User talk:Inks.LWC/Archive 8

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

		Holiday Cheer
		Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS

Thank you! You as well! :) Inks.LWC (talk) 06:06, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey there. I wanted to let you know that the article, which you have up for GA nomination, I proposed it to be merged with the tornado outbreak. Any thoughts you have would be good. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Hink. I've thrown up a quick blurb, but I can add a bit more tomorrow after I've arrived in Baltimore if needed. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I went through the edit history -- maybe it wasn't that article that I removed the graphic from; it might have been the actual El Reno tornado page. At any rate, the graphic lists the tornado intensity as an EF-5, which is misleading to those who look only at the picture. The tornado was downgraded to an EF-3 in September.

Ahh, I see that now - I was too focused on the image itself I didn't even notice that. Inks.LWC (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The 2014 WikiCup is off to a flying start, with, at time of writing, 138 participants. The is the largest number of participants we have seen since 2010. If you are yet to join the competition, don't worry- the judges have agreed to keep the signups open for a few more days. By a wide margin, our current leader is newcomer Godot13 (submissions), whose set of 14 featured pictures, the first FPs of the competition, was worth 490 points. Here are some more noteworthy scorers:

• TropicalAnalystwx13 (submissions) were the first people to score, for the good article Tropical Storm Bret (1981)
  and its good article review respectively. 12george1 was also the first person to score in 2012 and 2013.
• 2014 North American polar vortex
  .
• WonderBoy1998 (submissions) scored points for an early good topic, finishing off Wikipedia:Featured topics/She Wolf.
• TheAustinMan (submissions) scored the first bonus points of the competition, for his work on Typhoon Vera.
• Igordebraga (submissions) has scored the highest number of bonus points for a single article, for the high-importance Jurassic Park (film).

Featured articles, featured lists, featured topics and featured portals are yet to play a part in the competition. The judges have removed a number of submissions which were deemed ineligible. Typically, we aim to see work on a project, followed by a nomination, followed by promotion, this year. We apologise for any disappointment caused by our strict enforcement this year; we're aiming to keep the competition as fair as possible.

Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may be interested to take part in The Core Contest; unlike the WikiCup, The Core Contest is not about audited content, but, like the WikiCup, it is about article improvement; specifically, The Core Contest is about contribution to some of Wikipedia's most important article. Of course, any work done for The Core Contest, if it leads to a DYK, GA or FA, can earn WikiCup 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

Thank you for leaving a detailed comment in my RfA. I do not believe there's anything I can do in reply that would satisfy all parties, I am afraid. Responding to oppose votes is discouraged in Wikipedia:Advice_for_RfA_candidates#During_your_RfA 4 times - points 4, 5, 10 and 11, as well astwice in Wikipedia:How_to_pass_an_RfA points 1 and 2, and is not recommended anywhere I can see. Also, during and after last RfA I received several emails from editors who clearly told me "next time, answer questions but don't be seen in the !votes section at all". Whether an answer is antagonistic or not is often in the eye of the beholder, whereas it's much easier to judge whether the answer is there at all. Would this response there change your mind? That I don't know. Would it change anyone else in a positive way? I doubt it, but it seems more likely some people would see this as badgering, or too long. So yes, I'll chose to follow the advice mentioned above and not reply directly to oppose comments there (through since I do appreciate the time some editors put into their good faithed advice in the first place, I'll respond on the participant talk pages in those few, select cases).

Regarding other issues you mention, I can certainly try to respond to those, if you would like. On an ending note, I hope you have not found this post inappropriate, antagonistic or otherwise problematic, but if you did, I apologize in advance and I'd love to hear how you'd try to reply if you were in my shoes.(If you reply here please

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Piotrus, I understand the general "rule" that it is a bad idea to respond to !votes, but even in the first essay you linked to, it is implied that some replies can be appropriate. It's fine to give clarifications or correct gross mischaracterizations, but what you were criticized for the last time was responding to virtually all of the beginning oppose !votes, and often doing so in an antagonistic way. My feelings on administrators is that it does not matter whether the author intended to be antagonistic or not, so you are correct in saying that whether an answer is antagonistic is in they eye of the beholder; however, administrators need to interact with regular users on a frequent basis, so it is my belief that intent is largely irrelevant, and the more important factor is whether others view answers as antagonistic. Even if an administrator is well intentioned, if he frequently comes off as being antagonistic, this will create problems. In general, I have found through this RFA and your last RFA that you seem to lack an understanding of how administrators should come across and interact with people. I realize that that seems harsh, and I do not mean it as an insult to you; the unfortunate part of the RFA process is that honesty about one's hesitations in promoting a user to administrator can seem a bit harsh, depending on the reasoning. I think you are a very good user, and you make great contributions to the project, but your overall attitude at the RFAs has been one that leads me to believe that the admin role is not the best fit for you. This does not mean that you won't change or cannot learn, but it is something that typically takes time, and I would need to see both specific and general attitude changes before supporting you in a future RFA. Feel free to respond to other issues if you wish, although I do not anticipate changing my mind at this time, so if you want to focus your time on other things, that's perfectly understandable. I also take no offense to your response here, so there is no need to apologize. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I unfortunately lost temper during the last RfA. I'd like to think, however, that it is an exception to the rule, if unfortunately high profile - it's not like I have a habit of doing so. I was simply unprepared for a certain type of oppose vote that occurs during the RfA; I don't participate in them much and I wish I had read Dariusz's book before I did (see what I mean in the fourth para of my review of his book here). And perhaps I worded my note c less than perfectly this time, but I still try to engage with helpful criticism as my presence here indicates - I just am trying to keep the "dramu" off the RfA page. On a final note, you may want to look at the recent comment by DGG at the RfA, I find that he said many things better than I could've. In either case, thank you for taking time to consider my candidacy in good faith. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh no no, I think not. You see last time Piotrus was de-sysopped was by an ArbCom motion, generally ArbCom decisions are pretty nasty. I did'n't want to lose out on an excellent content-contributor because of the mop. Soham 11:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your figuring out what the name should be. I just wanted to see if Wikipedia had an article on each "named" storm, and when I saw this one, I was pretty sure it was notable enough but it sure needed work. I'm still a long way from finished (unless someone else wants to help), but I have a feeling without my contribution it would have been on its way to deletion. — Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

At some point when I get a bit more free time I'll try to help out. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Your over thinking that guys question on the met page. :-P He literally means like the hurricane articles do met stuff-preps-impact-etc.Jason Rees (talk) 04:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

OK that makes a lot more sense now. I was thinking he meant something with text formatting and I was totally lost. Thank you for that. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I am fresh out of wiki kittens; please accept this cake as a thank you for your thoughtful comments during my (now withdrawn) RfA. Constructive criticism can is always appreciated. What doesn't kill us... Cheers, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

And so ends the most competitive first round we have ever seen, with 38 points required to qualify for round 2. Last year, 19 points secured a place; before that, 11 (2012) or 8 (2011) were enough. This is both a blessing and a curse. While it shows the vigourous good health of the competition, it also means that we have already lost many worthy competitors. Our top three scorers were:

1. Treasury Note (1890–91)
   .
2. Adam Cuerden (submissions), a WikiCup veteran and a finalist last year, Adam is also a featured picture specialist, focusing on the restoration of historical images. This month's promotions have included a carefully restored set of artist William Russell Flint's work.
3. WikiRedactor (submissions), another WikiCup newcomer. WikiRedactor has claimed points for good article reviews and good articles relating to pop music, many of which were awarded bonus points. Articles include Sky Ferreira, Hannah Montana 2: Meet Miley Cyrus and "Wrecking Ball" (Miley Cyrus song).

Other competitors of note include:

• Hahc21 (submissions), who helped take Thirty Flights of Loving
  through good article candidates and featured article candidates, claiming the first first featured article of the competition.
• Natalia Kills discography
  .
• Cwmhiraeth (submissions), who takes the title of the contributor awarded the highest bonus point multiplier (resulting in the highest scoring article) of the competition so far. Her high-importance salamander, now a good article, scored 108 points.

After such a competitive first round, expect the second round to also be fiercely fought. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2, but please do not update your submission page until March (UTC). 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 candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on

I noticed the following recent account creation on Commons: commons:User:LWC.Inks. I just wanted to check with you to see if this is yours, or a possible troll/impersonator. INeverCry 19:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing it's the same guy who left the threat on my Commons page a couple hours ago. Ugh... how do trolls have time for this crap? Thanks for the heads up. Inks.LWC (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I found it in a check of the troll you reported on COM:AN, along with 3 other socks. I've blocked them and reported them to CU-L. INeverCry 19:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Inks.LWC (talk) 19:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

A quick update as we are half way through round two of this year's competition. WikiCup newcomer Godot13 (submissions) (Pool E) leads, having produced a massive set of featured pictures for Silver certificate (United States), an article also brought to featured list status. Former finalist Adam Cuerden (submissions) (Pool G) is in second, which he owes mostly to his work with historical images, including a number of images from Urania's Mirror, an article also brought to good status. 2010 champion (Pool C) is third overall, thanks to contributions relating to naval history, including the newly featured Japanese battleship Nagato. Cliftonian (submissions), who currently leads Pool A and is sixth overall, takes the title for the highest scoring individual article of the competition so far, with the top importance featured article Ian Smith.

With 26 people having already scored over 100 points, it is likely that well over 100 points will be needed to secure a place in round 3. Recent years have required 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) and 100 (2010). Remember that only 64 will progress to round 3 at the end of April. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page; 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 candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on

Czar (submissions) and Red Phoenix (submissions) for their work on the Sega Genesis topic

After an extremely close race, Round 3 is over. 244 points secured a place in Round 4, which is comparable to previous years- 321 was required in 2013, while 243 points were needed in 2012. Pool C's Godot13 (submissions) was the round's highest scorer, mostly due to a 32 featured pictures, including both scans and photographs. Also from Pool C, Casliber (submissions) finished second overall, claiming three featured articles, including the high-importance Grus (constellation). Third place was Pool B's , whose contributions included featured articles Russian battleship Poltava (1894) and Russian battleship Peresvet. Pool C saw the highest number of participants advance, with six out of eight making it to the next round.

The round saw this year's first featured portal, with

The judges would like to remind participants to update submission pages promptly. This means that content can be checked, and allows those following the competition (including those participating) to keep track of scores effectively. This round has seen discussion about various aspects of the WikiCup's rules and procedures. Those interested in the competition can be assured that formal discussions about how next year's competition will work will be opened shortly, and all are welcome to voice their views then. 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. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 18:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The final of the 2014 WikiCup begins in a few short minutes! Our eight finalists are listed below, along with their placement in Round 4:

1. Godot13 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer, finished top of Pool A and was the round's highest scorer. Godot is a featured picture specialist, claiming large numbers of points due to high-quality scans of historical documents, especially banknotes.
2. Casliber (submissions) is a WikiCup veteran, having been a finalist every year since 2010. In the semi-final, he was Pool B's highest scorer. Cas's points primarily come from articles on the natural sciences.
3. Czar (submissions
   ) was Pool A's runner-up. Czar's points come mostly from content related to independent video games, including both articles and topics.
4. Adam Cuerden (submissions) was Pool B's runner-up. Another featured picture specialist, many of Adam's points come from the restoration of historical media. He has been a WikiCup finalist twice before.
5. Cwmhiraeth (submissions) won the WikiCup in 2012 and 2013, and enters this final as the first wildcard. She focuses on biology-related articles, and has worked on several high-importance articles.
6. 12george1 (submissions) is the second wildcard. George's points come primarily from meteorology-related articles. This year and last year, George was the first person in the competition to score.
7. Sturmvogel 66 (submissions), the third wildcard, was the 2010 champion and a finalist last year. His writes mostly on military history, especially naval history.
8. Bloom6132 (submissions), the fourth and final wildcard, has participated in previous WikiCups, but not reached any finals. Bloom's points are mostly thanks to did you knows, featured lists and good articles related to sport and national symbols.

We say goodbye to this year's semi-finalists. Matty.007 (submissions), ThaddeusB (submissions), WikiRedactor (submissions), Figureskatingfan (submissions), Yellow Evan (submissions), Prism (submissions) and Cloudz679 (submissions) have all performed well to reach this stage of the competition, and we hope they will all be joining us again next year.

There are two upcoming competitions unrelated to the WikiCup which may be of interest to those who receive this newsletter. The Stub Contest will run through September, and revolves around expanding stub articles, especially high-importance or old stubs. In addition, a proposal has been made for a new competition, the GA Cup, which the organisers plan to run next year. This competition is based on the WikiCup and aims to reduce the good article review backlog.

There is now a thread for brainstorming on how next year's WikiCup competition should work. Please come along and share your thoughts- What works? What doesn't work? What needs changing? Signups for next year's competition will be open soon; we will be in touch. If, at this stage of the competition, you are keen to help the with the WikiCup, please do what you can to participate in review processes. Our finalists will find things much easier if the backlogs at good article candidates, featured article candidates, featured picture candidates and the rest are kept at a minimum. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

In one month's time, we will know our WikiCup 2014 champion. Newcomer

historical coats of arms of the U.S. states from 1876) and a raft of featured pictures. Reigning champion Cwmhiraeth (submissions) is in second place with a number of high-importance biology articles, including new FA Isopoda and new GA least weasel. Casliber (submissions), who is in his fifth WikiCup final, is in third, with featured articles Pictor and Epacris impressa

Signups for the 2015 WikiCup are open. All Wikipedians, new and experienced, are warmly invited to sign up for the competition. Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may also like to sign up for the GA Cup, a new WikiCup-inspired competition which revolves around completing good article reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The 2014 WikiCup champion is Godot13 (submissions), who flew the flag of the Smithsonian Institution. This was Godot13's first WikiCup competition and, over the 10 months of the competition, he has produced (among other contributions) two featured lists and an incredible 292 featured pictures, including architectural photographs and scans of historical documents. Cwmhiraeth (submissions), 2012 and 2013 WikiCup champion, came in second, having written a large number of biology-related articles. Casliber (submissions), WikiCup finalist every year since 2010, finished in third.

A full list of our prize-winners follows:

• Godot13 (submissions) wins the prize for first place and the FP prize for 181 featured pictures in the final round.
• Cwmhiraeth (submissions) wins the prize for second place and the DYK prize for 65 did you knows in the final round.
• Casliber (submissions) wins the prize for third place and the FA prize for four featured articles in the final round.
• Czar (submissions
  ) wins the prize for fourth place
• Sturmvogel 66 (submissions) wins a final 8 prize.
• Bloom6132 (submissions) wins a final 8 prize.
• 12george1 (submissions) wins a final 8 prize.
• ChrisGualtieri (submissions) wins the GA prize for 27 good articles in round 2 and the review prize for 28 good article reviews in round 1.
• Caponer (submissions
  ) wins the FL prize for three featured lists in round 2.
• Sven Manguard (submissions
  ) wins the FPo prize his work on featured portals.
• Figureskatingfan (submissions) wins the topic prize for a nine-article featured topic in round 3.
• ThaddeusB (submissions) wins the news prize for 28 in the news articles in round 3.

Congratulations to everyone who has been successful in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and a particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have participated this year. We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, and all are welcome to participate. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2014 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. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello everyone, and may we wish you all a happy holiday season. As you will probably already know, the 2015 WikiCup begins in the new year; there is still time to sign up. We have a few important announcements concerning the future of the WikiCup.

• We would like to announce that Josh (J Milburn) and Ed (The ed17), who have been WikiCup judges since 2009 and 2010 respectively, are stepping down. This decision has been made for a number of reasons, but the main one is time. Both Josh and Ed have found that, over the previous year, they have been unable to devote the time necessary to the WikiCup, and it is not likely that they will be able to do this in the near future. Furthermore, new people at the helm can only help to invigorate the WikiCup and keep it dynamic. Josh and Ed will still be around, and will likely be participating in the Cup this following year as competitors, which is where both started out.
• In a similar vein, we hope you will all join us in welcoming Jason (Sturmvogel 66) and Christine (Figureskatingfan), who are joining Brian (Miyagawa) to form the 2015 WikiCup judging team. Jason is a WikiCup veteran, having won in 2010 and finishing in fifth this year. Christine has participated in two WikiCups, reaching the semi-finals in both, and is responsible for the GA Cup, which she now co-runs.
• The discussions/polls concerning the next competition's rules will be closed soon, and rules changes will be made clear on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring and talk pages. While it may be impossible to please everyone, the judges will make every effort to ensure that the new rules are both fair and in the best interests of the competition, which is, first and foremost, about improving Wikipedia.

If you have any questions or concerns, the judges can be reached on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, on their talk pages, or by email. We hope you will all join us in trying to make the 2015 WikiCup the most productive and enjoyable yet. You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk), The ed17 (talk), Miyagawa (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Figureskatingfan (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Round one of the 2015 WikiCup has begun! So far we've had around 80 signups, which close on February 5. If you have not already signed up and want to do so, then you can add your name here. There have been changes to to several of the points scores for various categories, and the addition of Peer Reviews for the first time. These will work in the same manner as Good Article Reviews, and all of the changes are summarised here.

Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round, and one of the new changes this year is that all scores must be claimed within two weeks of an article's promotion or appearance, so don't forget to add them to your submissions pages! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on

I've closed the longstanding RFD for Lightning in a tropical cyclone as no consensus with an unusually detailed rationale. Basically, nobody wanted to keep it, but there wasn't consensus on what to do, so I've taken a bold step of un-redirecting it and immediately sending it to AFD to get input from people who don't often show up at RFD. I'd really appreciate your input at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lightning in a tropical cyclone, where I've given a strong suggestion that people pick between the RFD-favored steps of deletion or retargeting to lightning. I'm attempting to notify everyone who participated in the RFD (that's BDD, Ivanvector, Inks.LWC, Guy1890, Steel1943, and Thryduulf), but if I missed someone, please do the notification for me. Nyttend (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

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 List of United States tornadoes from April to May 2014 page, your edit caused a redundant parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

I have just created an essay on what I believe reflects the consensus of the naming of winter storms by The Weather Channel please have it a look over thanks! - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. 64 competitors made it into this round, and are now broken into eight groups of eight. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups. Round 1 saw some interesting work on some very important articles, with the round leader

Featured Article on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, as Godot13 (submissions) had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge, Sturmvogel_66 (submissions

• level-4 vital article, to Good Article
  ;
• AHeneen (submissions) worked-up the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 article, also to Good Article status;
• Rodw (submissions) developed an extremely timely article to Good Article, taking Magna Carta there some 800 years after it was first sealed;
• And last but not least,
  Featured Pictures during round 1, including the 1948 one Deutsche Mark
  (pictured right), receiving the maximum bonus due to the number of Wikis that the related article appears in.

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

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on

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

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. 64 competitors made it into this round, and are now broken into eight groups of eight. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups. Round 1 saw some interesting work on some very important articles, with the round leader

Featured Article on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, as Godot13 (submissions) had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge, Sturmvogel_66 (submissions

• level-4 vital article, to Good Article
  ;
• AHeneen (submissions) worked-up the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 article, also to Good Article status;
• Rodw (submissions) developed an extremely timely article to Good Article, taking Magna Carta there some 800 years after it was first sealed;
• And last but not least,
  Featured Pictures during round 1, including the 1948 one Deutsche Mark
  (pictured right), receiving the maximum bonus due to the number of Wikis that the related article appears in.

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

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on

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

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Just so you know, he is back. --IPhonehurricane95 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.114.239 (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Check [1] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, but I think it was updated a bit after that. If I recall correctly, there were 8 references by the end. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Inks.LWC (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The second round one has all wrapped up, and round three has now begun! Congratulations to the 34 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our second round. Leading the way overall was Cas Liber (submissions) in Group B with a total of 777 points for a variety of contributions including Good Articles on Corona Borealis and Microscopium - both of which received the maximum bonus.

Special credit must be given to a number of high importance articles improved during the second round.

• Coemgenus (submissions) was one of several users who worked on improving Ulysses S. Grant. Remember, you do not need to work on an article on your own - as long as each person has completed significant work on the article during 2015, multiple competitors can claim the same article.
• Cwmhiraeth (submissions) took Dragonfly to Good Article for a 3x bonus - and if that wasn't enough, they also took Damselfly there as well for a 2x bonus.
• level 4 vital article
  .

The points varied across groups, with the lowest score required to gain automatic qualification was 68 in Group A - meanwhile the second place score in Group H was 404, which would have been high enough to win all but one of the other Groups! As well as the top two of each group automatically going through to the third round, a minimum score of 55 was required for a wildcard competitor to go through. We had a three-way tie at 55 points and all three have qualified for the next round, in the spirit of fairness. The third round ends on June 28, with the top two in each group progressing automatically while the remaining 16 highest scorers across all four groups go through as wildcards. Good luck to all competitors for the third round! Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) 16:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

How did you find the document to satisfy the speedy deletion for YaspeecharY? I tried, but wasn't having much luck, so thought I would see if the editor would respond. Maybe I wasn't trying hard enough. :) -Pax85 (talk) 05:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I plugged in the first part of the second line ("వీరి పూర్తి పేరు శేషం పురుషోత్తమా చార్య") into a Google search and it came up as the only link other than the article. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For saving Skintern from a prod ... using exactly the same sources I was planning to add when I got back from my errands. Daniel Case (talk) 23:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I have now finished the article and nominated it for DYK. I gave you coauthor credit, if that's alright with you. Daniel Case (talk) 04:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine. Thank you, again. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if it warrants major discussion (overall it's of IMO very minor importance), but since you really want to be consistent, go ahead.

severe weather
Thank you, veteran editor of

redirects and rescuing articles from deletion, for gnomish work in user notification and project assessment, addingand correcting, for a clear user page which began as a to-do-list, for legal fairness 1, 2, - you are an awesome Wikipedian

!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

A year ago, you were recipient no. 1240 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Since my name might be an issue. I created this account. But as per the suggestion as well I made the changes on William Benson page. I tried providing as many as reference to take care of the page. Let me the reason for deletion criteria. Happy to discuss — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dewimani (talk • contribs) 07:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Dewimani, why would your name be an issue, and are you still using your old account? Inks.LWC (talk) 07:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I have stopped it and requested for name change.

Further, Please find the notable reference for him: Please find the notable source for him on google news - https://www.google.co.in/#q=william+benson+billionaires+row&tbm=nws.

Notable site like NY times, Reuters, thedrinksbusiness, bisnow.com etc  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dewimani (talk • contribs) 07:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC) 

Just because he is mentioned

in passing does not mean he is notable. In the NY Times and Bisnow articles, he is only mentioned in a caption of a photo, not the actual article. The Reuters piece is not a reliable source, because it is just a copy of a press release from the company. Inks.LWC (talk

) 22:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

That's why notability tag was kept on page. Even spy Ghana has whole article about him. And also Bangalorean.net should be deleted then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dewimani (talk • contribs) 10:23, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

The Spy Ghana article only briefly mentions him. The article isn't about him. And the Bangalorean articles seem to be very promotional. I've seen them added a lot recently, and often it appears to be Wikipedia users promoting their own Bangalorean articles; I'm not sure Bangalorean is exactly a reliable source. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't look promotional like that. I followed Wikipedia reliable source checking method and found spyghana, nytimes, bangalorean and etc stuff. and found that this person has significant coverage. I am a Investigating journalist. I like to contribute. So I added. and request you to look into it and remove the deletion tag/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dewimani (talk • contribs) 06:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I did look into it, and even if I agreed with you, at this point, it is too late for me to remove it and close the discussion, because other people have also now said they think it should be deleted. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the information about minor edits. I did not know about that. Much appreciated. Can we remove the COI tag from pages which are notable and have no specific point to point issues? If you have any issues with the pages, I'd be happy and more than willing to sort them out. Mr RD (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Done. I've removed all of them; the connected contributor tag on the talk pages is sufficient, IMO. Had I known that existed, I'd have just done that in the first place and foregone the COI tags. Inks.LWC (talk) 09:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Mr RD (talk) 09:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I thought I'd check some of this user's edits, and the very first one I glanced at and checked a reference for turned out to be sourced to a WP:PRIMARY press release, and using a secondary source for a one-off event - with a broken URL - to claim generally that "every ticket sold" by the company includes a charity donation, which the source did not support. --

That was one of his less recent creations. I am hoping that now that he knows about the terms of use, the COI problems will stop; otherwise, it may have to be taken to

WP:ANI. Several of the pages created rely almost solely on press releases or blogs and should be deleted (and I've already started AFDs for those). Inks.LWC (talk

) 20:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

All the best for your bar exam. Mr RD (talk) 09:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Whisperback

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 08:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)#Proposal to remove "Has won or placed in a major music competition." from "from Criteria for musicians and ensembles". Thanks. Worldbruce (talk) 10:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Pavlov's RfA reward Thank for !voting at my recent RfA . You voted Oppose so you get only one cookie, but a nice one. (Better luck next time.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC).

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thank you for your efforts in cleaning up after the mess left by User:Smileverse. SmartSE (talk) 17:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Inks.LWC (talk) 00:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

1. Cas Liber (submissions), who is competing in his sixth consecutive Wikicup final, again finished the round in first place, with an impressive 1666 points in Pool B. Casliber writes about the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. A large bulk of his points this round were bonus points.
2. Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points), second place both in Pool B and overall, earned the bulk of his points with FPs, mostly depicting currency.
3. Cwmhiraeth (submissions), first in Pool A, came in third. His specialty is natural science articles; in Round 4, he mostly submitted articles about insects and botany. Five out of the six of the GAs he submitted were level-4 vital articles.
4. Harrias (submissions), second in Pool A, took fourth overall. He tends to focus on articles about cricket and military history, specifically the 1640s First English Civil War.
5. West Virginian (submissions), from Pool A, was our highest-scoring wildcard. West Virginia tends to focus on articles about the history of (what for it!) the U.S. state of West Virginia.
6. Rodw (submissions), from Pool A, likes to work on articles about British geography and places. Most of his points this round were earned from two impressive accomplishments: a GT about Scheduled monuments in Somerset and a FT about English Heritage properties in Somerset.
7. Rationalobserver (submissions), from Pool B, came in seventh overall. RO earned the majority of her points from GARs and PRs, many of which were earned in the final hours of the round.
8. Calvin999 (submissions), also from Pool B, who was competing with RO for the final two spots in the final hours, takes the race for most GARs and PRs—48.

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

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

Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs), Miyagawa (talk · contribs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 11:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The reference (People) that had the direct quote (which is also now in the article) states very plainly "dissolution", not "divorce". Why did you change it back when that's not what she said? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

As I said in the edit summary, there is no difference between "divorce" and "dissolution of marriage" in Indiana; however, in several U.S. states, there is a difference. Using "dissolution" could cause people in such states to infer that what Fogle's wife filed was not a divorce. The sources use the word "divorce", and "divorce" is the more common word among the general population, and it does not carry any risk of misleading people as to what exactly was filed. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

What you are suggesting is

original research. We don't interpret for readers, we put in what's sourced and what's stated directly. It needs to be changed to match the direct quote from his wife. -- WV ● ✉ ✓

22:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

FYI: I've copied this discussion to the article talk page. I really should have started this discussion there to begin with. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

You are being contacted because you contributed to a recent discussion of MOS:IDENTITY that closed with the recommendation that Wikipedia's policy on transgender individuals be revisited.

Two threads have been opened at the Village Pump:Policy. The first addresses how the Manual of Style should instruct editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves (which name, which pronoun, etc.). The second addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Your participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

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

This year's results were an exact replica of last year's competition. For the second year in a row, the 2015 WikiCup champion is Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points). All of his points were earned for an impressive 253 featured pictures and their associated bonus points (5060 and 1695, respectively). His entries constituted scans of currency from all over the world and scans of medallions awarded to participants of the U.S. Space program. Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came in second place; she earned by far the most bonus points (4082), for 4 featured articles, 15 good articles, and 147 DYKs, mostly about in her field of expertise, natural science. Cas Liber (submissions), a finalist every year since 2010, came in third, with 2379 points.

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

A full list of our award winners are:

• Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points) wins the prize for first place and the FP prize for 330 featured pictures in the final round.
• Cwmhiraeth (submissions) wins the prize for second place and the DYK prize for 160 did you knows in the final round (310 in all rounds).
• Cas Liber (submissions) wins the prize for third place and the FA prize for 26 featured articles in all rounds.
• West Virginian (submissions) wins the prize for fourth place
• Calvin999 (submissions) wins a final 8 prize.
• Rationalobserver (submissions) wins a final 8 prize.
• Harrias (submissions) wins a final 8 prize and the FL prize for 11 featured lists.
• Rodw (submissions) wins the most prizes: a final 8 prize, the GA prize for 41 good articles, and the topic prize for a 13-article good topic and an 8-article featured topic, both in round 3.
• ThaddeusB (submissions) wins the news prize for the most news articles in round 3.

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

Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · logs), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · logs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · logs) 18:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

Dry lightning —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Pierre cb (talk

) 05:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Pierre cb (talk) 05:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 is just around the corner...

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

After two years of serving as WikiCup judge,

Featured Pictures

; he won the two previous competitions. This is a strong judging team, and we anticipate lots of enjoyment and good work coming from our 2016 competitors.

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

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

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

78.26's RFA Appreciation award

	The 78.26 RFA Appreciation award
	Thank you for the participation and support at my RFA. It is truly appreciated. I hope to be of further help around here, and if you see me doing something dumb, you know where to find me. Again, I thank you. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:15, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Wishing you all the best . . .

Merry Christmas, Inks.LWC, and may your holidays be merry and bright . . . . Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Merry Christmas to you as well. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:22, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Inks.LWC!

Happy New Year!

Inks.LWC,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thank you! Happy New Year to you as well. Inks.LWC (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016: Game On!

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

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

WikiCup 2016: Game On!

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

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

Thank you for supporting my RfA

	Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating in and supporting my RfA. It was very much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. Best of luck with the admin role again. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

	Peacemaker67 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. Best of luck. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

	Brianhe RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating at talk ) 07:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. Best of luck. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter

That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. Forty-seven competitors move into this round (a bit shy of the expected 64), and we are roughly broken into eight groups of six. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups.

Twenty-two Good Articles were submitted, including three by Cyclonebiskit (submissions), and two each by MPJ-DK (submissions), Hurricanehink (submissions), 12george1 (submissions), and Cas Liber (submissions). Twenty-one Featured Pictures were claimed, including 17 by Adam Cuerden (submissions) (the Round 1 high scorer). Thirty-one contestants saw their DYKs appear on the main page, with a commanding lead (28) by Cwmhiraeth (submissions). Twenty-nine participants conducted GA reviews with J Milburn (submissions) completing nine.

If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on

Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Thanks to everyone for participating, and good luck to those moving into round 2. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) --MediaWiki message delivery (talk

) 02:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 March newsletter (update)

Along with getting the year wrong in the newsletter that went out earlier this week, we did not mention (as the bot did not report) that Cas Liber (submissions) claimed the first Featured Article Persoonia terminalis of the 2016 Wikicup. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email).--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 May newsletter

Round 2 is over and 35 competitors have moved on to Round 3.

Round 2 saw three FAs (two by Cas Liber (submissions) and one by Montanabw (submissions)), four Featured Lists (with three by Calvin999 (submissions)), and 53 Good Articles (six by Worm That Turned (submissions) and five each by Hurricanehink (submissions), Cwmhiraeth (submissions), and MPJ-DK (submissions)). Eleven Featured Pictures were promoted (six by Adam Cuerden (submissions) and five by Godot13 (submissions)). One Featured Portal, Featured Topic and Good Topic were also promoted. The DYK base point total was 1,135. Cwmhiraeth (submissions) scored 265 base points, while The C of E (submissions) and MPJ-DK (submissions) each scored 150 base points. Eleven ITN were promoted and 131 Good Article Reviews were conducted with MPJ-DK (submissions) completing a staggering 61 reviews. Two contestants, Cwmhiraeth (submissions) and Cas Liber (submissions), broke the 700 point mark for Round 2.

If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on

Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Thanks to everyone for participating, and good luck to those moving into round 2. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk

) 03:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Meteo/class

Template:Meteo/class has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 22:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

It looks like they're no longer necessary (to be honest, I don't really remember why they were ever necessary). I've tagged them for speedy deletion. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 November newsletter: Final results

The final round of the 2016 WikiCup is over. Congratulations to the 2016 WikiCup top three finalists:

• First Place - Cas Liber (submissions)
• Second Place - MPJ-DK (submissions)
• Third Place - Adam Cuerden (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 three-way tie with themselves for two FAs in each of R2, R3, and R5).
• Good Article – MPJ-DK had 14 GAs promoted in R3.
• Featured List – Calvin999 (submissions) produced 2 FLs in R2
• Featured Pictures – Adam Cuerden restored 18 images to FP status in R4.
• Featured Portal –
  SSTflyer (submissions
  ) produced the only FPO of the Cup in R2.
• Featured Topic – Cyclonebiskit (submissions) and Calvin were each responsible for one FT in R3 and R2, respectively.
• Good Topic – MPJ-DK created a GT with 9 GAs in R5.
• Did You Know – MPJ-DK put 53 DYKs on the main page in R4.
• In The News – Dharmadhyaksha (submissions) and Muboshgu (submissions), each with 5 ITN, both in R4.
• Good Article Review – MPJ-DK completed 61 GARs in R2.

Over the course of the 2016 WikiCup the following content was added to Wikipedia (only reporting on fixed value categories): 17 Featured Articles, 183 Good Articles, 8 Featured Lists, 87 Featured Pictures, 40 In The News, and 321 Good Article Reviews. Thank you to all the competitors for your hard work and what you have done to improve Wikipedia.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

We will open up a discussion for comments on process and scoring in a few days. The 2017 WikiCup is just around the corner! Many thanks from all the judges. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup Greetings, all! We would like to announce the start of the 4th Good article nominations ! Thus far, there have been three GA Cups, which were successful in reaching our goals of significantly reducing the traditionally long queue at GAN, so we're doing it again. Currently, there are over 400 nominations listed. We hope that we can again make an impact this time. The 4th GA Cup will begin on November 1, 2016. Four rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on February 28, 2017), but this may change based on participant numbers. We may take a break in December for the holidays, depending on the results of a poll of our participants taken shortly after the competition begins. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same, as will the scoring. Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on November 14, 2016. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now! If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the judges. Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. We apologize for the delay in sending out this message until after the competition has started. Thank you to Krishna Chaitanya Velaga for aiding in getting this message out. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Best way to cover DC cannabis topic? Your input requested

Please see here: Talk:Initiative_71#Rename_to_Cannabis_in_Washington.2C_D._C..2C_split_off.2C_or_what.3F

Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers

Hi Inks.LWC,

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

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

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.