great judge of FA-level prose but if I get the chance tonight I'll pitch in with something like a source review or the like. GRAPPLE   X  18:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I know this doesn't concern editing but
Did you ever realize that last year you edit warred with a serial killer? This was the Wikiepdia account of Elliot Rodger. Just a crazy recap in case you weren't aware.

I also really liked your edit summary for the reverts you made. "If you're looking up sex acts, you have no grounds to be offended by seeing them." You really hit the nail on the head with that. Second Skin (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I now need to figure out if his tops having a letter to Richard Ramirez returned as undelivered or not. It's definitely fucked up. GRAPPLE   X  23:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * You mean you sent a letter to Richard Ramirez once? Second Skin (talk) 01:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Had his mail address in San Quentin, figured it'd make for a good conversation piece. GRAPPLE   X  02:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Ramirez, Ramirez... oh God, look at the proseline in that article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

You have to admit though, the fact you edit warred with Elliot Rodger and that he clearly showed his sexual frustration in the Wikipedia edit war - in this case; removing pictures of sexual acts on sexual articles that he was jealous other men could receive but he couldn't - which eventually led to one of the clear motivations why he carried out his killing spree is pretty over-the-top. It's almost like you got a taste of deranged mind before he became a worldwide famous killer. Second Skin (talk) 13:59, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

"all things" FAN
It's taken what seems like forever, but "all things" is a FA nomination again. Is there anyway you could stop by and leave some comments? Thanks!--Gen. Quon (Talk)   18:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Good articles Future GAN Backlog Drive
Hello everyone! Hope you've all been having a great summer!

TheQ Editor recently proposed the idea of having another Backlog Drive in either September/October or November/December of this year. For those of you who have participated in the past two drives you know I was the one who organized them, however, come September, this will be my most important year in school so I will not be able to coordinate this drive (if it happens). TheQ Editor has volunteered to be a coordinator for the drive. If any of you would like to co-coordinator, please notify TheQ Editor on his talk page.

If you would be interested in participating in a Backlog Drive sometime before the end of this year, please notify TheQ Editor. Also, make sure to specify what month(s) work best for you.

At the time this message was sent out, the backlog was at 520 nominations. Since May, the backlog has been steadily increasing and we are currently near an all time high. Even though the backlog will not disappear over one drive, this drive can lead to several others which will (hopefully) lead to the day where there is no longer a backlog.

As always, the more participants, the better, and everyone is encouraged to participate!

Sent by Dom497 --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Featured topic candidates/Inside No. 9/archive1
Hi Grapple X- thanks again for your review of A Quiet Night In. In case you're interested, the article has been nominated as part of a set at GTC. Your thoughts, if you have the time/inclination, would be very welcome. J Milburn (talk) 23:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

GA Cup
Hello everyone! We hope you have all been having a great summer!

As we all know, the recent GAN Backlog Drives have not had any big impact on the backlog. Because of that, me (Dom497), Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor have worked on an idea that could possibly finally put a dent into the massive backlog. Now, I will admit, the idea isn't entirely ours as we have took the general idea of the WikiCup and brought it over to WikiProject Good Articles. But anyways, here's what we have in mind:

For all of you that do not know what the WikiCup is, it is an annual competition between several editors to see who can get the most Good Articles, Featured Article's, Did You Know's, etc. Based of this, we propose to you the GA Cup. This competition will only focus on reviewing Good articles.

For more info on the proposal, click here. As a FYI, the proposal page is not what the final product will look like (if you do go ahead with this idea). It will look very similar to WikiCup's page(s).

The discussion for the proposal will take place here. Please let us know if you are interested, have any concerns, things to consider, etc.

--Dom497, Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

There is now a thread for brainstorming on how next year's WikiCup competition should work. Please come along and share your thoughts- What works? What doesn't work? What needs changing? Signups for next year's competition will be open soon; we will be in touch. If, at this stage of the competition, you are keen to help the with the WikiCup, please do what you can to participate in review processes. Our finalists will find things much easier if the backlogs at good article candidates, featured article candidates, featured picture candidates and the rest are kept at a minimum. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. and 22:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Signups for the 2015 WikiCup are open. All Wikipedians, new and experienced, are warmly invited to sign up for the competition. Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may also like to sign up for the GA Cup, a new WikiCup-inspired competition which revolves around completing good article reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. and 22:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Need help with Tracy Stratford
Hi, can you help me with the Tracy Stratford article? Paul Austin (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

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

A full list of our prize-winners follows:


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

Congratulations to everyone who has been successful in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and a particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have participated this year. We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, and all are welcome to participate. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2014 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. and 22:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

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


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

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

December 2014 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

GOCE holiday 2014 newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round, and one of the new changes this year is that all scores must be claimed within two weeks of an article's promotion or appearance, so don't forget to add them to your submissions pages! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! , and

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

GOCE 2014 report
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

New X-Files?
Have you been following the talks Fox is having about an X-Files rival? Forget a movie, I guess they want to do a 24-esque miniseries thing!--Gen. Quon (Talk)   04:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As long as it's better than the "season ten" comic series, I'm pretty interested. GRAPPLE   X  13:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sadly, I have to agree. While the comics were pretty fun near the beginning, they just started to bring everyone and their dog back from the dead. The news sources I've been reading keep using the word "reboot", but I have a feeling they all just mean "revive" or something like that, since Fox really wants Carter, Duchovny, and Anderson to be involved.--Gen. Quon (Talk)   21:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

February 2015 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

GOCE March newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. , and

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

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

Precious again
  inventive reviews

Thank you for DYK reviews which add to the article, well written, witty, considerate, helpful, seeing potential improvements. I first thought that Chinese Whispers was one of a kind but am happy to watch the same qualities elsewhere. I also like that you write poetry! - You are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC) Two years ago, you were the 58th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Three years ago, you were the 58th recipient of my  Pumpkin Sky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

April 2015 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

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

The points varied across groups, with the lowest score required to gain automatic qualification was 68 in Group A - meanwhile the second place score in Group H was 404, which would have been high enough to win all but one of the other Groups! As well as the top two of each group automatically going through to the third round, a minimum score of 55 was required for a wildcard competitor to go through. We had a three-way tie at 55 points and all three have qualified for the next round, in the spirit of fairness. The third round ends on June 28, with the top two in each group progressing automatically while the remaining 16 highest scorers across all four groups go through as wildcards. Good luck to all competitors for the third round! , and  16:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

GOCE June 2015 newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways: Sign up now Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
 * Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
 * Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
 * Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
 * Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
 * Research coordinators: run reference services

GOCE August 2015 newsletter

 * sent by via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

DYK nomination of Robert McLachlan (cinematographer)
Hello! Your submission of Robert McLachlan (cinematographer) 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) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yunshui 雲 水 14:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

FL candidate feedback
Hiya. A whe ago you left feedback at Featured list candidates/NWA World Welterweight Championship/archive1. I believe I have addressed all your comments, but when you have a moment i.wod appreciate it if you make sure i got it covered. Thanks in advance.  MPJ  -US 20:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

That Atari thing
I wasn't about to call out the source for being wrong [that would be OR], so removing the claim completely seemed safest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The most effectual Bob Cat (talk • contribs) 21:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey you
Yeah, you. Read this. GRAPPLE  X  15:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * And these

Your GA nomination of Zombi 2
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Zombi 2 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 FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 14:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Millennium (2015 comic book)
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Zombi 2
The article Zombi 2 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Zombi 2 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 09:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of accolades received by Millennium, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page E.R.. 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) 11:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Robert McLachlan (cinematographer)
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The WikiProject: Good Articles Newsletter (December 2012)
---
 * }
 * Read this newsletter
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 3 December 2012
 * }

Talk:Messers Run/GA1
Hi, there. A few days ago, you kindly agreed to review Messers Run for GA, seeing as the original review didn't have much to do with the criteria. Do you still have time to do this? Thanks, --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec  13:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sure. Was waiting on hearing back when the original review closed. I'll get looking at it shortly. G RAPPLE   X  13:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Should I fail the current one and then renominate? --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec  13:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Just had a look, it hasn't been returned to at all; I'll just replace it with my own on the grounds of inactivity. G RAPPLE   X  13:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The X-Files
Long time, no see! Hope everything is well. Have you heard what people are saying about the new X-Files episode? Apparently, it's going to be amazing.--Gen. Quon (Talk)   03:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Everything's good, man. Hope you're the same way. And I haven't heard anything about specific episodes (I'm trying to keep myself out of the loop so I'm not spoiling it for myself), but I did catch the teaser that went out for the series overall. It looks maybe a little too slick for me, like the post-LA episodes were, but overall I'm stoked for it. I deliberately never watching I Want to Believe because I didn't want to have seen everything so I'll get myself round to watching that now, maybe even look into getting the whole season 10/11 comics if they're still canon for this new series. G RAPPLE   X  08:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I won't spoil anything for you (I don't really know much, tbh), but they showed the first episode at Cannes a couple of days ago, and everyone was just gushing about it. They said it was the old X-Files that everyone loved, only set in the contemporary world. And there's rumors that they might do they miniseries every couple of years or so. That'd be neat.--<font face="Arial Black"><font color="#B22222">Gen. Quon <font color="#708090">(Talk)   15:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * That'd be nice. I think we're getting back to the paranoid atmosphere globally that the series first thrived on, which could lead to some interesting stories. G RAPPLE   X  15:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * You're very welcome; I didn't like the idea of it sitting for a while then being bumped back to the end of the queue by someone being unhelpful with the review process. Hope the next one goes more smoothly. G RAPPLE   X  15:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Richard Roma
Thanks for helping with the DYK project Victuallers (talk) 07:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Robert McLachlan (cinematographer)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Robert McLachlan (cinematographer) 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 Cirt -- Cirt (talk) 02:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Robert McLachlan (cinematographer)
The article Robert McLachlan (cinematographer) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Robert McLachlan (cinematographer) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cirt -- Cirt (talk) 04:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Where did you learn your trade?
Nice job on Richard Roma.

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 21:05, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for the review (and the one above as well). G RAPPLE   X  07:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey you
Try merging List of WCW International World Heavyweight Champions with the parent article and taking it to FL from there. G RAPPLE   X  13:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Siren (Millennium)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Siren (Millennium) 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 Cirt -- Cirt (talk) 11:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Roosters (Millennium)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Roosters (Millennium) 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 Johanna -- Johanna (talk) 02:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

re Barnstar
,

Thank you very much!

I just put all my other ongoing Quality improvement projects on hold, until I had successfully cleared the entire backlog at Good article nominations/Topic lists/Media and drama.

Hopefully other editors will take my example and at least chip in a teensy weensy bit to GA Reviewing as a way to pay it forward.

Thanks very much for your acknowledgement of my attempts to alleviate WP:BACKLOGS at GA Review -- it's most appreciated,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Siren (Millennium)
The article Siren (Millennium) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Siren (Millennium) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cirt -- Cirt (talk) 23:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Ice (The X-Files)

 * Thank you very much, I really appreciate you taking the time to copyedit the article. I should hopefully be nominating it in a day or two, so fingers crossed. G RAPPLE   X  17:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Mine are, and I'm glad to help; my kids loved that show when they were growing up. Good luck and all the best,  Mini  apolis  21:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Zombi 2
Thanks for helping to bring Halloween back to life Victuallers (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Scream Queens
True or not? I want to get my head wrapped around the matter before I do something that issues a warning. Callmemirela 🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  19:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


 * There's just a serious case of WP:IDHT going on here. I've already clearly explained that a section of nothing but quotes is 100% to be avoided and with no concern for actually fixing the problem, they've stuck by their guns stubbornly. Take it to ANI if it continues because they're clearly not here to collaborate. G RAPPLE   X  19:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oki doki. Thank you for the insight and my apoligies if this discussion has gotten you all rattled up. Callmemirela  🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  19:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

A full list of our award winners are:


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

We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, and all are welcome to participate. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2016 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.

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

Chris Carter's Year of Birth
Hi Grapple X,

I just wanted to mention that I am not a tech savvy person therefore my attempt to change and explain why I did so might have come off arrogant. I would like to apologize for that first off. There reason I made those changes is because the referenced used is an "unauthorized guide" therefore should not be used has a reference. With that said, I was trying to add my references to the change I made but like I've mentioned before, I am not tech savvy therefore not familiar on how Wikipedia works for changes. What I do know is the X-Files. I have some references that back my claim, official references but again I might be inserting them in a wrong way in this post. I would also add that in numerous TV interviews (wish I could find them) from the 90s, that Chris Carter himself specified that 1013 and 1056, used in the show, represents his day and year of birth. With everything said, I just want to point out that there is no need to belittle me because I do not know what to do with Wikipedia. Believe I was polite to you sir and would expect the same from you regardless.


 * I'll have to dig them out again, but I consulted a few different books, both official and unofficial, when writing that article, and they were uniform in stating 1957—and I have to say I've not heard anything about "1056" (the 1013 thing is obviously prominent though) during any research into Carter or the show. I'm unfamiliar with the particular book you've mentioned, though, so I will have to see if I can check out a copy. G RAPPLE   X  17:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Featured list informal peek
Hi Grapple X, I saw you recently had a FL promoted on a topic that was kind of complicated and was wondering if you'd be interested in doing an informal PR on Triple Crown of Thoroughbred Racing (United States) to see what's missing or - more to the point - what could be done differently before I put this up for a FL; there's a lot of text and so I was looking for an example (like yours) of a FL that passed with a lot of text commentary...any help or even informal comments there at the talk page would be welcomed! Thanks. Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 22:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The main impression I get from it is that it's trying to do too many things at once—it seems that the real meat and potatoes of it is those who have won all three Triple Crown winners, but you also have a list of all winners and a list of almosts. Perhaps splitting the winners out into Winners of the Triple Crown of Thoroughbred Racing (United States), which could include the two-out-of-three winners, and then using the existing title to give an overview of the results of each year's races regardless of having a shared winner or not, would be more efficient. I don't think it would entail much more work beyond the organisation, as the content itself you have there seems to be fine. But as it stands, the "Development", "Sponsorship and broadcasting" and "Individual race winners" sections seem like they should be in one article, and the "Winners", "Records", "Other notable achievements", "Gaps between wins" and "Unsuccessful bids" sections should be a second. In terms of text, you do have a good balance, as it's something that does need to be explained in prose but obviously lends itself to a list format for large swathes too, so that seems right. However you plan on proceeding with it, ping me during the FLC(s), as I know that text-heavy lists can be off-putting for reviewers and you might find yourself waiting a bit. G RAPPLE   X  23:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input; you raise interesting points. It's a challenge to take on something that's already out there — the article was already quite extensive when I began working on it and did have this mishmash problem even then.  There are only 12 Triple Crown winners.  I can see the wisdom of just splitting them out and fleshing out that list a bit, but is a list of 12 too small for FL status?   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  22:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * A stand-alone list of 12 is perfectly fine, especially as there's plenty of prose to complement it. I'd go with Grapple's suggestion, split the article into two clear, definable topics. One with the actual list of winners, alongside a collection of records and statistics. Lemonade51 (talk) 23:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * When it comes to defining an article or list's breadth, it's not so much raw size as scope—something can be small but focussed, to an extent that would overburden any potential parent article in terms of relative scale were it part of something larger. So twelve entries is not a universal measure of being small. Twelve entries in a defined scope with a good amount of focus, and a parent article which mentions them but would be overpowered by that same amount of detail is fine; and that's what you'd be looking at. Twelve entries for something that could easily be contained within its parent article without undue weight is too small, but for that to happen you'd be looking at maybe a film awards list for a film that won very little, or splitting an artist's discography by decade when they only have ten or fifteen records anyway. I could have a dig for you to find some FLs of similarly concise scope if you want to show precedent. G RAPPLE   X  23:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Chief Mouser to the Cabinet Office, United States Secretary of Energy and List of Presidents of the United States who died in office are all of similar size to what you'd be looking at; the latter especially is very prose based. G RAPPLE   X  23:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Chief Mouser! LMFAO! SCOMN!  (Snorted coffee out my nose!).  Delightful!   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  01:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

WCW International World Heavyweight Championship
TigerBeats (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Giallo titles
Will withdraw then. I don't think I'll grow to understand the distinctions you're making. "Date for a Murder" is widely used. It is listed as the international English name for "Omicidio per appuntamento" on IMDB; it is used by DVD reviewers and in the obituary of Giorgio Ardisson in "Obituaries in the Performing Arts, 2014". What is the point of adding the non-original German title in an English article? Why is "Forbidden Photos of a Lady Above Suspicion" given as an secondary, alternative title when it's as widely used as any giallo title in English? Who in the English-speaking world calls "Death Laid an Egg" "La morte ha fatto l'uovo"? "Marta" is not an Italian film. TigerBeats (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The problem is that IMDB is not considered a reliable source, as much of its content is user-generated and does not follow a standard manual of style; so what they use there is not necessarily an indication of general usage. The British Film Institute use the Italian titles exclusively, AllMovie use a mixture of both Italian and English depending on whether or not the film received mainstream English coverage (which tends to increase the usage of an English title). Printed publications on the films often tend towards the original titles as well, as you can see in many of the articles which have added any real degree of sourcing. As for the question of who uses the original titles? You'd be surprised. And as for the German title—it is the only reliably sourceable alternate title to that film; if we're listing non-native alternate titles there's no reason to draw an arbitrary distinction on which ones to use and not use. There are also Spanish-language titles for some of the other films, where they've been found in reliable literature. G RAPPLE   X  16:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Help expanding Article
Liked how you cleaned up the Zombi 2 article. I was wondering if you would like to collaberate with me on expanding several articles. If so please let me know.--Paleface Jack (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * It's certainly possible; depending on what you had in mind I might or might not have sources available for it. G RAPPLE   X  15:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * , did you have anything in mind? G RAPPLE   X  15:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I have several in mind, first one I was thinking of was the original Toolbox Murders film.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Haven't watched that one in forever, but I could give it a go. I can start up a userspace draft within the next few days, feel free to throw anything into it that you'd like (or vice versa if you prefer). G RAPPLE   X  16:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Almost done with the information on the film's development. Still needs a ton of more information though. Thanks send me a link to that userspace draft later.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC) I am also working on expanding the equally influential exploitation horror film I Drink Your Blood. Will add a userspace draft for that and will continue working on it while we collaborate on the first article.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC) please let me know where to find the userspace draft so I can help add stuff in it when you create it.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Sarah-Jane Redmond
Hi, I just promoted your hook to Prep 4. Is there a reason why you're calling her an "actor" and not an "actress"? Yoninah (talk) 23:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It's deliberate; I used it because "actor" is gender neutral language, which MOS:GNL recommends using. I prefer not to use anything that's tied to a gender needlessly when I can avoid it (so no actress, waitress, comedienne, etc). Thank for promoting the hook though. G RAPPLE   X  23:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Yoninah (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Sarah-Jane Redmond
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Siren (Millennium)
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK reffing
I agree its odd to have two refs in consecutive sentences... but that's what DYK requires. If you wanted to change the rules then you could debate a proposal at DYK talk. Victuallers (talk) 10:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I can't say I was aware of it as a hard and fast rule, just that the hook fact needed to be sourced. Then again I did have a pretty long wikibreak and practice could easily have changed in the interim. But thank you for looking at the nomination. G RAPPLE   X  10:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Collateral Damage (Millennium)
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Collaboration Revised
So I have been very busy lately working on expanding a different article than the one I wanted to collaborate with you on, and it is taking me longer than expected. The article that I have been working on is on the film I Drink Your Blood another heavily influential Exploitation film whose article is severely underdeveloped. I am almost done with writing the information on the film's production but I might need help rewriting it and adding more sources to it and the article as a whole. If you are willing to help me please let me know since I will not be able to collaborate on Toolbox Murders until I finish expanding this article.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC) I just recently posted the information that I am still working on for the film I Drink Your Blood in my User Sandbox.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I might not be able to pitch in as much as I had thought; I usually edit at work on downtime these days and there's a lot less of that downtime than there used to be. If there's anything specific you'd like help with, though, let me know. G RAPPLE   X  23:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, same here. Getting everything together is taking longer than expected. As for what I needed help with all I need for the production section is fine tuning the information I have so far, possibly adding a quotebox later on if I can find a good enough quote, along with adding additional sources to the information so that there are multiple sources backing up that information.--Paleface Jack (talk) 23:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sandwedge
There is a formal procedure for archiving FACs, which really requires the actions of a coordinator. Perhaps you should alert Ian or Graham. In the meantime, please feel free to contact me if you need further help with the new sources. Brianboulton (talk) 12:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I ordered up the three books you mentioned already (for the princely sum of three pence), so when they arrive I'll set to work on the article based on what they have to say. I'd really appreciate if you could give it a look after that point to see if it still seems in need of expansion. G RAPPLE   X  11:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Talkback
North America1000 10:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Interview request
On the eve of The X-Files returning, I have kind of a weird request. I'm currently in a grad class about ethnographic methods, and, naturally, I'm focusing on Wikipedia and fan cultures (go figure). For this class, I'm required to interview a subject, and in this case, it would be about how fans aggregate and defend "canon" on Wikipedia in regards to cultural media objects (e.g. TV shows, movies). Since I know from experience that you're very much into quite a few pop culture franchises, I was wondering if I could send you some questions about your motivations and thoughts, and then maybe follow up in a few days? Sorry for this kind of being totally out of the blue.--<font face="Arial Black"><font color="#B22222">Gen. Quon <font color="#708090">(Talk)   22:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I have no problem fielding any questions you have; but I always figured I was a pretty insular dude so I'm not sure if I'm a great aggregator to model anything on. My email should be accessible through my profile here though if you want to send anything. G RAPPLE   X  22:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, I emailed you some questions. If it makes you feel better, I hope to eventually email a few more editors, so as to paint a more comprehensive picture of the editors on this site.--<font face="Arial Black"><font color="#B22222">Gen. Quon <font color="#708090">(Talk)   23:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Speaking of fan communities... there's apparently people at the Daniel Craig article and related subjects arguing whether or not he had cameo in the most recent Star Wars... — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, yes; thank you! I'm actually focusing a chunk of this research on the Star Wars fandom, so that's amazingly serendipitous.--<font face="Arial Black"><font color="#B22222">Gen. Quon <font color="#708090">(Talk)   00:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Still haven't seen the movie myself. One day... oh well. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'd recommend walking out halfway through. About the point where they're in the totally-not-the-Mos-Eisley-cantina cantina. Save yourself some disappointment. G RAPPLE   X  11:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Gen, I haven't gotten anything in my inbox or junk folder; could you send it again? G RAPPLE   X  11:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Weird. I'll send it a little later today. Sorry about that!--<font face="Arial Black"><font color="#B22222">Gen. Quon <font color="#708090">(Talk)   15:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There was a bug on my end (Yahoo is terrible), but I believe I fixed it. Hopefully it sent now.--<font face="Arial Black"><font color="#B22222">Gen. Quon <font color="#708090">(Talk)   16:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Millennium (2015 comic book)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Millennium (2015 comic book) 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 Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 21:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Megan Gallagher
Ok, I've checked the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion and there isn't anything of use in it. It lists her appearing in "Invasive Procedures" on page 85, and in "Little Green Men" on page 285, and on 287 mentions that her character Nurse Garland was named after actress Beverly Garland. I'll keep looking. Miyagawa (talk) 18:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Found the interview! It's on the official Star Trek website here. That's the one with the "Megan Gallagher type" story. Miyagawa (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for checking—I knew she'd appeared a few times so I thought there might have been some more meat to discover, but it seems not. I just think the article as I have it (which already used that interview, so great minds and all that) is just on the cusp of being taken to GAN but isn't quite solid enough. But something will no doubt turn up. G RAPPLE   X  20:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)