User talk:MarshalN20/Archive 15

3O misunderstanding
Hi. I think you misunderstood the dispute at Talk:Reciprocal Public License. Could you please read my last comment on there and reply? I attempted to clarify what my concerns were, which have not been addressed, and which were not represented in the other editor’s descriptions. Thanks. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look. Thank you for reaching out to me.-- MarshalN20 ✉🕊 23:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi! I'm not seeing anything wrong with the properly-sourced mention of two examples in the article. If you would like the opinion of other users regarding this subject, please feel free to file a Request for Comment (RfC). Thanks.-- MarshalN20 ✉🕊 23:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. Are my concerns of tangential relevance unfounded? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've already provided a third opinion, and so I kindly indicate that any further questions on this matter can be answered by multiple editors through the RfC. Thanks!-- MarshalN20 ✉🕊 01:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If you provided a third opinion regarding the dispute I described, I must have missed it. Could you point it out? Thanks. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure! I have provided a third opinion in this section, which you've also replied at. My opinion is based on the discussion as presented by both you and , and not as to how either of you might have exclusively framed it. I have already provided my advice on how to further proceed on the matter, but it might be wise to read a couple of Wikipedia essays (here and here) as well as Wikipedia's consensus policy. Sincerely.-- MarshalN20 ✉🕊 01:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * All right, thanks. It just didn’t feel like you took my position into consideration at all, really (and I just realized this may come across as bitter or something, but that’s honestly not intended), but I’ll accept that you just didn’t see the problems I thought I did. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem, pal. Stay safe. 😊-- MarshalN20 ✉🕊 02:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, and hey, happy New Year! —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Statment at requests for arbitration
Hi, MarshalN20. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Arbitration/Requests/Case. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; and concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.

Requests for extensions of the word limit may be made either in your statement or by email to the Committee through this link or arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org if email is not available through your account.

For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 11:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the notification. Might you have any advice on how to successfully request a statement extension? I truly do not want to participate in this ArbCom case beyond the current stage, and I consider that the statement that I wrote is all I have to say about the matter at hand. I do care deeply about ArbCom and consider their role important, but, based on past experience, the process is long, time-consuming, and honestly very nerve-wrecking. I edit Wikipedia out of enjoyment and to help others enjoy it; I do not wish to be any further involved in this particular area of the project. Best wishes for 2017.-- MarshalN20 ✉🕊 14:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The options for requesting an extension can either be made at your section in the requests page or by using the e-mail link posted in my previous message. You will need to explain why you need to exceed the current statement length and why this additional commentary is required now rather then being entered at the evidence phase (if the request is raised as a case). Amortias (T)(C) 15:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks Amortias!-- MarshalN20 ✉🕊 15:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Your statement is now at 1305 words. Please reduce this to your (already extended limit) of 900 as soon as possible. Amortias (T)(C) 17:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the note, Amortias! Might you know if the Committee has read my Double Jeopardy Request? I'd like to place it into a box as well, but don't know if the Arbitrators have had a chance to look at it (which is completely understandable, it being New Year's and a holiday season). By the way, happy 2017! 🙂-- MarshalN20 ✉🕊 17:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately not, the clerks aren't privy to the discussions held by the arbitrators so we don't know (unless they advise us) of what they have or haven't seen or taken into consideration. Amortias (T)(C) 17:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand.😔 Oh, and I read what you wrote at the ArbCase Requests talk page, and wanted to tell you that I appreciate all the work you've done so far to help the case run smoothly. I'm sure you know that you're doing a great job, but sometimes it helps to hear it from others as well. Thanks again! 😊-- MarshalN20 ✉🕊 18:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Statment at requests for arbitration
Hi, MarshalN20. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Arbitration/Requests/Case. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; and concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.

Requests for extensions of the word limit may be made either in your statement or by email to the Committee through this link or arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org if email is not available through your account.

For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 11:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the notification. Might you have any advice on how to successfully request a statement extension? I truly do not want to participate in this ArbCom case beyond the current stage, and I consider that the statement that I wrote is all I have to say about the matter at hand. I do care deeply about ArbCom and consider their role important, but, based on past experience, the process is long, time-consuming, and honestly very nerve-wrecking. I edit Wikipedia out of enjoyment and to help others enjoy it; I do not wish to be any further involved in this particular area of the project. Best wishes for 2017.-- MarshalN20 ✉🕊 14:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The options for requesting an extension can either be made at your section in the requests page or by using the e-mail link posted in my previous message. You will need to explain why you need to exceed the current statement length and why this additional commentary is required now rather then being entered at the evidence phase (if the request is raised as a case). Amortias (T)(C) 15:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks Amortias!-- MarshalN20 ✉🕊 15:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Your statement is now at 1305 words. Please reduce this to your (already extended limit) of 900 as soon as possible. Amortias (T)(C) 17:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the note, Amortias! Might you know if the Committee has read my Double Jeopardy Request? I'd like to place it into a box as well, but don't know if the Arbitrators have had a chance to look at it (which is completely understandable, it being New Year's and a holiday season). By the way, happy 2017! 🙂-- MarshalN20 ✉🕊 17:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately not, the clerks aren't privy to the discussions held by the arbitrators so we don't know (unless they advise us) of what they have or haven't seen or taken into consideration. Amortias (T)(C) 17:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand.😔 Oh, and I read what you wrote at the ArbCase Requests talk page, and wanted to tell you that I appreciate all the work you've done so far to help the case run smoothly. I'm sure you know that you're doing a great job, but sometimes it helps to hear it from others as well. Thanks again! 😊-- MarshalN20 ✉🕊 18:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

War of the Pacific arbitration case opened
You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/War of the Pacific. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/War of the Pacific/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 17, 2017, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/War of the Pacific/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the update, Kevin!-- MarshalN20 ✉🕊 01:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for being so inspiring and kind.😌-- MarshalN20 ✉🕊 15:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

A suggestion
Don't feel that you have to respond and rebut each and every allegation made against you. Simply say your piece and then don't respond further, people can see through that sort of thing. Responding all the time can give the impression of a WP:BATTLE mentality. I used to respond like that until I had a light bulb moment when it was pointed out to me. A simple question, how has it been working out for you so far? WCM email 10:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi . Thank you for the guidance; your wisdom is valuable to me. I'm a tad stressed out by the case as well as "real life" work—not just due to the allegations, but also just the memory of it all going back to 2009. I've been a fool in my younger years, and there's still more that I need to learn about life. I still fear that my health won't handle the stress properly, and possibly may need a Wiki-break. I'd like to finish the Seven Wonders article this year.
 * On a more positive note, I've been finding songs about food for my students. They're in Spanish, since I don't know (or remember) listening to any in English. The class is fun, a mixture between history and anthropology, and I'll have a potluck with them likely at the end of the semester. I only have to grade quizzes and essays, which is pleasant.
 * Let me know how 2017 has been treating you thus far.-- MarshalN20 ✉🕊 13:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

You have new messages at the Graphics Lab
You have new messages at the Graphics Lab. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 02:30, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. Replied.-- MarshalN20 ✉🕊 15:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors February 2017 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

You have new messages at the Graphics Lab
You have new messages at the Graphics Lab. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 12:48, 23 February 2017 (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)

You have new messages at the Graphics Lab
Hey! I'm sorry to give you new message announcements back-to-back, but I'm not really sure if they're necessary or not. I'd appreciate your input, if you would, on if you did get my ping over at WP:GL/M and just hadn't had time to reply or if, as I fear might be the case, no one knows I replied unless they check their watchlist. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 11:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Nikkimaria (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Nikki! I've been checking my e-mail for the past few days, but have not received anything regarding Wikipedia.-- MarshalN20 ✉🕊 15:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Try now? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've received it. Thanks Nikki! I'll reply later today.-- MarshalN20 ✉🕊 16:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

War of the Pacific case closed
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
 * 1) and  are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).
 * 2)  is warned not to cast aspersions on other editors, or to unnecessarily perpetuate on-wiki battles.
 * 3) Where the dispute relates specifically to the interpretation of individual military history sources, the Committee recommends that these disputes in this topic area be formally raised at the Military History Wikiproject talkpage to ensure a wider audience and further expert input. Evident manipulation of sources, or disregard of a MILHIST consensus, should be considered disruptive editing and addressed via regular administrative action where appropriate.
 * 4) Where any content dispute involves both  and, those editors must seek wider input by raising the matter at any one of: the Military History Wikiproject talkpage, WP:3O, or WP:RFC. Both editors must abide by any subsequent consensus that arises from this process. Disregard of consensus should be considered disruptive editing and addressed via regular administrative action where appropriate. Nothing in this remedy restricts the editing of the disputed topic area by other editors.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Mini  apolis  18:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

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)

Orphaned non-free image File:PeruTeam1970.png
 Thanks for uploading File:PeruTeam1970.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:40, 25 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)

¡ Viva el Perú ! :)
¡ Chevere que jugarán el repechaje contra Nueva Zelanda, ojalá que lo sobreviven ! Un saludo, Kareldorado (talk) 06:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Karel! New Zealand plays good football, so I just hope Peru does not get too confident. How about Belgium? This might be their tourney to win.-- MarshalN20 ✉🕊 12:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

We will open up a discussion for comments on process and scoring in a few days. The 2018 WikiCup is just around the corner! Many thanks from all the judges. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. ,, and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:40, 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) 13:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

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