User talk:SmileBlueJay97

hiQ labs pages
Hi! This is Darren, CEO of HiQ Labs. We are building Predictive Analtyics algorithms for Human Resources. You flagged our page. We are in the process of adding content about Human Resources Algorithms. The content is also on our Linkedin page.

Please let me know what I else I can do to help keep our page active and not deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darrenmiami (talk • contribs) 18:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey Darren. Your article was deleted per (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) of speedy deletion. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing.Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable. Wikipedia neither endorses organizations nor runs affiliate programs. See also Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability. Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so. You have a conflict of interest to the subject. All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. If you are clear with the above statements, I will help you create a draft page at Articles for creation. The draft will need to be reviewed before it goes 'live'. When you finish, you'll be able to submit it to be reviewed by volunteers (you can add a message here and I'll review it for you). After a successful review, it will be moved to the article namespace. SmileBlueJay97 talk 08:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

About The PuYu Hotel and Spa
Hi SmileBlueJay97,

I am create the page "The puyu hotel and spa" not for promotion and publicity.

Our sister to the Puli hotel also has the relevant page in Wikipedia.“the puli hotel and spa”.

So we want to have a objective and neutral as her introduction.

Best regards,

--RingHu (talk) 09:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey RingHu. I understand that The Puyu hotel article has been created and deleted multiple times already. Please make sure that the article is written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics also must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources. Please also help improve The Puli Hotel and Spa as it may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for geographic features. Try creating an article using Article wizard. The draft will need to be reviewed before it goes 'live'. When you finish, you'll be able to submit it to be reviewed by volunteers (you can add a message here and I'll review it for you). After a successful review, it will be moved to the article namespace. SmileBlueJay97 talk 05:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hey SmileBlueJay97.I understand your means and try to write. I create an article for the first time, So I don't know how to use a lot of functions. How to add a message here? What can I do and how to do?


 * like this?

The PuYu Hotel and Spa
The PuYu Hotel and Spa (Chinese: 璞瑜酒店; pinyin: Puyu Jiudian) is the first and only luxury “Urban Resort” hotel in Wuhan, China, officially opening on 20th November, 2013. Located between Optics Valley’s commercial district, the picturesque East Lake, the Ma’anshan National Forest Park, and Huazhong University of Science and Technology. The PuYu is managed by Urban Resort Concepts[1],a Hong Kong based luxury hotel management company, which has created a landmark destination for travellers with their inaugural property, The PuLi Hotel and Spa in Shanghai. The PuYu is a member of “The Leading Hotels of the World[2]” (LHW), a luxury hotel consortium. The hotel logo was inspired by waves (浪花), since the city of Wuhan is famous for its lakes and rivers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RingHu (talk • contribs) 05:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

RingHu (talk) 05:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * @RingHu:  Please note that Wikipedia is not a travel or tourism guide. Thanks,  Philg88 ♦talk 05:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey RingHu. As Philg88 noted above Wikipedia is not a travel or tourism guide. Also what you have above includes material copied directly from http://travel.china.com.cn/txt/2013-10/23/content_30381668_2.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. If you still do not understand why the article is inappropriate for Wikipedia, I can write you a response in Chinese. SmileBlueJay97 talk 06:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey SmileBlueJay97. I have understand you mentioned policy and relevant provisions. I am just confusing that, you say " you can add a message here and I'll review it for you". Please kindly tell me, Which one can I do, add a amendment in this talk page or create a new article?  Sorry to have troubled you--RingHu (talk) 05:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey RingHu. This is not troublesome at all and I'm glad that I'm able to help you. Click here then press Write an article now (for new users). Follow the directions to create a new article. After you are done creating the article you can submit it for review. The submitted drafts are reviewed by volunteers. If you want me to review it for you, you can add a message here on my talk page just as Arun did above (User talk:SmileBlueJay97). Please feel free to contact me here if you have any other questions. SmileBlueJay97 talk  06:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Mockrunnner
Hello SmileBlueJay97,

The site was marked for review because of an error of mine. I wanted to write the article based on what is written on the website of Mockrunner, and unfortunately I saved the article too early, saving the original content of the page. Of course the bots found the original page the article was based on. I then wrote the whole text by myself to make it my own work. Did you check if the content is still counting as copied from another source? In case you did, I will definitely contest the deletion so that it will not be deleted. Underworldguardian (talk) 14:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey Underworldguardian. I tagged the article for deletion but I wasn't the one that deleted it. If you want the article restored, you should go ask RHaworth and provide a valid reason in support of your position. I and the deleting admin both performed a web search with the contents of Mockrunner and found that the article appears to include material copied directly from http://mockrunner.sourceforge.net/. Since substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it has been deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. SmileBlueJay97 talk  05:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Vernon L. Hawkins
Vernon is a new and upcoming rapper with the hip hop group Migos! I think it is very important we make a page for him now because it will soon be very difficult to track his successes and failures! Im sure it will be many of both!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deante890 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No multiple independent reliable sources for a standalone musician BLP. WP:TOOSOON is also valid. SmileBlueJay97 talk 04:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

empowering the vision project
hi , i wanted to create a wiki page on 'empowering the vision project'. it is non-profit and and non-governmental organisation and has served the Tibetan community, especially the the Tibetan youth by helping them financially, through career counselling, organizing conferences and exchange programs and help the unemployed Tibetan youth to find job. i work at empowering the vision office and was told to make a wiki page of it. i made, but it got deleted. i copied some materials from our website. can u please help me to make a page of empowering the vision project? Students for a free tibet wikipage is there, and for your information, our actions and function are same. so, why can't we create a wikipage of our organisation. waiting for your reply soon.. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Topchen (talk • contribs) 06:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey Topchen. Welcome to Wikipedia. The page has been deleted under criteria G11 and A7 of Criteria for speedy deletion. 220 of Borg gave you a pretty good suggestion. I also strongly recommend not trying to create any new articles for a while. Instead, just make small improvements to existing articles. That way, you can gradually learn how Wikipedia works. After a time, you will know enough about what sort of thing is acceptable, and you will be able to write new articles without fear of all your work being deleted. In my experience, editors who start in this gentle way, making small changes to begin with, have a very much better chance of having a successful time here than those who try to write articles right from the start. Try creating an article using ‪Wikipedia:Article wizard‬ the next time. Using Articles for Creation instead of creating a new article directly may grant more leeway with respect to various rules/policies/guidelines/best practices. SmileBlueJay97 talk 10:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * (blush) --220  of  Borg 10:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Deleted page
Please let me know why the page was not appropriate. I am leaning to use wikipedai. Please u can email at appsvalle at gmail I would really appreciate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Appsvalle (talk • contribs) 11:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ SmileBlueJay97 talk 08:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Venator Music
Hello, SmileBlueJay97

This label is one of the official partners of FiXT Music, also It's going to be full armored music licensing company. And important to notice, that a lot of new releases on the way to people and one of them including collaboration work with such famos person as 1.8.7 So we need this page to have a possibility to show to our listeners our achievements and have a regular data base with all the info about our label.

Best regards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Destroid111 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Please note that Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. The article also fails WP:ORG. Please see Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on company notability. SmileBlueJay97 talk 10:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Concerning Alexander Sladkovskiy
Hello, SmileBlueJay97!

I would like to clarify the information about deletion the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Sladkovskiy. What should I do to let the page stay on the website? This article is only the translation of the following one: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9,_%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D1%80_%D0%92%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87 I have already changed the article from the first variant. It is the official biography, that is situated on our official website. http://en.tatarstan-symphony.com/sladkovskiy/

Please, help me to finish the creation of the page. it is really important for our orchestra to have this. I would greatly appreciate your answer. Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ildargso (talk • contribs) 13:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey . There are some things that I want to point out to you.
 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources.
 * For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.


 * You have a conflict of interest to the subject. All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations.
 * You should try to make contributions to Wikipedia. You may be blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia if your account appears to be mainly intended for publicity and/or promotional purposes. There are many Wikiprojects covering different areas of interest here. At the individual projects you will generally find a list of things that needs to be done.
 * Alexander Sladkovskiy has been protected from creation until March 5th, 2015. If you want the article to be unsalted, you should go ask RHaworth and provide a valid reason in support of your position.
 * I saw your comment on Talk:Alexander Sladkovskiy. You can go to Article wizard and request an article be written on the topic. You can also try creating an article using Article wizard (after you request unprotection). The draft will need to be reviewed before it goes 'live'. When you finish, you'll be able to submit it to be reviewed by volunteers (you can add a message here and I'll review it for you). After a successful review, it will be moved to the article namespace.
 * Feel free to contact me here if you have any other questions. Best, SmileBlueJay97 talk 09:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I protected Alexander Sladkovskiy with the comment author is clueless which, I admit, steps over the bounds of civility. But even here you have confirmed my view: you use the wrong format to link to the articles in question - the russian link should be Сладковский, Александр Витальевич. In Alexander Sladkovskiy, you allowed your first attempt to sit around for a week with a prod tag when you should have been adding references. With your next attempt, you do the totally pointless thing of adding db-copyvio-notice to the article itself - twice! Having had it deleted as a copyvio, you simply repost it!
 * You claim it is a translation of the Russian, so why does SmileBlueJay think it is a copyvio?
 * The guy is probably notable so my advice is find help . Try WikiProject Russia or ru:talk:Сладковский, Александр Витальевич. You could even try - she is a native Russian speaker. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Kim Hyun Joong
Hello. First of all, I am sorry for the inconvenience caused, I wasn't really aware about talk pages in Wiki. I have searched the certain topic very well, that's why I had been editing it.

Firstly, the following two sentences I had added: "However, the investigation by the authorities will clarify whether the violence claimed by the woman was used or not in their fight. While Kim is on a World Tour performing concerts, he is to be summoned for questioning soon" are taken from the following source: http://m.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20140825000705

Secondly, the second paragraph which I had edited like this: "On September 2, 2014, Kim says he had a light physical fight with his ex-girlfriend on one occasion but he strongly denies having abused her neither once nor repeatedly. The police remarks to the media, "To substantiate Kim Hyun Joong's assault allegation, everything is vague. There is no evidence except A's statement to prove who assaulted A and that was Kim Hyun Joong. Kim Hyun Joong says it was a light physical fight that happened while they argued about breakup issue." About the rib fracture, Kim Hyun Joong speculates it was from horse playing around (wresting games/ playing/ joking) and he says that he did not know about it honestly. Kim Hyun Joong's statement reflects the statement released by his agency, which stated that there was a physical fight between the two of them once, and that the repeated assault is not true. However, as reported before, his girlfriend claimed that there were several instances of him physically abusing her over the course of two months. Because the statements of the two sides were totally different from each other, the police will be calling in both sides for further questions." is taken from the two following sources: http://m.star.mt.co.kr/view.html?no=2014090302480639255 http://m.news.naver.com/read.nhn?mode=LSD&mid=sec&sid1=106&oid=108&aid=0002334801

Stavgr (talk) 21:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Your message on my talk page
Hello SmileBlueJay97!

I have absolutely no idea of what is unreviewing something but I trust you did well, thanks! Good Day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TymeToTry (talk • contribs) 18:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Nevermind this message, wrong page :)

SPI on Janperson etc.
Hi SmileBlueJay97; regarding your message on Janpersonn's talk page, I thought you'd like to know I've opened an SPI here because I think Janperson/Junperson/Janpersonn are linked to. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you for notifying. Your explanation is very thorough, I don't think there's anything else for me to add. SmileBlueJay97 talk 06:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries; I would have kept quiet about my suspicions if the user hadn't sock-hopped when I asked him about his accounts. Doubtless he'll abandon the latest account or "forget his password" again. These accounts aren't troublesome content-wise but it could be a good hand/bad hand editor that we aren't aware of. Any way I'll let the SPI run its course and see what happens. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

AFCH script
As you're using the old ugly unmaintained AFCH script (state of which isn't your fault), please take a look at this discussion and the question (poll) raised below it. --Gryllida (talk) 10:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey Gryllida. Thanks for this message. I honestly didn't even know about the new script until you messaged me. I have added my support to the poll and updated my common.js page with the new script. Cheers, SmileBlueJay97 talk 10:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't blaming you. I understand.  And thanks. :-) --Gryllida (talk) 10:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

A11 and G3
A tip. A11 is for things that could well be real but are very obviously not notable (or even significant), like the new word created by Polly Flookempusher last Thursday (which is known to all of three people already...). G3 is for things like Broganism, which are obvious attempts to mislead (or at least to make Wikipedia look silly if not deleted quickly). A11 assumes good faith, G3 assumes evil (or probably downright silly) intent. Peridon (talk) 15:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey Peridon. Thank you for the tip. I marked the article as A11 because another user previously told me that tagging G3 is "needless biting of new user." I understand now and will make sure to tag the articles for G3 instead in the future. SmileBlueJay97 talk 15:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * A11 was brought in because there were things that didn't fit 'hoax' - that is, things probably in good faith (or at least, possibly in good faith). Drinking games (usually reinventing beer pong), neologisms that well never get beyond the lesson in which they were created - they're what A11 is for. With G3, it's a real attempt to mislead - and it has to be obvious enough for the most ardent inclusionist to have no objection. Be careful, though. Bobble-head doll syndrome looked very like a hoax at first to some. With a real hoax, you shouldn't need to worry about biting. The author will either start editing properly (one or two do), or is no loss to the encyclopaedia. And if they suddenly produce a sheaf of excellent references (or even two ordinary references...), you can always gracefully apologise and help them fit them in. Things that aren't quite so obvious should go to AfD where they will be torn apart by the wolves, or shown to be correct but not notable, or rescued. All good fun. Peridon (talk) 17:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for taking the time to explain this and I love your good humor. SmileBlueJay97 talk  18:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Roslyn Hill
Hang on, SmileBlueJay97, we are at a Meetup/Portland/Feminist and Queer Art edit-a-thon & you have tagged the article that a newbie just started. Please consider removing your tag for a day until she can catch up. Peaceray (talk) 20:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have removed the tag per your request. Nothing came up when I did a general google search with her name. SmileBlueJay97 talk 20:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Removed content
Hello Mr. SmileBlueJay97,

When I logged in to my Wikipedia account, I noticed that some content was removed from a celebrity page that i created. There was a table showing upcoming projects. Is it against Wikipedia policy to include future projects? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igenuz (talk • contribs) 06:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Please note that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Thanks, SmileBlueJay97 talk 22:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Irene Bae
Hey did you see the new "Irene Bae" page? I left a response on the creator's page, but do you know the policy of applying our merge consensus on to similar pages? Asdklf&#59; (talk) 15:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I would just redirect the page back to Red Velvet (band). This fits under criteria G4. (Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion) of speedy deletion. Link him/her to WP:RECREATE and explain that although it is not forbidden to recreate a previously deleted article, Irene's notability status hasn't changed yet. I would also link him/her to the Irene's AFD so he/she will be able to learn the reason behind the deletion and the consensus on the issue. Cheers, SmileBlueJay97 talk 23:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Seventeen wiki
Hello~ The Seventeen Wikipedia page has been marked as written from a fan's point of view. I was wondering if you new what needed to be removed/changed in order for that to be taken off? Also, I'm working on a different thing for Seventeen, in which I'm writing a full history of the group. Would it be against a copyright policy for me to take the history I write for that project and also put it on the Seventeen Wikipedia page? I was thinking it would be fine because I'm the writer of the history that would be added, but I'm not sure.--Allegedlyinsane (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey Allegedlyinsane~ Since you wrote the history yourself, it would not be a copyright. I marked the page as written from a fan's point of view and overly detailed. Please avoid including information that is trivial and of importance only to a small population of fans. The "As Main Artist", "Like Seventeen Show" and "Music Show appearances" sections should all be removed. Pre-debut vocal practice videos are not notable and should not be counted as discography. Being backup dancers for another group is not notable and should not be included in a Wikipedia either. Please note that Wikipedia is not a fansite. Thank you, SmileBlueJay97 talk 17:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hold on thar... If this history has been published online or in print anywhere, it's not OK to import it here. Things can be licensed, but you then lose control of the subsequent use as Wikipedia is licensed for free use by anyone anywhere. If your history is not yet published, you can use it here - but the same applies. It becomes available for anyone to republish. And if you did then publish it (as you would be entitled to do, you would have to acknowledge Wikipedia as the source. Sounds silly? Avoiding legal problems. Copyright is a bit of a minefield, and we have trouble sometimes establishing where stuff came from. Or, very importantly, when. Did it start here, get copied by A, recopied by B (who didn't acknowledge Wikipedia), and then thought to be a copyvio here? Or did B write it, C copy it into Wikipedia, and A copy it from Wikipedia? See what I mean? Peridon (talk) 11:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Kwari River
Look at Kwari River and see the changes I made, especially capitalization. Towns and rivers in India are not easy, because the creators are not good at capitalization and grammar. --DThomsen8 (talk) 17:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey Dthomsen8. Thank you for reviewing my copyedit. I saw the changes you made but didn't see you capitalize anything. I may have missed something but what exactly did you capitalize? SmileBlueJay97 talk 01:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * river and sheopur became River and Sheopur. I also did several changes which are not strictly copyediting, such as the coordinates. Use the history tab to see changes over time.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see the change now. Thank you again for reviewing my copyedit. I will make sure to look for these things in the future. SmileBlueJay97 talk 01:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Detective Kids
Not an A11, sorry. It's a book that does exist - Amazon's selling it. I've declined, and prodded it instead as self-published and non-notable. Keep A11 for things invented by students etc. Anything like a book (even an e-book) is either real or a hoax. A11 is ideas, words and games. Real to the inventor (or so it's claimed), but not to more than about five or so mates. Peridon (talk) 11:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added a comment above at Seventeen wiki... Peridon (talk) 11:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the wrong tag. The book seemed to be self-published and probably non-notable at first glance so I didn't bother to do a search before tagging the page. I was actually going to tag the page as G2 at first but that would have been wrong as well. I'll be more careful in tagging pages in the future, thank you for the notice. SmileBlueJay97 talk 12:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I can recognise a lot of the self-publishing outfits like AuthorHouse, lulu dot com, Xlibris, PublishAmerica and offshoots, CreateSpace, etc, but BookBaby was a new one on me. CreateSpace seems to be the commonest one we get now. Used to be lulu (the website name is blacklisted here so I put dot in). Always suspect any publisher you don't recognise, and whose website you can't find. It's probably the author him/herself using one of the outfits I've mentioned, but trying to hide it. If you get nearly zero hits for the 'publisher' with a minus for the title or author, it's a disguised self-publish 99.9% certain. Peridon (talk) 13:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Baghwar
I want to let you know I removed your G3 on Baghwar because it appears to be a serious article. —teb728 t c 08:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for notifying. Nothing came up when I did a general search with "Baghwar", "Baghwar Mahli" or "Baghwar tiger". It seemed to be an attempt to mislead (or at least to make Wikipedia look silly if not deleted quickly). SmileBlueJay97 talk 08:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I searched for what links to Baghwar and found it in List of gotras. It seemed to fit the contents. —teb728 t c 08:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The page creator,, added it to the list minutes before he/she created Baghwar. SmileBlueJay97 talk 09:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Chances Maple Ridge & Chances Chilliwack
Hi there,

Not sure why my contributions for Chances Maple Ridge and Chances Chilliwack were eligible for speedy deletion? The information I provided was purely fact-based, with no "puffery". Can you please explain? Thanks!:oD

Lemminggrass (talk) 16:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)Lemminggrass

Michael B. Stewart
I have added references and many different credible sites that he does exist. How can I remove the tag you had put on it and flagged for deletion?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbsnim4 (talk • contribs) 05:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey Mbsnim4. Thanks for adding references to the article. You may remove the BLP PROD from the page. I noticed that the use of external links in the article may not follow Wikipedia's policy and that there is insufficient inline citations. The page also needs some copy editing. SmileBlueJay97 talk 05:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

About your edit in the Progress Leaderboard of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/September 2014
Hi, you have reverted this edit: diff. But I think it is in line with the 2nd note: ''Number of articles of 5,000 words or more. An article of 10K+ words counts as 2, of 15K+ as 3, and so on.'' Could you please check? Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra T 01:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey AmritasyaPutra. I have reverted my edit again. Thank you for pointing it out. SmileBlueJay97 talk 02:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Help Me To Complete My Article
Please Help Me To Complete My Article on " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Doves_BD " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Age0948 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey Ae0948, please see the discussion on your talk page. The Black Doves BD has been deleted 4 times per (A7:Article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject) of speedy deletion. SmileBlueJay97 talk 14:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Help Me To Complete My Article
Thanks for reply. I am new in here. And also very weak in English. So, Can you make this article for me please. I copied all the items which I used for my article. Just do that thing which can make my article reasonable. Please, help me. I hope you will reply soon. And sorry for my bad English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Age0948 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * You're welcome! SmileBlueJay97 talk  02:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Red Velvet
Hi SmileBlueJay97, the thing about the SM stock is that, having that detail in the article does not make Red Velvet a better band musically by any chance. In other words, it's pretty irrelevant and unimportant. They are still a rookie band and does not have a lot of accomplishments yet. I'm trying to cut down all the unnecessary details.--TerryAlex (talk) 12:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Not everything included in a page about musicians and bands has to be music related. Endorsements, filmography, philanthropy etc. can all be included and are relevant and sometimes very important. Being new does not necessarily mean they are not accomplished singers. Quoting Red Velvet's wiki page "Happiness" made its way up to the number one spot on Genie's real-time music chart, and also top 10 on of various other charts as well. Internationally, it debuted at No. 3 in Singapore and Taiwan, No.4 in Malaysia, No.5 in Thailand and No.9 in Hong Kong. The song was the second most viewed K-pop video worldwide in August 2014. These are accomplishments that some older bands that have debuted years earlier may never be able to achieve. You also need to realize that even though the group debuted this year, members like Seulgi had been a trainee for 7 years. I would say the thing about raising the companies stock price is relevant to Red Velvet. Cheers, SmileBlueJay97 talk 05:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, those things in the "quote" are important and need to be kept; hence, that is why I trimmed out all the other details while keeping those intact. Not saying that they haven't accomplished anything, but they still don't have a lot of accomplishments yet. Looking from a long-term perspective, the "stock price" is still pretty irrelevant.--TerryAlex (talk) 21:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Help on Loboc Church
I hope you could do some CE on the article. I already wrote a request on WP:GOCE. Thanks.--Carlojoseph14 (talk) 18:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Martin County Library System
Ej1128lib and Priker928 are employees of the Martin County Library System and are creating this page linked to Martin County, Florida we will adhere to the requirements of Wikipedia to create a page that is informational not merely promotional and will include references. As we are novices to Wikipedia please refrain from deleting this page while we are continuing to edit. Thank you for your consideration — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ej1128lib (talk • contribs) 17:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

my address
WWW.fb.com/sunilbairagi2728 WWW.twitter.com/sunilbairagi2728 sunilbairagi2728@gmail.com sunilbairagi2728@outlook.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunilbairagi2728 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!!!
Cheers! &#34;We could read for-EVER&#59; reading round the wiki!&#34; (talk) 17:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Jeremy Griffith
I saw that you removed my entry for Jeremy Griffith. Can you please elaborate on the reason for removing the entry? What I wanted to do is indicate that a critique of Griffith's work has appeared in the public domain and briefly summarise the nature of that critique. I do not understand how that contravenes any of the wiki protocols? There is no expression of opinion or argument presented - if so that was not the intention. I would like to re-enter what I have written. How do you propose I do it in a manner which satifies wiki protocols? The 'fact' I am discussing is the existence of a critque in the public domain - this being a critical review in one of Australia's major Newspapers, 'The Sydney Morning Herald'. As this is a significant critique of specefic problems in Griffith's work it should be mentioned on this wiki page for the benefit of the public... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Divinecomedy666 (talk • contribs) 08:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Jeremy Griffith 2
Hello Smile Blue - this is a footnote to my previous message about your removal of my Jeremy Griffith post. I have read the relevant wiki protocols you mentioned and see why you removed it now. I do have a specfic interest in this topic so that may leave me open to the charge of bias. However I have tried to counter this by merely refering to reliable sources in the public domain and to obstain from the expression of opinion. This is really my only venture into wiki - and I was unaware a sole interest user is considered unawarranted or unreliable. However can not a person with an interest in a very specifc topic make a contribution? Surely they may be more informed about it than a more general editor and therefore offer expertise/knowledge others lack? I want to undo your changes with your approval - and have the entry refined/critiqued by others to ensure objectivity and impartiality. I think I can contribute to this as I am aware of other pieces that have been written. However very little (none to my knowledge) detailed critical analysis of Griffith's work has been produced by individuals with academic expertise in anthropology and paleoanthropology. The critique in the SMH is the first and only exmaple of such critique. The majority of other documents in the public domain are published by Griffith himself and/or his supporters and they therefore lack the impartiality of a dispassionate independent analysis. Also I should add my previous entires on this topic and the fact that I undid a previous editors changes earlier this year was due to inexperience and a lack of understanding of how wiki worked. I did not understand why someone could just come along and delete everything I had written. Now I am aware of the correct procedures. I hope we can negotiate a means of putting my entry back up in a manner that does not contravene wiki protocolsDivinecomedy666 (talk) 15:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

October 2014 wikification awards.
Cheers!!! If I had to guess... (talk) 08:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi
Hi friend how r u? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunilbairagi2728 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey Sunilbairagi2728. I've been on and off wiki a lot these few days due to school work. How are you? SmileBlueJay97 talk 02:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews
Hello. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular. The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered. If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.) If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with. Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors. I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC). Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Help wanted
Hey my friend, hope all is cool with you. When you have a spare moment I'd be really grateful if you could apply your superb formatting skills to my user page. It's starting to look like something the 小猫 dragged in. 祝好, Philg88 ♦talk 22:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure thing my friend. I'll work on it this afternoon. Do you have anything specific to request? SmileBlueJay97 talk 03:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Not really, other than maybe the userboxen should all stack down the left hand side. Cheers, Philg88 ♦talk 08:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I tried stacking the userboxes to the left and moved the Centralized discussion and RfA to the right. I also wanted to move the bullet points to the right underneath the RfA but somehow its not working... Tell me if its okay/if you liked it better before the change/what else you'd want to change etc. :) SmileBlueJay97 talk 15:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant userboxen down the right hand side, must get my brain serviced. Welcome text should then display to the left of the userboxen stack as far up as possible so people can see it without scrolling. Cheers, Philg88 ♦talk 17:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I placed the userboxen down the right side and placed the RfA report and centralized discussion side by side down below (think it looks a little better than top bottom). Cheers, SmileBlueJay97 talk  01:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Thank you, that was exactly what I had in mind. Cheers, Philg88 ♦talk 07:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The page you created a few minutes ago
Hi, I took the liberty of moving your article SmileBlueJay97/Sandbox 5 to User:SmileBlueJay97/Sandbox 5, since I'm fairly certain that's where you meant to put it. --Richard Yin (talk) 15:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oops! Thank you for catching this careless mistake. (: SmileBlueJay97 talk 15:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Nasty Nasty Wikipedia entry has been nominated for deletion
As the title says, Nasty Nasty Wikipedia entry has been nominated for deletion, using dubious criteria "We all know EVERY release in Korea charts, whether it sells one copy or a million, so technically passes Wikipedia's notability requirements, but we have to use common sense." Ian nnnnnn (talk) 22:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

December 2014 Wikification awards.
Cheers! Fellow editors, we are like keys in a cod... Oh, don&#39;t say that doesn&#39;t make sense! (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Kim Hyun Joong
Hi, Thanks for all the "thanks" on my edits to the Kim Hyun Joong page. I don't know if you've noticed, but the user Zhifff continues to edit in biased information that isn't supported by reliable sources (they misrepresent the prosecutor office's statement for one, and also cite "evidence" that was compiled by Kim Hyun Joong fansites), even after you reverted their edit once. I have just reverted their most recent edit, but I'm wondering if there's something we can do about this in the future, or else it will just turn into an edit war.Noialrone (talk) 03:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have added a level 1 warning to Zhifff's talk page. If she/he continues, then add another warning. The person may be blocked after the fourth/final warning is given. SmileBlueJay97 talk 06:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Please stop reverting my edits to Kim Hyun Joong
<y changes is from creible new source and the translation is consistent with the actual court ruling. your source is actually known as gossip korean website that is biased by bad news translation. Thank you!! The final ruling is unintentional harm and minor offense. http://xin.msn.com/en-sg/entertainment/story/kim-hyun-joong-fined-for-hitting-ex/ar-AA8nBRf

Deletion of DiameterJ
Hello SmileBlueJay97,

I put up a page yesterday that was not very encyclopedic in its entry. And it was deleted which I felt like was reasonable. However, I went back and edited the page to be nothing but the facts about DiameterJ, a free plugin for ImageJ, and it was deleted again. The reason that was given was because it was a clear promotion. However, my article did not promote the software in any way. It merely stated what the application was, what it worked with, and what it did. There was no discussion of why it was good or bad, or anything promotional about the entry. Further, the citations linked to sites and publications that confirmed the information in the article. So, I guess my question is, if this is considered promotional, how could I word this to be considered not promotional?

Thank you for your time and help!

Nathan Hotaling (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey Nathan. Sorry for the late reply. I haven't been active lately due to personal reasons. It looks like you have already gotten a response from other users on your talk page. If you have further questions, please feel free to ask me here. Cheers, SmileBlueJay97 talk 03:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

2014-2015 GA Cup Wrap-Up
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

2015 GA Cup
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

GOCE June 2015 newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Winner 1st Japan Tour for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Winner 1st Japan Tour is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Winner 1st Japan Tour until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Random86 (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

2015 GA Cup - Round 2
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

GOCE August 2015 newsletter

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - Round 3
Delivered on behalf of WikiProject Good articles by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Re: Speedy deletion nomination of Carl Reinhold Roth
I have reviewed the article on stub pages; specifically the portion on creating and improving them. You suggested the article for deletion because " it doesn't appear to contain any encyclopedic content", but I am having difficulty in discerning exactly what you mean by this. The stub article you asked me to review states:

"The key is to provide adequate context—articles with little or no context usually end up being speedily deleted. Your initial research may be done either through books or reliable websites. You may also contribute knowledge acquired from other sources, but it is useful to conduct some research beforehand to ensure that your facts are accurate and unbiased. Use your own words: directly copying other sources without giving them credit is plagiarism, and may in some cases be a violation of copyright.

Begin by defining or describing your topic. Avoid fallacies of definition. Write clearly and informatively. State, for example, what a person is famous for, where a place is located and what it is known for, or the basic details of an event and when it happened.

Next, try to expand upon this basic definition. Internally link relevant words, so that users unfamiliar with the subject can understand what you have written. Avoid linking words needlessly; instead, consider which words may require further definition for a casual reader to understand the article.

Lastly, a critical step: add sources for the information you have put into the stub; see citing sources for information on how to do so in Wikipedia."

As far as I can tell the article does all these things and is very similar to other historical biographical articles I have written. Could you perhaps provide a specific critique / suggestion or two? Calexanderroth (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

October 2015 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

A full list of our award winners are:


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

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

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

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2016 GA Cup
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Creating External section reference list
Hi I am new to Wikipedia so I am not sure if I should be asking this here so any information would be much appreciated. My question basically is how does someone create a reference list of external sections and in general where can I find more info about such type of things? Thanks Srepanis (talk) 20:19, 16 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)

2016 GA Cup-Round 1
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:38, 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) 16:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Greeting SmileBlueJay97
You Had Previously nominated my article for deletion. I welcomed your decision as you are an experienced editor on wikipedia I have now my self became a Autoconfirmed user and a Novice editor I have also made certain edit on pages of Mecca and Kendriya Vidyalaya according to my knowledge. I have also made a new page kendriya vidyalaya bhu

I only want to request you to award me an orginal barnstar if you consider. If you don't that too doesn't matter a lot. Greetings again, Fazal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammad Abul Fazal (talk • contribs) 07:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

2016 GA Cup-Round 2
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors April 2016 Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

2016 GA Cup-Round 3
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:22, 3 May 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) 02:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

GA Cup-Round 3 Clarification
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 GA Cup-Finals
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 GA Cup-Wrap Up
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 5 August
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * On the Song Hye-kyo page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=733115741 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F733115741%7CSong Hye-kyo%5D%5D Ask for help])

Tags
It would be much appreciated if you could remove your tags now.

Thank you BaggieBaggie (talk) 15:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, an open access peer reviewed journal with no charges, invites you to participate
Hi

Did you know about Wikiversity Journal of Medicine? It is an open access, peer reviewed medical journal, with no publication charges. You can find more about it by reading the article on The Signpost featuring this journal.

We welcome you to have a look the journal. Like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter. Feel free to participate in the journal.

You can participate in any one or more of the following ways:
 * Publish an article to the journal. Even a medical student like you can make a submission.
 * Sign up as a peer reviewer of potential upcoming articles. If you do not have expertise in these subjects, you can help in finding peer reviewers for current submissions.
 * Sign up as an editor, and help out in open tasks.
 * Outreach to potential contributors, with can include (but is not limited to) scholars and health professionals. In any mention of Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, there may be a reference to this Contribute-page. Example presentation about the journal.
 * Add a post-publication review of an existing publication. If errors are found, there are guidelines for editing published works.
 * Join the editorial board.
 * Share your ideas of what the journal would be like in the future as separate Wikimedia project.
 * Donate to Wikimedia Foundation.
 * Translate journal pages into other languages. Wikiversity currently exists in the following other languages
 * Ceština, Deutsch, Español, Français, Italiano, 한국어, Português, Slovenšcina, Suomi, Svenska, Ελληνικά, Русский, العربية, 日本語
 * Technical work like template designing for the journal.
 * Sign up to get emails related to the journal, which are sent to . If you want to receive these emails too, state your interest at the talk page, or contact the Editor-in-chief at.
 * Spread the word to anyone who could be interested or could benefit from it.

The future of this journal as a separate Wikimedia project is under discussion and the name can be changed suitably. Currently a voting for the same is underway. Please cast your vote in the name you find most suitable. We would be glad to receive further suggestions from you. It is also acceptable to mention your votes in the email list. Please note that the voting closes on 16th August, 2016, unless protracted by consensus, due to any reason.

 D ip ta ns hu Talk 05:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC) -on behalf of the Editorial Board, Wikiversity Journal of Medicine.

Apology
I'm sorry for being mad over your tagging of the Little Cherry article in August 2013. TheGGoose (talk) 02:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors September 2016 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

GA Cup Announcement
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:38, 28 September 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) 01:52, 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) 01:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Request for input on dental article
As you have indicated that you are in the field of dentistry, I am inviting you to contribute your input to a discussion that is going on now on the talk page of the article on tooth decay. Please visit the discussion here and express your opinion. Thank you! KDS4444 (talk) 00:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers
Hi ,

In order to better control the quality  of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

4th Annual GA Cup - Round 1
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2016 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 8 December 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)

4th GA Cup - Round 2
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

4th GA Cup - Round 3
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

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

4th GA Cup - The Final
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:32, 6 March 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 05:38, 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 06:26, 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) 11:41, 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)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2017 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

GOCE February 2018 news
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2018 (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)

June 2018 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:26, 5 June 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)

August GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:25, 15 August 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)

Nomination of List of Candace Whittemore Lovely exhibitions for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Candace Whittemore Lovely exhibitions is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of Candace Whittemore Lovely exhibitions until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Vexations (talk) 12:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 November newsletter
The WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is, who over the course of the competition has amassed 147 GAs, 111 GARs, 9 DYKs, 4 FLs and 1 ITN. Our finalists were as follows:



All those who reached the final win awards, and awards will also be going to the following participants:


 * wins the FA prize, for three featured articles in round 2.
 * wins the GA prize, for 92 good articles in round 3.
 * wins the FL prize, for five featured lists overall.
 * wins the topic prize, for 30 articles in good topics overall.
 * wins the DYK prize, for 24 did you know articles in round 3.
 * wins the ITN prize, for 17 in the news articles overall.
 * wins the GAR prize, for 43 good article reviews in round 1.

Awards will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved much this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition.

Next year's competition begins on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; it is open to all Wikipedians, new and old. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2019 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. ,, and.

December 2018 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 3 December 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)

GOCE 2018 Annual Report
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 March newsletter
And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2. With 56 contestants qualifying, each group in Round 2 contains seven contestants, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for Round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining contestants.

Our top scorers in Round 1 were:


 * 🇺🇸 L293D, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with ten good articles on submarines for a total of 357 points.
 * Pirate_Flag_of_Henry_Every.svg, a WikiCup veteran, came next with 274 points, mostly from eight featured pictures, restorations of artwork.
 * 🇩🇰 MPJ-DK, a wrestling enthusiast, was in third place with 263 points, garnered from a featured list, five good articles, two DYKs and four GARs.
 * 🇺🇸 Usernameunique came next at 243, with a featured article and a good article, both on ancient helmets.
 * Flag of the United States Library of Congress 2.svg Squeamish Ossifrage was in joint fifth place with 224 points, mostly garnered from bringing the 1937 Fox vault fire to featured article status.
 * Ed! was also on 224, with an amazing number of good article reviews (56 actually).

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews on 143 good articles, one hundred more than the number of good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Well done all!

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 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), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk).

March GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 May newsletter
The second round of the 2019 WikiCup has now finished. Contestants needed to scored 32 points to advance into round 3. Our top four scorers in round 2 all scored over 400 points and were:

Other notable performances were put in by Barkeep49 with six GAs, 🇺🇸 Ceranthor, 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski, and  Canada Hky, each with seven GARs, and 🇩🇰 MPJ-DK with a seven item GT.
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 Cas Liber (1210), our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three DYKs. He also made good use of the bonus points available, more than doubling his score by choosing appropriate articles to work on.
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿 Kosack (750), last year's runner up, with an FA, a GA, two FLs, and five DYKs.
 * Pirate_Flag_of_Henry_Every.svg (480), a WikiCup veteran, with 16 featured pictures, mostly restorations.
 * Zwerg Nase (461), a seasoned competitor, with a FA, a GA and an ITN item.

So far contestants have achieved nine featured articles between them and a splendid 80 good articles. Commendably, 227 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2019 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. The judges are pleased with the thorough GARs that are being performed, and have hardly had to reject any. 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.

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) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

GOCE June newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 July newsletter
The third round of the 2019 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round needed to score at least 68 points, which is substantially lower than last year's 227 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:


 * 🇳🇫 Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with 500 points derived mainly from a featured article and two GAs on natural history topics
 * Adam Cuerden, with 480 points, a tally built on 16 featured pictures, the result of meticulous restoration work
 * SounderBruce, a finalist in the last two years, with 306 points from a variety of submissions, mostly related to sport or the State of Washington
 * 🇺🇸 Usernameunique, with 305 points derived from a featured article and two GAs on archaeology and related topics

Contestants managed 4 (5) featured articles, 4 featured lists, 18 featured pictures, 29 good articles, 50 DYK entries, 9 ITN entries, and 39 good article reviews. 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, and it is imperative to claim them in the correct round; one FA claim had to be rejected because it was incorrectly submitted (claimed in Round 3 when it qualified for Round 2), so be warned! When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything 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). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 September newsletter
The fourth round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 454 points being required to qualify for the final round. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants with over 400 points being eliminated, and all but two of the finalists having achieved an FA during the round. Casliber, our 2016 winner, was the highest point-scorer, followed by Enwebb and Lee Vilenski, who are both new to the competition. In fourth place was SounderBruce, a finalist last year. But all those points are swept away as we start afresh for the final round.

Round 4 saw the achievement of 11 featured articles. In addition, Adam Cuerden scored with 18 FPs, Lee Vilenski led the GA score with 8 GAs while Kosack performed 15 GA reviews. There were around 40 DYKs, 40 GARs and 31 GAs overall during round 4. 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 5, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. 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 14 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 Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). 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. 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) 18:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019 GOCE Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 November newsletter
The WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is, who over the course of the competition has amassed 91 featured pictures, including 32 in the final round. Our finalists this year were:


 * 1) with 964 points
 * 2) with 899 points
 * 3) with 817 points
 * 4) with 691 points
 * 5) with 388 points
 * 6) with 146 points
 * 7) with 145 points
 * 8) with 74 points

All those who reached the final will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field. Awards will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!


 * wins the featured article prize, for a total of 7 FAs during the course of the competition.
 * wins the good article prize, for 14 GAs in round 5.
 * wins the featured list prize, for 4 FLs overall.
 * wins the featured picture prize, for 91 FPs overall.
 * wins the topic prize, for 7 articles in good topics in round 2.
 * wins the DYK prize, for 14 did you know articles in round 5.
 * wins the ITN prize, for 7 in the news articles in round 1.
 * wins the reviewer prize, for 56 good article reviews in round 1.

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved much this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition, not forgetting User:Jarry1250, who runs the scoring bot.

We have opened a scoring discussion on whether the rules and scoring need adjustment. Please have your say. Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2020 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth 14:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

GOCE December 2019 Newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2020 WikiCup!
Happy New Year, Happy New Decade and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders and improvers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. We are relaxing the rule that only content on which you have completed significant work during 2020 will count; now to be eligible for points in the competition, you must have completed significant work on the content at some time! Any questions on the rules or on anything else connected to the Cup should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. 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 move on to round 2. Good luck! The judges for the WikiCup are, , and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup 2020 March newsletter
And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 57 contestants qualifying. We have abolished the groups this year, so to qualify for Round 3 you will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two contestants.

Our top scorers in Round 1 were:


 * Epicgenius, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with a featured article, five good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 895 points.
 * Royal Standard of England (1406-1603).svg Gog the Mild came next with 464 points, from a featured article, two good articles and a number of reviews, the main theme being naval warfare.
 * 🇺🇸 Raymie was in third place with 419 points, garnered from one good article and an impressive 34 DYKs on radio and TV stations in the United States.
 * Harrias came next at 414, with a featured article and three good articles, an English civil war battle specialist.
 * Pirate Flag.svg CaptainEek was in fifth place with 405 points, mostly garnered from bringing Cactus wren to featured article status.
 * The top ten contestants at the end of Round 1 all scored over 200 points; they also included 🇺🇸 L293D, 🇻🇪 Kingsif, 🇦🇶 Enwebb, 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski and 🇳🇵 CAPTAIN MEDUSA. Seven of the top ten contestants in Round 1 are new to the WikiCup.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. In Round 1 there were four featured articles, one featured list and two featured pictures, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. Between them, contestants completed 127 good article reviews, nearly a hundred more than the 43 good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Contestants also claimed for 40 featured article / featured list reviews, and most even remembered to mention their WikiCup participation in their reviews (a requirement).

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Some contestants made claims before the new submissions pages were set up, and they will need to resubmit 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. 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 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), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup newsletter correction
There was an error in the WikiCup 2020 March newsletter; 🇺🇸 L293D should not have been included in the list of top ten scorers in Round 1 (they led the list last year), instead, 🇺🇸 Dunkleosteus77 should have been included, having garnered 334 points from five good articles on animals, living or extinct, and various reviews. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

GOCE March newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup 2020 May newsletter
The second round of the 2020 WikiCup has now finished. It was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 75 points to advance to round 3. There were some very impressive efforts in round 2, with the top ten contestants all scoring more than 500 points. A large number of the points came from the 12 featured articles and the 186 good articles achieved in total by contestants, and the 355 good article reviews they performed; the GAN backlog drive and the stay-at-home imperative during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been partially responsible for these impressive figures.

Our top scorers in round 2 were:


 * Epicgenius, with 2333 points from one featured article, forty-five good articles, fourteen DYKs and plenty of bonus points
 * Royal Standard of England (1406-1603).svg Gog the Mild, with 1784 points from three featured articles, eight good articles, a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews and lots of bonus points
 * 🇧🇼 The Rambling Man, with 1262 points from two featured articles, eight good articles and a hundred good article reviews
 * Harrias, with 1141 points from two featured articles, three featured lists, ten good articles, nine DYKs and a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski with 869 points, Blason Gondor.svg Hog Farm with 801, 🇻🇪 Kingsif with 719, SounderBruce with 710, 🇺🇸 Dunkleosteus77 with 608 and 🇲🇽 MX with 515.

The rules for featured article reviews have been adjusted; reviews may cover three aspects of the article, content, images and sources, and contestants may receive points for each of these three types of review. Please also remember the requirement to mention the WikiCup when undertaking an FAR for which you intend to claim points. Remember also that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in round 2 cannot! 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.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything 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. - MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

GOCE June newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 15:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC).

WikiCup 2020 July newsletter
The third round of the 2020 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it into the fourth round each had at least 353 points (compared to 68 in 2019). It was a highly competitive round, and a number of contestants were eliminated who would have moved on in earlier years. Our top scorers in round 3 were:


 * Epicgenius, with one featured article, 28 good articles and 17 DYKs, amassing 1836 points
 * 🇧🇼 The Rambling Man, with 1672 points gained from four featured articles and seventeen good articles, plus reviews of a large number of FACs and GAs
 * Royal Standard of England (1406-1603).svg Gog the Mild, a first time contestant, with 1540 points, a tally built largely on 4 featured articles and related bonus points.

Between them, contestants managed 14 featured articles, 9 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 152 good articles, 136 DYK entries, 55 ITN entries, 65 featured article candidate reviews and 221 good article reviews. Additionally, 🇩🇰 MPJ-DK added 3 items to featured topics and 44 to good topics. Over the course of the competition, contestants have completed 710 good article reviews, in comparison to 387 good articles submitted for review and promoted. These large numbers are probably linked to a GAN backlog drive in April and May, and the changed patterns of editing during the COVID-19 pandemic. 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.

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), Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup 2020 September newsletter
The fourth round of the competition has finished, with 865 points being required to qualify for the final round, nearly twice as many points as last year. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants with 598 and 605 points being eliminated, and all but two of the contestants who reached the final round having achieved an FA during the round. The highest scorers were


 * Free Hong Kong flag.svg Bloom6132, with 1478 points gained mainly from 5 featured lists, 12 DYKs and 63 in the news items;
 * 🇮🇩HaEr48 with 1318 points gained mainly from 2 featured articles, 5 good articles and 8 DYKs;
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski with 1201 points mainly gained from 2 featured articles and 10 good articles.

Between them, contestants achieved 14 featured articles, 14 featured lists, 2 featured pictures, 87 good articles, 90 DYK entries, 75 ITN entries, 95 featured article candidate reviews and 81 good article reviews. 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. 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), Vanamonde (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors September 2020 Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup 2020 November newsletter
The 2020 WikiCup has come to an end, with the final round going down to the wire. Our new Champion is, the runner-up last year, who was closely followed by. In the final round, Lee achieved 4 FAs and 30 GAs, mostly on cue sport topics, while Gog achieved 3 FAs and 15 GAs, mostly on important battles and wars, which earned him a high number of bonus points. was in third place with 4 FAs and 8 GAs on football topics, with close behind with 19 GAs and 16 DYK's, his interest being the buildings of New York.

The other finalists were, , and. The final round was very productive, and besides 15 FAs, contestants achieved 75 FAC reviews, 88 GAs and 108 GAN reviews. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!

All those who reached the final will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field.


 * wins the featured article prize, for a total of 14 FAs during the course of the competition.
 * win the featured list prize, for 5 FLs in round 4.
 * wins the featured picture prize, for 3 FPs in round 3 and 5 overall.
 * wins the featured article reviewer prize, for 23 FAC reviews in round 5.
 * wins the good article prize, for 45 GAs in round 2 and 113 overall.
 * wins the topic prize, for 33 articles in good topics in round 2.
 * wins the good article reviewer prize, for 100 good article reviews in round 2.
 * wins the DYK prize, for 22 Did you know articles in round 4 and 94 overall.
 * wins the ITN prize, for 63 In the news articles in round 4 and 136 overall.

Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2021 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

December 2020 Guild of Copy Editors Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2021 WikiCup!
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. 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 move on to round 2. We thank Vanamonde93 and Godot13, who have retired as judges, and we thank them for their past dedication. The judges for the WikiCup this year are and. Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

WikiCup 2021 March newsletter
Round 1 of the competition has finished; it was a high-scoring round with 21 contestants scoring more than 100 points. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 55 contestants qualifying. You will need to finish among the top thirty-two contestants in Round 2 if you are to qualify for Round 3. Our top scorers in Round 1 were:


 * Epicgenius led the field with a featured article, nine good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 945 points.
 * Bloom6132 was close behind with 896 points, largely gained from 71 "In the news" items, mostly recent deaths.
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 ImaginesTigers, who has been editing Wikipedia for less than a year, was in third place with 711 points, much helped by bringing League of Legends to featured article status, exemplifying how bonus points can boost a contestant's score.
 * 🇷🇼 Amakuru came next with 708 points, Kigali being another featured article that scored maximum bonus points.
 * Flag of the United Nations.svg Ktin, new to the WikiCup, was in fifth place with 523 points, garnered from 15 DYKs and 34 "In the news" items.
 * 🇧🇼 The Rambling Man scored 511 points, many from featured article candidate reviews and from football related DYKs.
 * Standard of Oliver Cromwell (1653–1659).svg Gog the Mild, last year's runner-up, came next with 498 points, from a featured article and numerous featured article candidate reviews.
 * Bennington Flag.svg Hog Farm, at 452, scored for a featured article, four good articles and a number of reviews.
 * 🇺🇸 Le Panini, another newcomer to the WikiCup, scored 438 for a featured article and three good articles.
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski, last year's champion, scored 332 points, from a featured article and various other sport-related topics.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start again from scratch. In Round 1, contestants achieved eight featured articles, three featured lists and one featured picture, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. They completed 97 good article reviews, nearly double the 52 good articles they claimed. Contestants also claimed for 135 featured article and featured list candidate reviews. There is no longer a requirement to mention your WikiCup participation when undertaking these reviews.

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 a good article candidate, a featured process, or something 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 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. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

WikiCup 2021 May newsletter
The second round of the 2021 WikiCup has now finished; it was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 61 points to advance to Round 3. There were some impressive efforts in the round, with the top eight contestants all scoring more than 400 points. A large number of the points came from the 12 featured articles and the 110 good articles achieved in total by contestants, as well as the 216 good article reviews they performed; the GAN backlog drive and the stay-at-home imperative during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been partially responsible for these impressive figures.

Our top scorers in Round 2 were:


 * 🇧🇼 The Rambling Man, with 2963 points from three featured articles, 20 featured article reviews, 37 good articles, 73 good article reviews, as well as 22 DYKs.
 * Epicgenius, with 1718 points from one featured article, 29 good articles, 16 DYKs and plenty of bonus points.
 * Bloom6132, with 990 points from 13 DYKs and 64 "In the news" items, mostly recent deaths.
 * Bennington Flag.svg Hog Farm, with 834 points from two featured articles, five good articles, 14 featured article reviews and 15 good article reviews.
 * Standard of Oliver Cromwell (1653–1659).svg Gog the Mild, with 524 points from two featured articles and four featured article reviews.
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski, with 501 points from one featured article, three good articles, six featured article reviews and 25 good article reviews.
 * Transgender Pride flag.svg Sammi Brie, with 485 points from four good articles, eight good article reviews and 27 DYKs, on US radio and television stations.
 * Flag of the United Nations.svg Ktin, with 436 points from four good articles, seven DYKs and 11 "In the news" items.

Please remember that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of Round 2 but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in Round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (except for at the end of each round, when you must claim them before the cut-off date/time). When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything 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. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

GOCE June 2021 newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 12:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC).

Exo (group) GA Reassessment
Exo (group), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.--Whiteguru (talk) 02:27, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

September 2021 Guild of Copy Editors newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

December 2021 GOCE Newsletter
Distributed via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

GOCE April 2022 newsletter
Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

June GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding User:SmileBlueJay97/sandbox
Hello, SmileBlueJay97. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that User:SmileBlueJay97/sandbox, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 02:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors' October 2022 newsletter
 Baffle☿gab  03:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter
Sent by Baffle gab1978 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter error
The GOCE December 2022 newsletter, as sent on 9 December, contains an erroneous start date for our December Blitz. The Blitz will start on 11 December rather than on 17 December, as stated in the newsletter. I'm sorry for the mistake and for disrupting your talk page; thanks for your understanding. Sent by Baffle gab1978 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors 2022 Annual Report
Sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors June 2023 Newsletter
Sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Septermber GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2023 Newsletter
Message sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)