User talk:Legion fi/Archive 1

Please mind your own business
No offence meant, but please stop interfering with my talk-page. I erased a nuisance-post from it. That's my choice, and none of your affair. -- Lonewolf BC 07:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Unsigned talk page comments
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 05:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comments
Aloha. WP:1.0/Assess does not require comments. There are a huge number of articles to assess, which is why such a requirement would be fruitless. Look at the FAQ for your own project: "Unfortunately, due to the volume of articles that need to be assessed, we are unable to leave detailed comments in most cases. If you have particular questions, you might ask the person who assessed the article; they will usually be happy to provide you with their reasoning." If you would like me to explain my assessment for a particular set of articles, I would be happy to do so. Which articles would you like me to add comments for? &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 05:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries. If you need help with anything, don't hesitate to contact me. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 05:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Samael Aun Weor
Hello, in May this year you added a tag to the Samael Aun Weor page that it needed more references from reliable third-party sources. I replied to your request on the discussion page stating that I managed to find one reliable third-party source which I added, but that other than that there are very few if any reliable third-party sources to add. If you still think more references are needed, then please place "citation needed" tags at the appropriate places in the text and I will look into if I can find a reliable source for it or if that portion has to be deleted. Thank you. Anton H 10:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Alice Bailey
Since there is an RfC, this would be a good time to add any comments you might have about the article. Kwork 17:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I second that request. Since you were the one who assessed the Alice Bailey article, and it has undergone a great deal of change since that time, and there is a Request for Comments, perhaps you would drop by again and read through the Talk page and the article and give us your opinion. Third parties are needed now.

Nmeless Date Stamp 02:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Legion fi. Thanks for taking another look at the Alice Bailey article. I appreciate your going to the trouble of making your observations. I just wish more people had added their comments also. Kwork 18:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Mexico
Thank you very much, Legion fi, for making observations to my edits. Perhaps you're right in most cases. As soon as I finish the translation job I am doing right now I will go back to the Wikipedia page about Mexico to read/review your changes. ¡Muchas gracias, paisano!correogsk (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Glitch City
An article that you have been involved in editing, Glitch City, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Glitch City. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Artichoker (talk) 02:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Jacques Saadé
I added some references to Jacques Saadé. --Eastmain (talk) 18:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Clarification
On The Devil's Footprints, the particular section I removed related to "jumping mice" was vandalism. This has since been altered to a suitable explanation, but the particular section I removed was rather obviously vandalism, and the IP address behind the edits had been warned and/or blocked for vandalism several times before. Just clarifying that. Malendras (talk) 00:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thornhill High
Hello Please could you un-revert the Thornhill High article.

Look in the discussion and you will see my reason for removing this content. It contravenes copyright because it was written by me and lifted word for word without permission or acknowledgment. It contains material which I do not want on Wikipedia.

125.238.85.223 (talk) 08:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to make it clear... The IP was right. Even if it wasn't written by him, the source constitutes self-published material. Therefore I agreed to the IP request and reverted myself --Legion fi (talk) 08:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
In my opinion, there was an assertion of notability. I will not apologise for abiding by policy. You should mention in future that the page has been deleted before. Thanks. -Toon05 18:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The page has been deleted now anyway, the point is moot. -Toon05 13:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Reassessment of Isaac Newton's occult studies
Hey there! Just checking if you've had any time to look at the article? If not, no biggie, but I'm curious because I'm thinking of adding in a new sub-section and don't know if I should wait or rush it in. Let me know on my User_talk:Trippz. Thanks --Trippz (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Wylfions
Hi there Legion fi.

I noticed that you had already contacted Ofthefairykin about an edit to Fairy. They have recently added a new article Wylfions, a kind of flower fairy, which I flagged for concerns about references and context. I did a google for Wylfion and could not find any mention, and so I have doubts about whether the article should remain. However it is a subject that is completely outside of my knowledge, so perhaps if you do have more knowledge in this area you could have a look at the article and see what you think. If not, sorry to have bothered you.

Cheers

WhaleyTim (talk) 11:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV policy apparently applies only to pro-left-wing articles
Hello. This is in response to your June 1, 2008 entry in my talk page, thus:
 * June 2008
 * [[Image:Information.svg|25px]] Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia.  Legion fi (talk) 01:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I wonder why there are so many advocates for the cause of a criminal dictator and tyrant as Fidel Castro and his accomplices, defending him and his "deeds" everywhere in Wikipedia, as if he were a sacred icon. Assume good faith in view of a murderous, ruthless strongman that has taken several thousand lives, devastated additional several million more lives, forced another couple of millions into exile, and tyrannized his country for half a century? More than naive, preposterous. Even more than preposterous, ridiculous.


 * Moreover, the Cuban "leader", as Castro is frequently called in this Encyclopedia, exported his Cuban revolution to ten Latin American countries in the 1960s, fostering, financing, arming and even manning guerrilla warfare until today (i.e. Colombia), threatening to topple democratic governments all over the region for a whole decade and claiming thousands of more lives! Leftist and ignorant WP editors have come to the extreme of completely suppressing all the texts referencing Cuban subversive activities in Latin America, as if they never existed. Other examples abound. In the Augusto Pinochet article, and in practically all the Chilean 1973 coup d’etat articles, there are many references to the CIA’s involvement in Chile, which was undeniably true. But in the same articles, no mention of the thousands of Cuban “advisors” present in Chile at the time is anywhere to be found (what were they doing there, were they tourists?). No mention is allowed of the complete, country-wide disaster that the regime of Allende (another "sacred icon") was leading the country to, under Cuban direction. Is Wikipedia full of commited, persistent comunnists, hiding under WP:NPOV? It sure looks like it. --13:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy
When people make edits leaving a reason in the edit summary and put an explanation in the talk page it is unlikely to be vandalism. Reverting such edits as vandalism is discourteous.--20.133.0.13 (talk) 09:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Piracy in Somalia
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Mjroots (talk) 12:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure it was vandalism. The added material that you removed came from a WP:RS. As per discussion on the talk page, the threshold is verifiablilty, not truth. To be fair, I gave the IP editor the same warning as you, and am not minded to take it any further than that. Mjroots (talk) 06:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Epilepsy Is Dancing speedy deletion
A little over zealous of you to put the speedy deletion box in the page before I'd finished putting the reference in. There are thousands of articles for music singles. Why have you singled this one out? Not a very nice way to welcome someone to wikipedia either. Nwatts88 (talk) 08:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Epilepsy Is Dancing
Hey, the non-notable musical recording tag is normally only meant to be used for musical recordings of bands without articles. If you have further concerns about the inclusion of this page I'd advise you to take it to AfD. Ironholds (talk) 08:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well the idea of the leniency of it is that per WP:MUSIC most musical recordings, especially singles, will be notable if the band is notable. In future if you think the tag is incorrect it is best to remove it rather than waiting for an admin to turn up; that can take rather a while, and there is no harm in letting it be. After all, if you (the tagger) have doubts about the applicability of the tag then others are likely to as well. Ironholds (talk) 09:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Derkovits Gyula
the Derkovits Gyula already exists in other languages .

I am new on wiki and I don't know how to connect them with the English one that I created (Ddaann2 (talk) 09:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC))

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Hacer un java
Hello Legion fi. I am just letting you know that I deleted Hacer un java, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. -- Phantom Steve /talk &#124;contribs \ 10:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you for the SD. I was not very sure about the correct criteria, but it was obvious to me that it wasn´t an encyclopedic entry. Again, thank you.--Legion fi (talk) 02:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Jessica adona
Hello Legion fi. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Jessica adona, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article claims importance/significance of the subject. Thank you. -- Phantom Steve /talk &#124;contribs \ 11:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thank you! :D --Legion fi (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Editing Ben Klassen Birthdate
why do you keep changing back his birthdate to the 20th?? i'm going to leave it for now, but once i can put in the reference i'll change it back to the 7th. are you OK with that? --Gummy Dummy (talk) 07:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Answered in his talk page --Legion fi (talk) 07:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

>>>UPDATE: you are correct, the 20th also shows up as his birthdate. so what is the proper way to go about this when there are conflicting birthdates?? i'm sure it's not the first time it's happened on wikipedia. please get back to me, thanks.--Gummy Dummy (talk) 07:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thank you!!! I'll try. :D --Legion fi (talk) 00:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You didn't have to take the message very seriously.  Wayne Olajuwon  chat   00:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah. I know. :) --Legion fi (talk) 00:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

San Lorenzo Christian School
I've reverted your change of the speedy tag on this page as schools are specifically excluded from the A7 criterion. Per the criteria, A7 applies to "An article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools)" (my emphasis). If you not already aware of the full criteria (at WP:CSD) then please make yourself aware of these before tagging using Twinkle as, I believe, Twinkle does not give the full criteria. Dpmuk (talk) 12:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are fully aware of the criteria it begs the question why you tagged this as A7. That said if you are fully aware of the criteria I apologise if I caused you any offence - this was not intended and many experienced editors miss the schools exception and so my message was just informational, I was not assuming bad faith.  Yes I did not look at your contributions but I did have a quick look at your talk page and notice you had a few messages about CSDs so I thought I'd mention the Twinkle issue as some users aren't aware of the full criteria - again sorry if this caused you any offence but it was only meant to be information.
 * I was not wikilawyering but merely trying to make an admin life easier by correctly tagging the article. Schools are specifically excluded from A7 for a reason - namely the fact that nearly all secondary schools are kept at AfD - and this is why I wanted to make sure you were aware of it.  (As an aside I don't think all secondary schools are notable although consensus seems to be against me and given that consensus I agree they're not, nor should they be, A7 candidates).
 * Finally our deletion policy specifically allows anyone but the page creator to remove a speedy tag - this makes sense as speedy deletions are meant to be uncontroversial and if someone (especially an editor in good standing) disagrees they're clearly not - so I ask you not to revert any removal I do of CSD tags. I would also note that I always do leave a note stating why, although unless this needs to be a long note, it will be in the edit log rather than on the talk page. Dpmuk (talk) 01:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah well
crap gets in - I didnt bother to check history when i saw it - reasonable chance of survival after translation - is overly optimistic - when language stuff like that gets in we rarely see the original editor return to fixit - case of rules dont fit SatuSuro 05:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Virginia Tech massacre
Revert because of "unreliable sources"?? The Associated Press is unreliable now?? Geĸrίtzl (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi - thanks for your input. The definition of exorcism (dictionary.com) is to expel or attempt to expel (one or more evil spirits) from (a person or place believed to be possessed or haunted), by prayers, adjurations, and religious rites. The AP article says a pastor claimed the boy had a "demonic power." Another said Cho's problem needed to be solved by "spiritual power" and needed "deliverance from the demonic power." While the article never used the term "exorcism" clearly this is what they are talking about -- it could be nothing else. So it's perfectly accurate to say the boy's mother was seeking exorcism. Don't you agree? Geĸrίtzl (talk) 23:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input again. Let me point out articles that claim those Korean pastors are well-known for performing exorcisms. I don't want to waste my time tonight on the WP article but feel free if you would like to. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/21/AR2009102104110.html - "Fairfax teen may have died in Korean exorcism, police say" -- "...Exorcisms have a long history in Korean theology, experts said." -- also (this one is more directly related to the case), "Cops probe whether exorcism caused Va. teen death" -- http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2010118890_apusfamilyexorcismprobe.html -- Oct 22 2009. Knock yourself out if you'd like to add either or both of those references. I would actually appreciate it, as I'm busy working on some freelance writing right now - thanks. Geĸrίtzl (talk) 00:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi - I found some time to fix it. Geĸrίtzl (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I really don't care enough to fight over it, but when I get time I'll take a look at the talk page (which you should have used first, instead of reverting my edits outright, according to WP policy). I know that you are simply wrong: using a synonym is NOT original research. And you need to read farther into the references I provided. My "[exorcism]" was not OR, it is in the text, explicitly. You have to read the articles from beginning to end. I understand and respect what you are trying to do, but still, you are simply wrong. Geĸrίtzl (talk) 00:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

1968 Tlatelolco Massacre.
Good job with the edits in the Tlatelolco massacre page, I did however edit your edit removing the description of how it began which you justified with the rationale that the surrounding of the plaza had been mentioned elsewhere.

First, the relevant text is important in that it gives information as to how the even in question (the massacre itself, not the rally) began. You can not just remove that outright, and the event is called "Tlatelolco Massacre" for a reason, IE: it was a massacre.

Second, although it was already mentioned that the plaza was surrounded, the question of when is very relevant to the event. 174.3.242.191 (talk) 00:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Ub net plus sarl
Hello Legion fi. I am just letting you know that I deleted Ub net plus sarl, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Tarde... pero más vale que nunca
Gracias por darme la bienvenida en Wiki.en, y perdon por haber contestado demasiado tarde. saludos. --Chrishonduras (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

June 2015
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on West Memphis Three. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Sundayclose (talk) 21:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Alright.
But when I get that journalism degree, make an official article on how this guy draws breasts like balls and can actually publish that well-known critical analysis (No really, can be found anywhere it's just that nobody actually CARES About this video game designer that he has such a dull generic Wikipedia page with nothing interesting other than the fact that he used to draw at the age of 19 that doesn't even have a citation in it but everyone seems to leave that in) on that guy we will see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riverkauss (talk • contribs) 18:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I do have a quick question actually!
Hi Legion fi,

Thanks for your welcome message, much appreciated. I wondered if you could help me with something...? When I first created my account, I got a nice pop-up box that kept re-directing me to articles needing attention. I just wanted to do some minor edits here and there to pass the time occasionally but I can't find this feature. Is there a SPECIAL page or some other thing I can find that will keep redirecting me to articles that are in need of proofreading/editing?

Thanks for the cookie

RachelBennett64 (talk) 07:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Assassination of John F. Kennedy
I will edit the article one more time. I will try to solve some of the mistakes done on previous editions. May you can fix another.--P2prules (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Re. reversion of my edits
You've reverted two of my edits without explaining what is meant by "possible POV pushing" (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Computer_memory&diff=702706285&oldid=702705039). Both of my edits had edit summaries (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Computer_memory&diff=702704609&oldid=702682665, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Computer_memory&diff=702705039&oldid=702704609), contrary to the message left at my talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AZ1199&oldid=702706315). If you think that my edit summaries were insufficiently detailed in explaining my reasons for removing the content, please elaborate as to why at Talk:Computer memory so that there can be discussion that is clearly associated with the relevant article, and is visible to other editors. AZ1199 (talk) 05:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Jai Waetford edit
Hi, Legion fi I'm sorry about my edit at the article about Jai Waetford. I will leave the page as it is, and maybe give you a message if someone has edited it wrong, if you know what I mean. Thanks

Marius2003Korn Marius2003Korn (talk) 18:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter


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

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

If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Thanks to everyone for participating, and good luck to those moving into round 2. ,, and --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 March newsletter (update)
Along with getting the year wrong in the newsletter that went out earlier this week, we did not mention (as the bot did not report) that claimed the first Featured Article Persoonia terminalis of the 2016 Wikicup. ,, and .--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 May newsletter


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

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

If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Thanks to everyone for participating, and good luck to those moving into round 2. ,, and -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Over the course of the 2016 WikiCup the following content was added to Wikipedia (only reporting on fixed value categories): 17 Featured Articles, 183 Good Articles, 8 Featured Lists, 87 Featured Pictures, 40 In The News, and 321 Good Article Reviews. Thank you to all the competitors for your hard work and what you have done to improve Wikipedia.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

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

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

The judges for the 2017 WikiCup are, , and.

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

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

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


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

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

So, on to the second round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

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


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

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

So, on to the third round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Round 3 saw the achievement of a 26-topic Featured topic by MPJ-DK as well as 5 featured lists and 13 featured articles. PanagiotisZois and SounderBruce achieved their first ever featured articles. Carbrera led the GA score with 10, Tachs achieved 17 DYKs and MBlaze Lightning 10 In the news items. There were 167 DYKs, 93 GARs and 82 GAs overall, this last figure being higher than the number of GAs in round 2, when twice as many people were taking part. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.

As we start round 4, we say goodbye to the fifteen or so competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 05:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck, and let the best man (or woman) win! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 06:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

We will open up a discussion for comments on process and scoring in a few days. The 2018 WikiCup is just around the corner! Many thanks from all the judges. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. ,, and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018
So the 2017 WikiCup has come to an end. Congratulations to the winner, to the other finalists and to all those who took part. 177 contestants signed up, more than usual, but not all of them submitted entries in the first round. Were editors attracted by the cash prizes offered for the first time this year, or were these irrelevant? Do the rules and scoring need changing for the 2018 WikiCup? If you have a view on these or other matters, why not join in the WikiCup discussion about next year's contest? , and. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 March newsletter
And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. With 53 contestants qualifying, the groups for round 2 are slightly smaller than usual, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining users.

Our top scorers in round 1 were:


 * 🇺🇸 Aoba47 led the field with a featured article, 8 good articles and 42 GARs, giving a total of 666 points.
 * 🇩🇪 FrB.TG, a WikiCup newcomer, came next with 600 points, gained from a featured article and masses of bonus points.
 * 🇮🇳 Ssven2, another WikiCup newcomer, was in third place with 403 points, garnered from a featured article, a featured list, a good article and twelve GARs.
 * 🇺🇸 Ceranthor, 🇮🇳 Numerounovedant, Carbrera, 🇳🇱 Farang Rak Tham and 🇷🇴 Cartoon network freak all had over 200 points, but like all the other contestants, now have to start again from scratch. A good achievement was the 193 GARs performed by WikiCup contestants, comparing very favourably with the 54 GAs they achieved.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) and Vanamonde (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 May newsletter
The second round of the 2018 WikiCup has now finished. Most contestants who advanced to the next round scored upwards of 100 points, but two with just 10 points managed to scrape through into round 3. Our top scorers in the last round were:


 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with three featured articles
 * Iazyges, with nine good articles and lots of bonus points
 * 🇮🇳 Yashthepunisher, a first time contestant, with two featured lists
 * SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with seventeen good topic articles
 * 🇺🇸 Usernameunique, a first time contestant, with fourteen DYKs
 * Muboshgu, a seasoned competitor, with three ITNs and
 * Courcelles, another first time contestant, with twenty-seven GARs

So far contestants have achieved twelve featured articles between them and a splendid 124 good articles. Commendably, 326 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2018 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met; most of the GARs are fine, but a few have been a bit skimpy.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 July newsletter
The third round of the 2018 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round had at least 227 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:


 * Courcelles, a first time contestant, with 1756 points, a tally built largely on 27 GAs related to the Olympics
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three GAs on natural history and astronomy topics
 * SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with a variety of submissions related to transport in the state of Washington

Contestants managed 7 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 120 good articles, 1 good topic, 124 DYK entries, 15 ITN entries, and 132 good article reviews. Over the course of the competition, contestants have completed 458 GA reviews, in comparison to 244 good articles submitted for review and promoted. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process; several submissions, particularly in abstruse or technical areas, have needed additional work to make them completely verifiable.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk), Vanamonde (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

Welcome to the 2019 WikiCup!
Hello and Happy New Year!

Welcome to the 2019 WikiCup, the competition begins today. If you have already joined, your submission page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and we will set up your submissions page. One important rule to remember is that only content on which you have completed significant work during 2019, and which you have nominated this year, is eligible for points in the competition, the judges will be checking! Any questions should be directed to one of the judges, or left on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will make it to round 2. Good luck! The judges for the WikiCup are, , and. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)