User talk:Plarem/Archive 1

May 2011
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on 2011. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: 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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ''
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Welcome!
Hello, Plarem, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! '' Beeblebrox (talk) 21:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

May 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Justin Bieber with this edit, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Free_Bear (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Justin Bieber, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by ClueBot NG.
 * Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
 * ClueBot NG produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Justin Bieber was changed by Plarem (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.915454 on 2011-05-28T18:07:20+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

June 2011
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Justin Bieber, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 17:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:MEMEBASE LOGO.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:MEMEBASE LOGO.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Memes-the-worst-mvp-in-the-world.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Memes-the-worst-mvp-in-the-world.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Assesment as GA
You appear to have changed a number of assessments to GA. This should not be done unless an article meets the good article criteria and has been through the nomination process. Could you please discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject European Union before making any more such assessments? --Boson (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I will do that... – Plarem (User &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 14:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

GA review of Music of Nier
Hi, thanks for attempting to review Music of Nier for GA. In the future, however, if you are going to do a review you need to actually review the article- saying that it "needs more references" and "needs more subdivisions" is not a review, especially given that everything in the article is cited to something and the content is divided up just like 20 other GA video game music articles. I'd suggest that before you do any more reviews that you read and understand Reviewing good articles and What the Good article criteria are not; for now I've reinstated the article at GAN. -- Pres N  21:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Going off the above, I ask that you stop doing GA reviews for now and actually read through the criteria at WP:WIAGA. In your reviews, you chastise articles for only one image, when quantity of images is mostly irrelevant to GA as long as they're licensed right, and in fact too many unfree ones is a problem. Saying an article "needs more content" without providing specifics doesn't help at all either. If more content is needed, at what spots, for example? Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 22:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Alright, I will stop reviewing articles for a while and read WP:WIAGA. I am sorry if I caused any inconvenience.
 * – Plarem (User &#124; talk &#124; contribs) Flag of Europe.svg 13:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

GA templates
The page paramater should stay "page=1". Where are you getting the notion that it should be changed? Gimmetoo (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect protection template
I just wanted to let you know that your user page has been listed as having an incorrect prorection template: Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. Pages are protected by administrators. --Boson (talk) 15:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I realised that when I read the protection policy. Thanks for a reminder. – Plarem (User &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 15:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 July newsletter
The finals are upon us; we're down to the last few. One of the eight remaining contestants will be this year's WikiCup champion! 150 was the score needed to progress to the final; just under double the 76 required to reach round 4, and more than triple the 41 required to reach round 3. Our eight finalists are:


 * , Pool A's winner. Casliber has the highest total score in the competition, with 1528, the bulk of which is made up of 8 featured articles. He has the highest number of total featured articles (8, 1 of which was eligible for double points) and total did you knows (72) of any finalist. Casliber writes mostly on biology, including ornithology, botany and mycology.
 * , Pool B's winner and the highest scorer this round. PresN is the only finalist who has scored featured topic points, and he has gathered an impressive 330, but most of his points come from his 4 featured articles, one of which scored double. PresN writes mostly on video games and the Hugo Awards.
 * , Pool A's runner-up. Hurricanehink's points are mostly from his 30 good articles, more than any other finalist, and he is also the only finalist to score good topic points. Hurricanehink, as his name suggests, writes mostly on meteorology.
 * , Pool B's runner-up. Wizardman has completed 86 good article reviews, more than any other finalist, but most of his points come from his 2 featured articles. Wizardman writes mostly on American sport, especially baseball.
 * , the "fastest loser" (Pool A). Miyagawa has written 3 featured lists, one of which was awarded double points, more than any other finalist, but he was awarded points mostly for his 68 did you knows. Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, including dogs, military history and sport.
 * , the second "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Resolute's points come from his 9 good articles. He writes mostly on Canadian topics, including ice hockey.
 * , who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool A). Most of Evan's points come from his 10 good articles, and he writes mostly on meteorology.
 * , who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Phil's points come from his 9 good articles, 4 of which (more than any other finalist) were eligible for double points. He writes mostly on aeronautics.

We say goodbye to our seven other semi-finalists,, , , , , and. Everyone still in the competition at this stage has done fantastically well, and contributed greatly to Wikipedia. We're on the home straight now, and we will know our winner in two months.

In other news, preparations for next year's competition have begun with a brainstorming thread. Please, feel free to drop by and share any thoughts you have about how the competition should work next year. Sign ups are not yet open, but will be opened in due course. Watch this space. Further, there has been a discussion about the rule whereby those in the WikiCup must delcare their participation when nominating articles at featured article candidates. This has resulted in a bot being created by new featured article delegate. The bot will leave a message on FAC pages if the nominator is a participant in the WikiCup.

A reminder of the rules: any points scored after August 29 may be claimed for the final round, and please remember to update submission pages promptly. 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 00:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

2000s European sovereign debt crisis timeline
Hi, it looks like you tried to nominate the above list for FL status, but you did not complete the nomination process. Please do so, according to the instructions at Featured list candidates. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations
Hi Plarem , I'd like to draw your attention to Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations, which refers to you by name.
 * I don't have the time now to re-review all your reviews, but some of them appear to be inadequate (and someone else may re-review them). You may well have failed articles that deserved to be failed and passed articles that deserved to be passed, but the associated reviews are, I'm sorry to say, barely adequate; and in one case none existent.
 * In at least one review (Talk:Xiaxue/GA2) you state that an article is Start class and that it needs to go through C-class and B-class before it can be submitted to WP:GAN. It might be Start-class, but the rest of the statement is not true: it is not a requirement of WP:WIAGA, so as a GAN reviewer you should not be making such claims.
 * In Talk:Xiaxue/GA2 you write "There are enough references to the amount of content, the sources are Ok and this contains no original reasearch." (there is a spelling mistake); and in Talk:Finnish parliamentary election, 2011/GA2 you wrote "There are enough references, all of them to reliable sources and as far as I can see, the article contains no original research.". The requirement in WP:WIAGA is Factually accurate and verifiable and that means that you have to verify them during the review. Perhaps you did verify them, but nowhere in your assessment do you state that you have verified them, you merely state: "There are enough references, all of them to reliable sources and as far as I can see ...". Did you simply count them, the "all of them to reliable sources and as far as I can see" statement of yours gives some doubt as to whether you checked them or not against the statements in the article.
 * In Talk:Spanish Civil War/GA1 you appear to withhold GA until a "display problem" is taken to WP:VPT. This does not in anyway appear to be a requirement of WP:WIAGA.
 * You awarded Indian Head gold pieces GA-status without doing a review.
 * You've nominated European Central Bank at WP:GAN. I've not reviewed it in any depth, but it has a citation needed as well as a not in citation given flag and they were already present when you nominated it. For someone doing GAN reviews to submit an article to GAN in that state is worrying - and I could "quick fail" the nomination so that would appear in the article history as a "fail" (I won't).

The problem now is that you are upsetting nominators by your reviews; and you have (this is the third one) three sections on your talkpage about inadequate GAN reviews. You are also inventing requirements that are not in WP:WIAGA. In the worst case, some of those GAN reviews could be referred back to WP:GAR and overturned; they could also be referred back to WP:GAR and the decision upheld, but your reviews shown to be inadequate. I think they are and I've done over 400 GAN reviews: if you don't believe me I know someone who has done over 500 GAN reviews and I'm sure his comments will be similar to mine. I don't have time in what is left of September to provide any more advice.

I would suggest, strongly, that you stop doing any more reviews until European Central Bank has been reviewed by a competent reviewer. Whilst your intentions are well intended, you don't seem to have adequate competence yet to be doing GAN reviews on your own. Pyrotec (talk) 15:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with most of the concerns raised by Pyrotec above, but I disagree with his suggestion that you stop doing GA reviews. Instead, I would suggest that for all future reviews, you request a second opinion (stating that you are a new reviewer) and do not close the nomination until an experienced reviewer has offered a second opinion. Please seek a mentor (who could handle your requests for second opinions), read the guide to GA reviewing and read reviews of other articles (conducted by experienced reviewers). Doing so would enable you learn how to review well and contribute better, without upsetting nominators or compromising the quality of reviews. Thanks for reviewing Xiaxue and Pathlight School - would you like to write several GAs as well (I have written seven)? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Well I would like to write some Featured Lists. I have written 3 lists, with 1 still working on... See my user page for more details. I have nominated the 2000s European sovereign debt crisis timeline for FL criteria. And I am sorry if I have caused inconvenience. – Plarem (User talk contribs) 14:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Plarem. Just to make it clear, I'm not trying to discourage you from contributing to wikipedia my aim is to try and minimise controversy at WP:GAN. You have one open review at Talk:Sarajevo/GA1, for which you are the reviewer, so J.L.W.S. The Special One's suggestions above offers a good way forward for that review. I've also provided a detailed second opinion at Talk:Schengen Area/GA1, where you are the nominator, but I'm dropping out of wikipedia until October: that article is very close to being a GA but some corrective actions are needed, so I'm not going to make a decision - that is for the lead reviewer. The requirements for deciding whether to award GA-status, or not, are given at WP:WIAGA. What the Good article criteria are not is not a requirement, it is an essay. If you object to the reviewer's decision (should it be failed - I don't believe that it will) you can submit the article to WP:GAR, but it will be reviewed against the requirements of WP:WIAGA not What the Good article criteria are not. Pyrotec (talk) 10:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

2011
Please use the talk page rather than doing the mass edits you are doing. Thanks FFMG (talk) 20:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Signature
Hi, I'm not sure if anyone has pointed this out to you but images are not allowed in signatures (for the reasons given in that link)  Jebus989 ✰ 12:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll fix that now. – Plarem (User talk contribs) 18:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

– Plarem (User talk contribs) 18:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Great thanks  Jebus989 ✰ 19:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed tags in Dylan and Cole Sprouse
Hi. I've been working on improving this article, but I'm not sure what needs citation on the following two sentences:

1. "The twosome first appeared in a commercial for toilet paper switching on-screen time every few seconds. "
 * What part of this needs citing? Is it the type of commercial? Or the fact that they switched every few seconds (which is part of California's child labor laws for entertainment)?

2. "They later appeared in several television sitcoms and starred in the straight-to-DVD family films, I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus and Just for Kicks. "
 * Why does this need citation? They're main cast members in both movies. Am I supposed to cite the movies?

Just thought I'd ask, since the reasons for the tags were unclear. :) - Purplewowies (talk) 02:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

As per number 1 the tag  is to cite that they WERE in that commercial. And number 2 is there by accident I'll remove it.

Thanks, – Plarem (User talk contribs) 14:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
 &tilde;danjel [ talk | contribs ] 18:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar Barnstar
Thanks, danjel, that's my first barnstar... – Plarem (User talk contribs) 18:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

GA review
Please see the review page of European Central Bank, I have explained everything there. Regards Abhilasha369 (talk) 09:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

You are aware of the Talkback template are you? – Plarem (User talk contribs) 15:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 September newsletter
We are on this year's home straight, with less than a month to go until the winner of the 2011 WikiCup will be decided. The fight for first place is currently being contested by, and , all of whom have over 200 points. This round has already seen multiple featured articles (1991 Atlantic hurricane season from Hurricanehink and Northrop YF-23 from Sp33dyphil) and a double-scoring featured list (Miyagawa's 1948 Summer Olympics medal table). The scores will likely increase far further before the end of the round on October 31 as everyone ups their pace. There is not much more to say- thoughts about next year's competition are welcome on the WikiCup talk page or the scoring talk page, and signups will open once a few things have been sorted out.

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 12:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

European Union
I've removed the FAC nomination for European Union, as WP:FAC instructions require that you consult major editors to the article first; please do that before nominating the article again. Ucucha (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't read that. Thanks for removing it, – Plarem (User talk contribs) 20:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 18:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia:Signing yourself


A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:Signing yourself, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Srobak (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

That is fine, I forgot about that... – Plarem (User talk contribs) 18:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 20 euro note
The article 20 euro note you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:20 euro note for things which need to be addressed.  Puffin  Let's talk! 13:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: technical stuff at 2011 in Poland
Thank you for the star; if you ever have questions about Poland-related articles, feel free to stop at WT:POLAND! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 17:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

ECB
I noticed some of the improvements you made to that article and I'm watching the GA review page. Thanks for your diligent work. If you need some gated references you can email me (through my talk/user page) and I can gopher around my library for them. Protonk (talk) 23:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 09:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for taking time to review the GAN. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 17:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Help
I will try to help you on European reated articles ito GA status. Thanks --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 20:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 21:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

50 Euro Note
I have initiated the GA review process. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 21:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Review complete,(see talk page).It needs about 20-40 minutes worth of clean up (mainly prose) and then I'm ready to give it the green light.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 22:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I have finished all the comments that were left for me to do... – Plarem (User talk contribs) 20:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your speedy response and good work. There are still a few more things. Please check the article talk page when you have time. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 16:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ (again) – Plarem (User talk contribs) 18:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've made a few additional changes: copy edited and expanded the lead, reorganized a few sentences in the Background and History sections. If you are OK with these changes, then I'm ready to give GA status.  Please let me know, Thanks!-- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 15:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * They are fine, made one minor spelling mistake fix and I never wouldv'e thought of putting the amount of cirulating fifty euro notes in the lede! – Plarem (User talk contribs) 15:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, we are done. Congratulations! :-) -- — Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 18:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing it. – Plarem (User talk contribs) 18:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!
--Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 10:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks – Plarem (User talk contribs) 10:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!
Thanks Vibhijain – Plarem (User talk contribs) 15:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

GA review started
I've started a GA review of 500 euro note. Please see initial comments at Talk:500 euro note/GA1. --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 00:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

You haven't started the GA Review. You have nominated the article. Can I sign on to the nomination as well, since I did ost of the improving... – Plarem (User talk contribs) 08:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 October newsletter
The 2011 WikiCup is now over, and our new champion is, who joins the exclusive club of the previous winners: (2007),  (2008),  (2009) and  (2010). The final standings were as follows:



Prizes for first, second, third and fourth will be awarded, as will prizes for all those who reached the final eight. Every participant who scored in the competition will receive a ribbon of participation. In addition to the prizes based on placement, the following special prizes will be awarded based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, the prize is awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round.


 * The Featured Article Award:, for his performance in round 2. matched the score, but Casliber won the tiebreaker.
 * The Good Article Award:, for his performance in round 4.
 * The Featured List Award:, for his performance in round 4. matched the score, but Miyagawa won the tiebreaker.
 * The Recognised Topic Award (for good and featured topics):, for his performance in round 3.
 * The Did You Know Award:, for his performance in round 1.
 * The In the News Award:, for his performance in round 1.
 * The Reviewer Award (for good article reviews):, for his performance in round 3.

No prize was awarded for featured pictures, sounds or portals, as none were claimed throughout the competition. The awards will be handed out over the next few days. Congratulations to all our participants, and especially our winners; we've all had fun, and Wikipedia has benefitted massively from our content work.

Preparation for next year's WikiCup is ongoing. Interested parties are invited to sign up and participate in our straw polls. It's been a pleasure to work with you all this year, and, whoever's taking part in and running the competition in 2012, we hope to see you all in January! J Milburn and The ed17 00:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Belated Thank You
Thank you for the Halloween greeting on my user page. It was very kind and thoughtful. Happy Thanksgiving! Cheers!--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 15:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Free edit zone
You could probably make a Good Topic out of all those Good Articles you worked on? - Benzband (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, yes, I am trying to do that... Anyway, thanks for the WikILove. – Plarem (User talk contribs) 19:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Cheers, then. And best of luck ;)  - Benzband (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Good Article Status Granted to 5 euro note
Thanks for the cookie, and for reviewing my article. – Plarem (User talk contribs) 18:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)