User talk:NativeForeigner/Archive/Archive-Early2012

Military Historian of the Year
Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: Sockpuppet investigations/Luciano di Martino
Would it now be okay if I tagged all of those accounts as suspected sockpuppets? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 08:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe your comment is about the four IP addresses listed. Normally we don't tag them as they are likely not to be used again especially on dynamic ranges. I mean clerks in general have no objection to it, but I personally think your time is better spent on something else than tagging one time IP socks. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  08:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely no objection. Generally they don't repeat, but it would certainly be reasonable for you to do it. NativeForeigner Talk 01:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 January newsletter
WikiCup 2012 is off to a flying start. At the time of writing, we have 112 contestants; comparable to last year, but slightly fewer than 2010. Signups will remain open for another week, after which time they will be closed for this year. Our currrent far-away leader is, due mostly to his work on a slew of good articles about The X-Files; there remain many such articles waiting to be reviewed at good article candidates. Second place is currently held by, whose points come mostly from good articles about television episodes, although good article reviews, did you knows and an article about a baroness round out the score. In third place is, who has scored 200 points for his work on a single featured article, as well as points for work on others, mostly in the area of pop music. In all, nine users have 100 or more points. However, at the other end of the scale, there are still dozens of participants who are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly!

The 64 highest scoring participants will advance to round 2 in a month's time. There, they will be split into eight random groups of eight. The score needed to reach the next round is not at all clear; last year, 8 points guaranteed a place. The year before, 20.

A few participants and their work warrant a mention for achieving "firsts" in this competition.
 * was the first to score, with his good article review of Illinois v. McArthur.
 * was also the first to score points for an article, thanks to his work on Hurricane Debby (1982)- now a good article. Tropical storms have featured heavily in the Cup, and good articles currently have a relatively fast turnaround time for reviews.
 * was the first to score points for a did you know, with Russian submarine K-114 Tula. Military history is another subject which has seen a lot of Cup activity.
 * is also the first person to successfully claim bonus points. Terminator 2: Judgment Day is now a good article, and was eligible for bonus points because the subject was covered on more than 20 other Wikipedias at the start of the competition. It is fantastic to see bonus points being claimed so early!
 * was the first to score points for an In the News entry, with Paedophryne amauensis. The lead image from the article was also used on the main page for a time, and it's certainly eye-catching!
 * was the first to score points for a featured article, and is, at the moment, the only competitor to claim for one. The article, "Halo" (Beyoncé Knowles song), was also worth double points because of its wide coverage. While this is an article that Jivesh and others have worked on for some time, it is undeniable that he has put considerable work into it this year, pushing it over the edge.

We are yet to see any featured lists, featured topics or good topics, but this is unsurprising; firstly, the nomination processes with each of these can take some time, and, secondly, it can take a considerable amount of time to work content to this level. In a similar vein, we have seen only one featured article. The requirement that content must have been worked on this year to be eligible means that we did not expect to see these at the start of the competition. No points have been claimed for featured portals or pictures, but these are not content types which are often claimed; the former has never made a big impact on the WikiCup, while the latter has not done so since 2009's competition.

A quick rules clarification before the regular notices: If you are concerned that another user is claiming points inappropriately, please contact a judge to take a look at the article. Competitors policing one another can create a bad atmosphere, and may lead to inconsistencies and mistakes. Rest assured that we, the judges, are making an effort to check submissions, but it is possible that we will miss something. On a loosely related note: If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, 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, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

X! is retired
I just wanted to let you know, in case you were not already aware, that X! has retired. Seeing as he was your SPI clerk mentor, you might want to ask the other SPI clerks for advice on how to proceed.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  20:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. Addressed. NativeForeigner Talk 23:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ashermadan
Hello NativeForeigner. The sock has been banned indefinitely, but I'd like to ask the reason why the master's block has not been extended since it's his second time running sockpuppets. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 06:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd like to echo Scieberking's concern. Thanks.  X.One   SOS  11:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's on my radar. I figure I'll give him an additional month, but I wanted to think it over, and seeing as he's still blocked, I have some time. NativeForeigner Talk 16:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But CT Cooper already took care of it. Much appreciated. NativeForeigner Talk 16:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Extended to one month and then reduced back to one week. Dazed and confused :) Thanks for your asnwers, though. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
Re the Daft/SPI. All the best. Jack | talk page 20:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 February newsletter
Round 1 is already over! The 64 highest scorers have progressed to round 2. Our highest scorer was, again thanks mostly to a swathe of good articles on The X-Files. In second place was, thanks an impressive list of did you knows about racehorses. Both scored over 400 points. Following behind with over 300 points were, , and. February also saw the competition's first featured list: List of colleges and universities in North Dakota, from. At the other end of the scale, 11 points was enough to secure a place in this round, and some contestants with 10 points made it into the round on a tiebreaker. This is higher than the 8 points that were needed last year, but lower than the 20 points required the year before. The number of points required to progress to round 3 will be significantly higher.

The remaining contestants have been split into 8 pools of 8, named A through H. Round two will finish in two months time on 28 April, when the two highest scorers in each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers, will progress to round 3. The pools were entirely random, so while some pools may end up being more competitive than others, this is by chance rather than design.

The judges would like to point out two quick rules reminders. First, any content promoted during the interim period (that is, on or after 27 February) is eligible for points in round 2. Second, any content worked on significantly this year is eligible for points if promoted in this round. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which would otherwise be caused by the Cup. 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 receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk &bull; email) and The ed17 (talk &bull; email) 00:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you think you could have a look at this?
— M. Mario  (T/C) 10:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 March newsletter
We are over half way through the second round of this year's WikiCup and things are going well! , of Pool B, is our highest overall scorer thanks to his prolific writings on television and film. In second place is Pool H's, thanks primarily to work on biological articles, especially in marine biology and herpetology. Third place goes to Pool E's, who also writes primarily on biology (including ornithology and botany) and has already submitted two featured articles this round. Of the 63 contestants remaining, 15 (just under a quarter) have over 100 points this round. However, 25 are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly. 32 contestants, the top two from each pool and the 16 next-highest scorers, will advance to round 3.

Congratulations to, whose impressive File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg became the competition's first featured picture. Also, congratulations to, who claimed good topic points, our first contestant this year to do so, for his work on Featured topics/1982 Atlantic hurricane season. This leaves featured topics and featured portals as the only sources of points not yet utilised. However, as recent statistics from show, no source has yet been utilised this competition to the same extent it has been previously!

It has been observed that the backlogs at good article candidates are building up again. While the points for good article reviews will be remaining constant, any help that can be offered keeping the backlog down would be appreciated. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/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 receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk &bull; email) and The ed17 (talk &bull; email) 23:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Abuse Filter on the Article Feedback Tool
Hey there :). You're being contacted because you're an edit filter manager, At the moment, we're developing Version 5 of the Article Feedback Tool, which you may or may not have heard about. If you haven't; for the first time, this will involve a free-text box where readers can submit comments :). Obviously, there's going to be junk, and we want to minimise that junk. To do so, we're working the Abuse Filter into the tool.

For this to work, we need people to write and maintain filters. I'd be very grateful if you could take a look at the discussion here and the attached docs, and comment and contribute! Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I have been sent to a clerk with a sockpuppet investigation - I trust this is the correct page.

Jim Hardie
Now I am aware I have been in a battle with this user who has previously been blocked. Apart from sockpuppetry there are three issues. 1.Ownership of edits and refusal to allow edits 2.Playing one puppet against another 3.Destructive and carping remarks (see Cricket 1940-44) Sent to Admin - BlackJack Jim Hardie Sorry to come back but this is a blatant sockpuppet for God's sake. Pleae note the attacks made on Golden Age of Cricket by BJ and Cricket 1940-44 by JM - they are as plain as possible - same language, approach, phrasiology etc. Can we please have action regarding Jim Hardie who is a blatant sockpuppet of. Evidence - Jim Hardie has made over a hundred edits to pre=1800 cricket since 18th Feb whem user Blackjack(the only other regular editor of this area 'retired'. No other editor has made these type of edits except Blackjack - these being tidying of references etc. He has attacked the entries of another editor using the same language, the same phrases, the same inside knowledge that was used when BlackJack was previously identified as an aggressive sockpuppet some time ago. He has used 'pretend' conversations between himself and Blackjack in a manner seen previously when he was using BartMaverick, Orrelly Man, talk sockpuppets among others. To summarise - Hardie has been active since Blackjack went silent on similar pages - he edits the same esoteric edits using the same turns of phrase - attacks other editors in the same manner and has used similar expresions found on the Blackjack page and his Midnight Rambler and Stumpsite website.In addition Hardie posted a critic of BlackJack on BJ's page - BJ has NEVER failed to answer such postings but has been silent Jim Hardie is blackjack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.74.151 (talk) 07:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC) This a typical post incidentally See a psychiatrist, will you? Cretin. Kind regards. --Jim Hardie (talk) 18:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello, NativeForeigner. The author of the above post, currently using IP, is the subject of Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft. I see from his archive, now four years old, that you blocked one of his 50-plus sockpuppets in February this year. If you look at the posts he has sent to several other editors about this matter, you will see that some have told him they don't believe him and others have completely ignored him or given him warnings. His problem with me is that I raised the latest SPI and he is trying to "turn the tables". Kind regards. --Jim Hardie (talk) 20:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello again and thank you for your help. Very prompt and efficient too. The two IPs you left alone belong(ed) to a hotel and I think it is safe to assume the troll was temporarily resident there, so no need to take action. I merely thought they should be in the log for completeness so that the edits are not lost. Oh, and by the way, I am NOT BlackJack and I can easily prove it. Kind regards. --Jim Hardie (talk) 18:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

QuecyKeith
Hi! NativeForeigner and good day to everyone... I've already promised to wikipedia not to use other existing accounts I've made and use only my account QuecyKeith as to users guide policy to maintain only a single account...However, I'm sorry that I, sometimes forgot that I'm using my other account and edit articles without logging out. Honestly, my purpose of my other accounts is for me to have more storage for my article (sandbox) drafts because I'm new to this site. But one thing is for sure, I am presently not connected, nor even currently involved, in any of the organizations, institutions, or companies that I've previously create an article and submitted. As of now, I'm currently not employed and doing business on dried fish wholesale/retailing. I am aware, and informed, on the users (contributors) policy guidelines and so I'm begging you guys to give me chance to correct my actions. Any of your advice, suggestions, comments, reactions, and recommendations is highly appreciated...

I think, previously, I've already request a speedy deletion of my other accounts because I don't know how to. I promise, from now on, I will only use my account " QuecyKeith " as my official account on wikipedia. Also, I'm again requesting admins, to please speedy delete my other accounts for me not to be tempt in using it again...

And Please do give me a chance to further correct my actions and violations regarding wiki policies...--Michael Padada (talk) 15:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. Thank you. If it is alright with you, I will block the Michael Padada account. In terms of sandbox drafts, you can have as many as you want on one account. Simply create multiple pages such as User:QuecyKeith/draft1, User:QuecyKeith/draft2 etc. Thank you for your openness. Is browneyes also your account? NativeForeigner Talk 15:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's my account also. Thanks very much for your kindness consideration... and also for the tips...Kindly block Browneyespercy, SMSP (SMSPians), and Michael Padada...--Michael Padada (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Would you mind checking a fourth IP in the same series?
Thanks for helping out at SPI, and I hate to ask this, but could you take a look at this one? Since you looked into the previous three 203.118.187.x IPs that are helping WLU, you might have done much of the homework needed to investigate the new one, 203.118.187.226. Normally I'd wait my turn, but WLU and this fourth sock violated 3RR (4RR in 8 hrs, assuming it is a sock like the prior 3). If we get it closed soon, I can include it fully in the existing AN3 discussion (4RR in 25 hours, with sock), without having to start a new one. BitterGrey (talk) 01:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * My apologies if this post was inappropriate. Others had recommended strongly that I find an admin to look at the SPI (eg ). BitterGrey (talk) 19:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah. It's OK. Just try to talk to an uninvolved when it involves content like this. NativeForeigner Talk 19:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Somewhat related comment

 * Thank you for letting me know, I very much appreciate it. If you could clarify on the archived SPI page that would be great (though I know Tiptoety removed a set of edits BG and I made to the sock archive, this seems like a good time to make an exception).  If you'd rather not, then your clarification on the current SPI is greatly appreciated and sufficient.
 * No worries, we all make mistakes - nobody got blocked, so no harm done as far as I'm concerned. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * WLU was notified of the SPI and chose not to contest it - until after it closed. BitterGrey (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have twice now given the reason I chose not to contest it, . Had it not been for the NativeForeigner's comment, I wouldn't have posted either one of those explanations.  Since the current finding is that there is no evidence the 203. account is me socking, I probably won't bother commenting anymore.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * He was notified, but in light of the more recent SPI I would find it valid to at least provide an explanatory note. NativeForeigner Talk 20:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. Other than the template, What should have been in the note? BitterGrey (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing. It's just unfair to say "you had a chance in a couple days to rebut it, you didn't, tough. You notified, which was good, but I thoroughly botched the investigation. NativeForeigner Talk 22:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is often unfair. Now that it is over 2,000 words, do you think SPI #2 will ever get the thorough review it needs? BitterGrey (talk) 01:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It is. Our job is to make it as fair as possible. And yes. It will. NativeForeigner Talk 02:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

In response to Saedon's battleground accusation, here's a link to a dated list showing that WLU is following me around Wikipedia, not visa versa. (I'm responding here since my last substantial comment on WLU's talk page was deleted with the note "or I can just delete this without reading it") BitterGrey (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 April newsletter
Round 2 of this year's WikiCup is over, and so we are down to our final 32, in what could be called our quarter-finals. The two highest scorers from each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers overall, have entered round 3, while 30 participants have been eliminated. Pool B's remains our top scorer with over 700 points; he continues to gain high numbers of points for his good articles on The X-Files, but also Millennium and other subjects. He has also gained points for a good topic, a featured list, multiple good article reviews and several did you knows. Pool E's was second, thanks primarily to his biology articles, with Pool H's  coming in third, with an impressive 46 did you knows, mostly on the subject of baseball. Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both scored over 600 points. Pools E and H proved our most successful, with each seeing 5 members qualify for round 3, while Pools C and D were the least, with each seeing only 3 reach round 3. However, it was Pool G which saw the lowest scoring, with a little under 400 points combined; Pool H, the highest scoring group, saw over triple that score.

65 points was the lowest qualifying score for round 3; significantly higher than the 11 required to enter round 2, and also higher than the 41 required to reach round 3 last year. However, in 2010, 100 points were needed to secure a place in round 3. 16 will progress to round 4. In round 3, 150 points was the 16th highest score, though, statistically, people tend to up their game a little in later rounds. Last year, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 points were needed. Guessing how many points will be required is not easy. We still have not seen any featured portals or topics this year, but, on the subject of less common content types, a small correction needs to be made to the previous newsletter: File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg, our first featured picture, was the work of both and, the latter of whom has also gone on to score with File:Map of the Battle of Guam, 1944.svg. Bonus points also continue to roll in; this round, earned triple points for her good articles on William the Conqueror and the Middle Ages, Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both earned triple points for their work on Western Jackdaw, now a good article,  earned triple points for her work on lettuce and work by  to ready antimony for good article status earned him triple points. managed to expand Vitus Bering far enough for a did you know, which was also worth triple points. All of these highly important topics featured on 50 or more Wikipedias at the start of the year.

An article on the WikiCup in the Wikimedia Blog, "Improving Wikipedia with friendly competition", was posted at the end of April. This may be of interest to those who are signed up to this newsletter, as well as serving as another way to draw attention to our project. Also, we would again like to thank and, for continued help behind the scenes. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it 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 receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk &bull; email) and The ed17 (talk &bull; email) 23:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIII, April 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIV, May 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 May newsletter
We're halfway through round 3 (or the quarter finals, if you prefer) and things are running smoothly. We're seeing very high scoring; as of the time of writing, the top 16 all have over 90 points. This has already proved to be more competative than this time last year- in 2011, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 was the lowest qualifying score. People have also upped their game slightly from last round, which is to be expected as we approach the end of the competition. Leading Pool A is, whose points have mostly come from a large number of did you knows on marine biology. Pool B's leader,, is for the first time not our highest scorer at the time of newsletter publication, but his good articles on The X-Files and Millenium keep him in second place overall. leads Pool C, our quietest pool, with content in a variety of areas on a variety of topics. Pool D is led by, our current overall leader. Nearly half of Casliber's points come from his triple-scored Western Jackdaw, which is now a featured article.

This round has seen an unusually high number of featured lists, with nearly one in five remaining participants claiming one, and one user,, claiming two. Miyagawa's featured list, 1936 Summer Olympics medal table, was even awarded double points. By comparison, good article reviews seem to be playing a smaller part, and featured topics portals remain two content-types still unutilised in this competition. Other than that, there isn't much to say! Things are coming along smoothly. As ever, 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. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Possible Queue 6 late substitution or addition
You an administrator who is listed at WP:DYK as actively involved, so I wanted to call your attention to a particularly timely hook for the next queue Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know. You may want to make a late addition or substitution.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

GOCE July 2012 Copy Edit Drive
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 June newsletter
Apologies for the lateness of this letter; our usual bot wasn't working. We are now entering round 4, our semi-finals, and have our final 16. A score of 243 was required to reach this round; significantly more than 2011's 76 points, and only a little behind 2010's 250 points. By comparison, last year, 150 points in round 4 secured a place in the final; in 2010, 430 were needed. Commiserations to Pool A's, who scored 242 points, missing out on a place in the round by a whisker. However, congratulations to Pool B's, whose television articles have brought him another round victory. Pool A's came second overall, with an impressive list of biological did you knows, good articles and featured articles. Third overall was Pool D's, with a long list of contibutions, mostly relating to baseball. Of course, with the points resetting every round, the playing field has been levelled. The most successful Pool was Pool D, which saw seven into the final round. Pool B saw four, C saw three and Pool A saw only the two round leaders.

A quick note about other competitions taking place on Wikipedia which may be of interest. There are 13 days remaining in the June-July GAN backlog elimination drive, but it is not too late to take part. August will also see the return of The Core Contest- a one month long competition first run in 2007. While the WikiCup awards points for audited content on any subject, The Core Contest about is raw article improvement, focussing heavily on the most important articles on Wikipedia. As ever, 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. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 11:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)