User talk:MartinZ

Hi MartinZ02! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 18:54, Sunday, September 27, 2015 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gliese 581 g you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of QuentinQuade -- QuentinQuade (talk) 06:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please place artist impression images (clearly labeled as such) in an appropriate section of the article, not in the planet box. These impressions, regardless of how well intended or their source, tend to get pretty far ahead of not only what is known, but even what it is reasonable to suppose is known, and can this be pretty misleading and un-encyclopedic. Thanks! — Aldaron • T/C 20:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just saw you made a change in a population in the List of cities proper by population without citing a source, and also deleting the old source. If you are going to change the population figure it's very important to cite the source of your new number, ideally from official sources. Thanks! Mattximus (talk) 01:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Gliese 581 d you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Gliese 581 d for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Numbermaniac -- Numbermaniac (talk) 08:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gliese 581 c you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dwight25 -- Dwight25 (talk) 07:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you removed merge banners from Outline of trigonometry and List of trigonometry topics? ~Kvng (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was no discussion on the merge. MartinZ02 (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will start a discussion. ~Kvng (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please include an edit summary with each of your edits. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Asteroid you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Asteroid you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Asteroid for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Life you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Life for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dunkleosteus77 -- Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Martin, regarding Life I decided to undo your removal of 'Phanerozoic Eon' section as I found the removal was unexplained and rather huge. If there has bee nan disussion regarding removal of that section I've not found such. _→AzaToth 11:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was decided at the the review page that the Phanerozoic Eon section should be deleted.

I see; sorry for the inconvenience. _→AzaToth 12:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Life you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dunkleosteus77 -- Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Life, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hosts. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Gliese 581 c you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Gliese 581 c for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dwight25 -- Dwight25 (talk) 04:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Life you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Life for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dunkleosteus77 -- Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 05:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm pleased to have the opportunity to engage with you. We are in danger of edit warring at Life. Please read the comment I have made on the Talk Page. Your lack of edit summaries and discussion give the impression of ownership. Graham Beards (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

please revert back to me when you get this58.106.70.43 (talk) 17:14, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MartinZ02. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Widr (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the RNA world page, your edit caused a DOI error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Martin,

I have reverted the tags that you added to some of our Featured Articles. If the Leads were too long, this would have been discussed at WP:FAC. I suggest that you discuss any changes, including tagging, to articles on the Talk Pages first. Graham Beards (talk) 05:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a Move review of Life on Europa at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2016 July. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review.

Hi Martin, please stop tagging this article. This is a Featured Article and the length of the Lead has been accepted as the right length for a subject of this importance. Graham Beards (talk) 19:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to the comparison with the Earth? The average surface temperature of the Earth is 15 C; the average temperature in that simulation is 15 C. Serendi^podous 21:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Astronomy Newsletter ← Previous | Q3 2016 News | Next → (subscribe) The project at a glance [edit] As of Q3 2016 the project has reached: 115 Featured articles 14 Featured lists 6 Featured miscellaneous 177 Good Articles 46,996 total articles 3,462 (or 8%) are marked for cleanup 5,081 issues in total. News by month [edit] July 2016 [edit] On July 1st, The Man in the Moone was the featured article on English Wikipedia (see blurb). On July 26th, Pavo was the featured article on the English Wikipedia (see blurb). On July 4, the Juno spacecraft entered orbit around Jupiter. On July 18th, NASA announced over 100 new exoplanets discovered by the K2 Mission including the K2-72 system which features a sub-Earth sized exoplanet in its circumstellar habitable zone. In July the following articles were also created: XX Persei, CK Carinae, Friedrich Hayn, Andrew King (astrophysicist), Elizabeth Lada, Stefi Baum, Yellow giant, RT-64, HD 131399 Ab, HIP 41378, Fiske Planetarium, 2015 RR245, HIP 2, Miniature X-ray Solar Spectrometer CubeSat, V883 Orionis, Takeshi Oka, NGC 143, Kepler-1229, KELT-11b, HD 164595, Titan Winged Aerobot, List of minor planet discoverers, Polaris flare, C Ursa Majoris, K2-72, K2-72e, Outline of the Solar System, NGC 6412, 2014 LM28, NGC 144, Frank Muller (astronomer), 2014 EZ51, Ultra-Fast Flash Observatory Pathfinder, Meanings of minor planet names: 451001–452000, Meanings of minor planet names: 452001–453000, Meanings of minor planet names: 453001–454000, Meanings of minor planet names: 454001–455000, Meanings of minor planet names: 455001–456000, Meanings of minor planet names: 456001–457000, Meanings of minor planet names: 457001–458000, Meanings of minor planet names: 458001–459000, Meanings of minor planet names: 459001–460000, Meanings of minor planet names: 460001–461000, Meanings of minor planet names: 461001–462000, Meanings of minor planet names: 462001–463000, Meanings of minor planet names: 463001–464000, Meanings of minor planet names: 464001–465000, Meanings of minor planet names: 465001–466000, Meanings of minor planet names: 466001–467000, Meanings of minor planet names: 467001–468000, Meanings of minor planet names: 468001–469000, Meanings of minor planet names: 469001–470000, Anna Estelle Glancy, 2014 OE394, Kepler-84, LEDA 89996, NGC 1901, NGC 2164, NGC 1854, NGC 1763, 15 Leonis Minoris, HIP 57274 d, Slater (crater), Exoplanet naming convention, NGC 1755, List of star systems within 30–35 light-years, NGC 1820, HD 189245, NGC 2197, Doris Vickers, James William Grant (astronomer), HD 240237 b, Kepler-442. August 2016 [edit] On August 3rd, The 2014 edition of the Hubble Ultra-Deep Field (See image) was the featured image on the English Wikipedia. On August 24th Proxima Centauri b was discovered using Doppler spectroscopy on ESO and other telescopes. On August 29th, speculations about the Radio signal from HD 164595 caused by an isotropic beacon from a Type II civilization began circulating in the media, even though the signal only scored a 1-2 on the Rio Scale. Other articles created in August 2016 include: 2014 FE72, Radio signal from HD 164595, CL J1001+0220, Super-Neptune, Kepler-20g, Mikko Tuomi, Dragonfly 44, Proxima Centauri b, List of minor planets: 472001–473000, List of minor planets: 471001–472000, List of minor planets: 470001–471000, Usuda star dome, NGC 162, WD 1145+017 b, NGC 161, NGC 160, NGC 159, Gliese 3293, 2016 PQ, (471325) 2011 KT19, NGC 158, NGC 156, NGC 155, IAU Working Group on Star Names, NGC 5053, LkCa 15, NGC 154, NGC 153, NGC 150, NGC 149, NGC 148, Kepler-419b, Kepler-419, IC 5332, WASP-82, V4024 Sagittarii, U Lacertae, Kepler-418 b, HD 169142, Kepler-1520b, NGC 146, NGC 7582, AR Scorpii, CX CMa. September 2016 [edit] September 2016 mostly focused on expanding Wikipedia's coverage on astronomical objects such as NGC objects, Asteroids, Star system lists, and constellation stars. New articles were also made for exoplanets and other topics. Examples of articles created in September 2016 include: NGC 163, NGC 164, NGC 165, NGC 166, NGC 167, NGC 168, NGC 169, Robyn Millan, (50719) 2000 EG140, NGC 170, NGC 171, NGC 172, NGC 173, NGC 174, NGC 175, NGC 176, NGC 177, NGC 178, NGC 179, NGC 180, NGC 181, NGC 182, NGC 183, NGC 184, NGC 185, NGC 186, NGC 187, NGC 188, NGC 189, NGC 190, NGC 191, NGC 192, NGC 193, NGC 194, EPIC 204278916, K2-33, Q Cygni, Psi Leonis, List of asteroid close approaches to Earth in 2009, Pi Geminorum, Tau2 Gruis, Iota2 Normae, NGC 195, NGC 196, Iota Normae, Rho1 Eridani, Rho2 Eridani, Rho3 Eridani, Rho Eridani, Gamma Normae, Eastern Anatolia Observatory, NGC 197, NGC 198, NGC 199, NGC 200, HD 164922 c, NGC 202, NGC 203, NGC 204, NGC 207, Ward doubles, Earth Proxima, NGC 208, NGC 209, (75482) 1999 XC173, (39546) 1992 DT5, (219774) 2001 YY145, List of slow rotators (minor planets), Anders Planman, NGC 212, NGC 213, NGC 214, Swedish Astronomical Society, NGC 215, NGC 216, NGC 217, NGC 218, NGC 219, NGC 220, NGC 221, NGC 222, NGC 223, NGC 224, NGC 225, NGC 226, NGC 227, HR 6594, Kepler-1606b, N6946-BH1, NGC 228, NGC 229, NGC 230, NGC 231, NGC 232, NGC 233, NGC 234, Failed supernova, BINGO (telescope), HD 30963, 38 Virginis b, NGC 236, NGC 237, List of fast rotators (minor planets), 38 Virginis, O'Connell effect, Sevenfold sun miracle, Judith Gamora Cohen, NGC 238, NGC 239, OGLE-2007-BLG-349(AB)b, List of star systems within 35–40 light-years, NGC 240, NGC 241, NGC 242, NGC 243, NGC 244, NGC 245, Argonium, List of star systems within 40–45 light-years, Outline of Earth, Jansha (impact crater), NGC 256, NGC 257, NGC 258, NGC 259, HD 150248, HD 117939, HD 71334, HD 118598, NGC 260, NGC 261, Cosmic wind, Galactic Tick Day, Emily Lakdawalla, List of star systems within 45–50 light-years, HR 4887, DS Crucis, BU Crucis. Article Alerts [edit] Apus GA nominated since 22 Sep 2016 Exoplanet FA review since 26 Jun 2016. (See Discussion). Tycho Brahe GA reassessment since 02 Sep 2016. (See Discussion). You received this message because your username is listed on the subscription page. If you are no longer interested please remove your username from that list.

Davidbuddy9Talk 00:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've stopped by shortly to try and explain a couple of things, you've been around on Wikipedia for something over a year and based on your edits I gather you have somewhat of a feel for how Wikipedia works. From your edits, I think that you've only commented on a single RfA - the currently active one for RickinBaltimore. It's your vote and subsequent comment that I want to quickly discuss. These; you have not created enough articles and I would say that twenty‐five is enough. I'm guessing that these two comments are based on the expectation that administrators will have a good feel for article writing with conflict resolution experience on tendentious articles - a must in some editors' eyes.

I'll start by pointing out an obvious flaw in your expectation that an admin will create at least 25 articles. It's not a difficult task to create 25 stub-class articles as these require little effort to research, by comparison creating even a single FA article is (or can be) extremely difficult. Using your expectation, a new editor who has created a set of short two sentence articles could meet your prerequisites, yet a veteran who has never created an article but has diligently worked to bring tens of articles to GA, A and FA status, who has had to resolve many disputes by carefully analyzing sources, and who has significant experience in other facets of Wikipedia (for example, vandalism fighting, new pages patrol, and article reviewing) would not meet your expectations. Admins are expected to bring a balance of many skills; article writing and reviewing is one that many find to be a necessity, another is competence in vandal fighting and conflict resolution, a third is a thorough understanding of policy and guidelines, and there are many more. One for me personally is temperament, I've voted twice and opposed twice because I believed the nominated candidates were not suited for the position behaviourally - being either power hungry or having poor decision making skills.

Your vote touched slightly on a skill - article creation - but it strikes as being arbitrary and insufficiently thought out. Answer these questions for yourself; 1. why 25? 2. Are 25 stub-class articles better than 3 or 4 featured articles (or even a single featured article)? 3. What skill has actually been gained by creating an article? consider an article that will receive little or no attention, that won't become the subject of a content dispute, or that doesn't require strong research skills (such as a table of match results). 4. Is this the only thing holding you back from voting support? if so, why? - are the candidate's other skills and work on the encyclopaedia not sufficient.

I've left this message for two reasons; 1. Your still quite young and definitely younger than the average Wikipedian - some things do only come with experience and 2. There is a bit of flak being levied at you that I don't think is entirely correct. Namely You're having a giraffe, aren't you? .... I get the feeling you weren't making a joke, but, had a sincere vote. Your oppose isn't alone in the thinking that Rickin doesn't have enough non-automated article experience. That's not the issue, it's the arbitrary ruling and unwavering rigidity where is falls apart. Article writing experience is one thing that can be gained many different ways; creating articles, expanding articles and having them peer, GA, A and FA reviewed for quality, reviewing articles for those same features, discussion on article talk pages for content dispute resolution, and much much more. To single out article creation neglects everything else that goes into building an encyclopaedia. This is why your vote received a negative response, it showed a fundamental misunderstanding of an article's life cycle. Not to mention that people always receive flak for voting oppose on the grounds of inexperience in article writing which some editors view as being unnecessary for administrative duties. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We appreciate your enthusiasm, but it might be an idea to wait a while before getting involved in parts of Wikipedia that you may still not fully understand for another year or two. In the meantime, here is something for you to read: Wikipedia:Advice for RfA voters, and although written several years ago this set of criteria for admin candidates has become a work of reference. If you have any questions don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. Happy editing! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Martin. I think you might be a little bit out of your depth here on the English Wikipedia. Your participation on the RfA of Godsy, Samtar, Oshwah 2, Ad Orientem, and RickinBaltimore, Your blank edit at Admin Tools, and your comments at ORCP seem to show that you are far too occupied with adminiship matters. Your request for Autopatrolled clearly demonstrates that you do not understand the significance of article creations, and you do not appear to take notice of messages on your talk page. All these things give other editors grounds for concern about your ability to participate objectively in such areas. Please consider concentrating only on adding new content, cleaning up articles, or patrolling for vandalism, and if that is too hard, you can always edit the Swedish Wikipedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, Kudpung that blank edit is adding a space between a comma and the next item in the list. A random thing to latch onto, I know, but, not blank. Carry on, Mr rnddude (talk) 09:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, Mr rnddude, but it adds up to demonstrate an unhealthy apetite for all things admin. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: I'm in no way obsessed with adminship related matters, I requested the Autopatrolled user right because I didn't want to increase the backlog of unreviewed pages whenever I create a redirect, I do take notice of messages on my talk page, and questioning my competence won't make it more likely for me to listen to you. —MartinZ02 (talk) 13:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We do not accord Autopatroller rights to the creators of redirects and stubs. That proves that you don't read the guidelines. And f you are now going to be rude and behave like an arrogant teenager, don't be surprised if I and other users take a less friendly tone when discussing your disruption. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: I can explain why I voted as I did, if that's what you want, but don't assume that I'm on the same level as the average fourteen‐year‐old. If you have a question, feel free to ask. No offence intended. —MartinZ02 (talk) 14:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you need to tell us that you're not on the same level as the average fourteen-year-old only tells me and Kudpung that you are in fact on that level. If you weren't, Kudpung wouldn't have pointed it out. Sure, you're not exactly the average fourteen year old, you're a Wikipedia editor for one thing after all. The maturity aspect, however, is perfectly fine for your age, but, it's not approaching anywhere near either of ours. Kudpung is quite your senior, you are just about 2/3's my age.

Obsessed is a strong word, and I wouldn't use it myself. That said, if you weren't at least interested in it you wouldn't have been reading WP:Administrators/Tools, during which you noted a typo which then prompted you to edit the page. So, the interesting question here would be, what were you doing on that page in the first place? It wasn't receiving it's usual vandal attention that prompts most other users to go there and revert/rollback. More over, what page led you to it? Was it WP:Administrators or WP:Administrators' guide? and then, what were you doing on those pages? reading? Sure you could argue random edit random page, but, that falls through the floor when you consider the page is in Wikipedia space and that you would either have actively searched for it, or, found it while reading related pages. Neither of which supports your case of supposed disinterest. I'm always open to hearing an alternative possibility of course, I just can't think of any others. Again, we're not children, we can clue into these things more readily than you give us credit for. Something you're average fourteen year old is prone to doing eh, Kudpung.

I did note that your presence in article and article talk space far outweight your presence elsewhere, a good thing in many editors opinions. My presence on Wikipedia is far more behind the scenes than most people are comfortable with. Even I get a talking to on occassion about us all being here to build an encyclopadia. Take the lesson learn from it, forget the bitter feeling of being corrected (rightly or wrongly), and move on. It's all you can do, arguing the facts and trying to set the record straight unfortunately only very rarely works. Take Kudpung's advice, keep up the work in article and talk space - specifically astronomy and biological science as those seem to be your main interests - and give yourself time to mature up some more before getting more involved behind the scenes. Trust me, it gets dirty back here. One minute you're trying to sort out an AN/I discussion that has gotten a little heated, next minute there's a sockpuppetry trial and you're the defendant. I kid you not this has literally happened to me. No ill intent was behind it, but, no patience either.

A piece of advice at RfA; Kudpung would probably advise you not to comment at RfA at all for now, it's solid advice. We may be on the cusp of some reforms due to the spate of recent incidents and I'd rather have as few casualties as possible. We're already at 1 (8 day block with possible indef TBAN). Carry on, Mr rnddude (talk) 22:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: pardon me, but I think this manner of scrutiny of MartinZ02's behavior is wholly inappropriate. In this case, it gets uncomfortably close to a personal attack. Despite your good intentions, it was not unreasonable for MartinZ02 to interpret your previous statements as an attack on his competence. In this case, I would counsel patience. @Mr rnddude: I respect what you're trying to do here, but if you can point to any broken policies or guidelines, then we can start talking about a block. Bringing up the 8 day block of another user(which, incidentally, I agree with) could be interpreted as a veiled threat, even if it's wrapped in sound advice. To my eyes, it doesn't look like this user is being disruptive, and it won't become a case unless it is escalated into one. AlexEng^(TALK) 01:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AlexEng could you point me to which policies or guidelines were broken by Luke that are not subject to personal interpretation. My money is on you won't be able to because they don't currently exist. There are, at this moment, no policies or guidelines regarding conduct at WP:RFA. Any action or inaction is the choice and interpretation of the enactor. May I suggest having a read through Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Ad Orientem and note the OP post one the page. Veiled threat may come to mind. Disruption in this case is wholly subjective. I'm also not talking about a block being delivered at all. I only brought up the current situation, the on-edge-edness of those involved, and the precedent that has now been set. To my eyes, Luke did not deserve a block or the threat of indefinite removal from the RfA process. I voted accordingly at the proposal. I think the same in this case. My comments are in the effort of steering Martin well away from such an outcome. There are a few other editors that could easily fall into the same hot water, whom I won't name here out of courtesy, but, I think you may be able to guess at who those people may be by referring to the previous few RfAs. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)We don't 'threat' anything here, AlexEng - such issues can indeed be escalated and often are, and citing examples is sound pedagogic practice. If MartinZ02 will moderate his participation which is judged to be inappropriate by more than simply the users who have commented here, and loose some of his attitude, not only does he have nothing to fear, but he can be assured of all the help and mentoring we can offer, and I advise him most strongly to read this page in addition to the other help he has been linked to.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: What is wrong with my attitude? —MartinZ02 (talk) 02:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two experienced editors have told you already (WP:IDHT). You are a Wikipedia editor and you will be accepted by the community based on your comprehension of English, and ability to work collabortively in a friendly and appropriate manner. At the moment you are not exactly inviting the kind of help you could expect and if you are struggling with our English, I can very easily tell you in Swedish.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, note that there is a discussion about your attitude at the "General Comments" section at K6ka's RFA, where you recently submitted a question that is causing some conflict. Thanks. WikiPancake 🥞 08:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk (sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Moons of Haumea page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. If you don't find my consensus argument convincing, try this sentence from the ArbCom remedies box at the top of the talk page: " All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." I have challenged your edit, and you violated the remedies by reinstating it. Be careful. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandruss: The absence of John from the quote in item eleven is probably a typo, because there was no discussion about about removing it from the lead sentence in the links that were provided. —MartinZ02 (talk) 17:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandruss: I've added a proposal to clarify this on the talk page. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Zzuuzz: Thanks, that covers my comments above. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Presidency of Donald Trump, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Specifically, read about date formatting in an article. SMP0328. (talk) 20:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SMP0328.: That wasn't done by me.[1] —MartinZ02 (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. Feel free to delete this thread. SMP0328. (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 13:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ping. Please respond ASAP if still interested. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have filled out the Google form now. —MartinZ02 (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry the GA has become derailed through no fault of your own. I've asked for a second opinion on the image issue, but I can't see anything changing unless new sources miraculously appear. If Aldaron cannot be persuaded, or at least reluctantly tolerates the removal of the image, I'm afraid there will be no choice but to fail the article. You could launch a WP:RFC if we get to that state, but in the meantime it would be a fail as unstable. You would have to resubmit it later for a second review. SpinningSpark 20:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Proxima Centauri b you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CheChe -- CheChe (talk) 11:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Proxima Centauri b you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Proxima Centauri b for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CheChe -- CheChe (talk) 15:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Proxima Centauri b you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Proxima Centauri b for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CheChe -- CheChe (talk) 16:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Gliese 581 g you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Gliese 581 g for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Spinningspark -- Spinningspark (talk) 10:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Things named after Donald Trump, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gliese 581g, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AU. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MartinZ, I thought it necessary to revert your edit that removed categories from this article, and gave a reason: the categories are not subcategories of Category:China. The next step in BRD is for you to discuss on the China talk page, not to revert my reversion. Perhaps we can solve this quickly by a discussion here. What is your interpretation of this:

Articles with an eponymous category may be categorized in the broader categories that would be present if there were no eponymous category (e.g. the article France appears in both Category:France and Category:Western Europe, even though the latter category is the parent of the former category). Editors should decide by consensus which solution makes most sense for a category tree.?

I think it is particularly important to follow this guideline since this is the case with almost every other country I have checked—true for India, Russia, Brazil, the United States, and the United Kingdom, though not for Sweden. You can find further information here. How do you think a discussion will go at Talk:China? Follow the practice at other countries? Or not?

By the way, I think the hidden comment at the top of the category list at China may refer to

9.Use a space as the sort key for a key article for the category. (Note: If the key article should not be a member, simply edit the category text itself to add it, perhaps using {{Cat main}}.)

since the space forces the category eponymous category to the top of the list.

If our interpretations differ, we take it to Talk:China. — Neonorange (Phil) 20:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove others' comments on talk pages, as you did here with WereSpielChequers' comment. If you have a concern with them, please take it up on their talk page. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 02:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to know it was just a mistake. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Gliese 581b

added a link pointing to AU

Gliese 581c

added a link pointing to AU

Gliese 581d

added a link pointing to AU

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mean to be bashing on you too hard as I've mentioned this on WP:AST already, but seriously, what's going on with these citation errors on GJ 581g? 3, 5-10, 12-13, and 17 have script errors. These are defined as "Smith 2010", "Centre de données astronomiques de Strasbourg 2008", "Lopez‐Morales 2006", "General Catalogue of Variable Stars Query results 2009", "Sternberg Astronomical Institute 2009", "von Braun 2011", "Bonfils 2005", "Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia 2010" (That one is working indeed), "Bean 2006", "Selsis 2007", and "Sanders 2010". Some citations such as "Bonfils 2011" simply have script errors (at least that's what it looks like to me), but others like "Bean 2006" I cannot find defined anywhere in the markup code. So.... Should we just remove these undefined citations or are we going to hunt them down and cite them? Davidbuddy9Talk 05:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What were you thinking, opening an identical RFC ten days after the previous one was closed? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Template:Astobprojlist, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 05:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 06:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The final round of the 2017 WikiCup is over. Congratulations to the 2017 WikiCup top three finalists:

• First Place - Adityavagarwal (submissions)
• Second Place - Vanamonde (submissions)
• Third Place - Cas Liber (submissions)

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 – Bloom6132 (submissions) and 1989 (submissions) both produced 2 FLs in R2
• Featured Pictures – SounderBruce (submissions) improved an image to FP status in R5, the only FP this year.
• Featured Topic – MPJ-DK (submissions) 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 – MBlaze Lightning (submissions) had 14 ITN on the main page in R2.
• Good Article Review – Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (submissions) 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 - @Adityavagarwal, Vanamonde93, Casliber, Bloom6132, 1989, and SounderBruce: please send Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) 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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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? Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gliese 581g you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Rontombontom -- Rontombontom (talk) 10:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Gliese 581g you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Gliese 581g for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Rontombontom -- Rontombontom (talk) 12:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gliese 581 planetary system you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Rontombontom -- Rontombontom (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Gliese 581 planetary system you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Gliese 581 planetary system for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Rontombontom -- Rontombontom (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) and Vanamonde (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk), Vanamonde (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Donald J. Trump Foundation, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. — JFG ^talk 12:17, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is Courcelles (submissions), 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:

1. Courcelles (submissions)
2. Kosack (submissions)
3. Kees08 (submissions)
4. SounderBruce (submissions)
5. Cas Liber (submissions)
6. Nova Crystallis (submissions)
7. Iazyges (submissions)
8. Ceranthor (submissions)

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

• Cas Liber (submissions) wins the FA prize, for three featured articles in round 2.
• Courcelles (submissions) wins the GA prize, for 92 good articles in round 3.
• Kosack (submissions) wins the FL prize, for five featured lists overall.
• Cartoon network freak (submissions) wins the topic prize, for 30 articles in good topics overall.
• Usernameunique (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 24 did you know articles in round 3.
• Zanhe (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 17 in the news articles overall.
• Aoba47 (submissions) 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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email) and Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email).

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 Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.
• Adam Cuerden, 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.
• 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk).

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:

• 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.
• Adam Cuerden (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.

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.

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Wishing you a Happy Mole Day on the behalf of WikiProject Science.

---

---

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is Adam Cuerden (submissions), who over the course of the competition has amassed 91 featured pictures, including 32 in the final round. Our finalists this year were:

1. Adam Cuerden (submissions) with 964 points
2. Lee Vilenski (submissions) with 899 points
3. Casliber (submissions) with 817 points
4. Kosack (submissions) with 691 points
5. SounderBruce (submissions) with 388 points
6. Enwebb (submissions) with 146 points
7. Usernameunique (submissions) with 145 points
8. HaEr48 (submissions) 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!

• Casliber (submissions) wins the featured article prize, for a total of 7 FAs during the course of the competition.
• Lee Vilenski (submissions) wins the good article prize, for 14 GAs in round 5.
• Yashthepunisher (submissions) wins the featured list prize, for 4 FLs overall.
• Adam Cuerden (submissions) wins the featured picture prize, for 91 FPs overall.
• MPJ-DK (submissions) wins the topic prize, for 7 articles in good topics in round 2.
• Lee Vilenski (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 14 did you know articles in round 5.
• Muboshgu (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 7 in the news articles in round 1.
• Ed! (submissions) 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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth 14:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.
• 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.
• 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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
• 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, 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth. - MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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
• 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 2020 WikiCup has come to an end, with the final round going down to the wire. Our new Champion is Lee Vilenski (submissions), the runner-up last year, who was closely followed by Gog the Mild (submissions). 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. The Rambling Man (submissions) was in third place with 4 FAs and 8 GAs on football topics, with Epicgenius (submissions) close behind with 19 GAs and 16 DYK's, his interest being the buildings of New York.

The other finalists were Hog Farm (submissions), HaEr48 (submissions), Harrias (submissions) and Bloom6132 (submissions). 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.

• Gog the Mild (submissions) wins the featured article prize, for a total of 14 FAs during the course of the competition.
• Bloom6132 (submissions) win the featured list prize, for 5 FLs in round 4.
• Rhododendrites (submissions) wins the featured picture prize, for 3 FPs in round 3 and 5 overall.
• Lee Vilenski (submissions) wins the featured article reviewer prize, for 23 FAC reviews in round 5.
• Epicgenius (submissions) wins the good article prize, for 45 GAs in round 2 and 113 overall.
• MPJ-DK (submissions) wins the topic prize, for 33 articles in good topics in round 2.
• The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the good article reviewer prize, for 100 good article reviews in round 2.
• Epicgenius (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 22 Did you know articles in round 4 and 94 overall.
• Bloom6132 (submissions) 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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Confirmed planets of the Gliese 581 system has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Kepler-1229b (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So has Category:Unconfirmed planets of the Gliese 581 system, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 2#Unconfirmed planets of the Gliese 581 system. – Fayenatic London 21:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Planets of the Gliese 581 system has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Kepler-1229b (talk) 18:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proxima Centauri b has been nominated for a community 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Planets of the Gliese 581 system has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]