User talk:Wugapodes/Archive 4

This 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Round 3 Hello, GA Cup competitors! Sunday saw the end of Round 2. Shearonink took out Round 2 with an amazing score of 499. In second place, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga earned an astounding 236 points, and in third place, Cartoon network freak received 136 points. Originally, we had plans for one wild card for 9th place, however it appears that both Chris troutman and J Milburn were tied for 9th place. Therefore, we have decided to have both advance to Round 3. In Round 2, 91 reviews were completed! At the beginning of this GA Cup, the longest wait was over 7 months; at the end of Round 2, the longest wait had decreased to a little over 6 months. It's clear that we continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success, and for your part in helping other editors improve articles. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in Round 3 so we can keep decreasing the backlog. To qualify for the third round, contestants had to earn the two highest scores in each of the four pools in Round 2; plus, one wildcard. For Round 3, users were placed in 3 random pools of 3. To qualify for the Final of the 3rd Annual GA Cup, the top user in each pool will progress, and there will also be one wildcard. This means that the participant who comes in 4th place (all pools combined) will also move on. Round 3 has already started and will end on February 26 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 3 and the pools can be found here. Also, we'd like to announce the departure of judge Zwerg Nase. We thank him for all his hardwork and hope to see him back in the future. Good luck and have fun! Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, and MrWooHoo. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, 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) 21:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The

) 04:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Disappearing nomination

Wugapodes, in your initial run of the bot (I'm not counting the later run that went off the rails), one hook has disappeared. It was one of the three that had been under December 13 that had not yet closed.

• Template:Did you know nominations/Milford Lane moved to the /Approved page
• Template:Did you know nominations/Corruption in Ecuador disappeared; it isn't on either page
• Template:Did you know nominations/Jeff Forshaw stayed on the Nominations page

I'll take a look to see what other nomination templates might have gone walkabout, but based on the results of the DYKHousekeepingBot table update, this may be the only unexpected result. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: That's interesting. At first glance I can't see why Corruption in Ecuador fell off the map. I've just (I think) fixed the updating problem that only reared its head today. I'm going to replace Corruption in Ecuador on the nom page and rerun the bot. I'll see if it drops off again and if so, fix that next. In the mean time, thank you so much for all the hard work you're doing checking these things. The extra eyes really are appreciated and make my life a lot easier so know that it really is appreciated. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 05:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Good news, it wasn't removed again; bad news the updating still isn't fixed. It is a quirk I will continue to look out for, but it seems infrequent and my main priority is getting the bot updating the page correctly. It's next on the list of things to look at. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 05:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Did Template:Did you know nominations/The Indian Church get dropped accidentally? (Looks like User:Dr.K. just reinstated it to T:TDYK.) Shubinator (talk) 05:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I just moved it; dates for DYK are the date created/expanded/GAed, not the date nominated. (Turns out it had been under December 13, but should have been December 14, since DYK is UTC based.) I've noticed that Wugbot is moving Special occasion hooks from the Nominations page into the latest regular date on the /Approved page. Before I quit for the night, I'm going to empty out the Nominations page special occasions (already in their own section on /Approved), reword the header there to point people at the /Approved page, and see how well that works. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not sure what happened. I just got notified by the bot and reinstated it. Thank you for the ping. Dr. K. 05:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Aha, The Indian Church was (likely accidentally) removed here. So unrelated to WugBot :) Shubinator (talk) 05:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you Shubinator. I had originally added it on 25 January but when the bot came to warn me, I wasn't sure if I had transcluded it. Dr. K. 05:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll be sure to drop the Jessica Curry nominator a line, letting them know to add a completely new template, not modify an existing one. I think we're all set now in that department. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Always wonderful when things aren't my fault. The bot has successfully completed its first update. None of the links mentioned were removed again, so that's a plus. It only removed closed nominations from the approved page (the prudence of which we should discuss at a later date, but for now it reduces the number of transclusions so net positive). It should run again in a half hour. Thank you all for your wonderful eagle eyes. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 06:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Wugapodes, with this edit the bot appropriately moved the just-approved Did you know nominations/The Winker's Song (Misprint) from the Nominations page to the /Approved page (the arrival there is part of a different edit, also done), but it also moved Did you know nominations/Kensington Railway Station from the bottom of the February 6 section on the nominations page to the top of the February 5 section on that same page. I don't understand why it's moving hooks within the page. Also, Kensington Railway Station was on the correct date; it was moved to article space today. (It was the very last transclusion on the Nominations page, which I suppose could have something to do with why this happened.)

I have just moved "The Winker's Song (Misprint)" to the April Fool's Day page, so don't be alarmed if you don't see it on the /Approved page; this sort of hand moving of hooks will still continue, both to AFD and to Special occasions. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I took a look at the page history, and Mindmatrix moved the Kensington transclusion from February 5 to February 6 (it had been misplaced) at 17:00 UTC, one minutes before your edit effectively moved it back. I think this was an unnoticed edit conflict: your edit effectively rewrote the page as it had been with your one move, which meant that the edit made in the interim was undone. It's very important that this sort of conflict not be allowed to happen. I'm not sure how that could be coded—I know that MusikAnimal has something like it when MusikBot adds the new day and shifts the Current nominations section up by one day; the bot retries several times—but we can't afford to have edits undone. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Thank you for the sleuthing! I agree that I think the problem is an edit conflict, and I suspect it's probably the reason the nom you mentioned above got removed too. I'm unsure how to go about the problem because the bot (I don't have numbers this is more of a sense) takes about 3 minutes to run. It has to read about 300 pages before writing the nom and approved pages, which is why it takes so long. I don't imagine this is something I can solve completely tonight, but as a stop-gap (because I do agree that accidental edit conflicts are a big bug!) I'll implement a check in the system. Right before it writes the output, it will check to see if either page changed while it ran, if so, it will abort. Not elegant, but I don't imagine it happening too often (and if it does, all the more reason to finish quickly). What wonderful bugs occur when put into production! Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 01:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Implemented in v0.7.1, the bot will fail if the page it is writing to is different from the page it read from and it will post a note to WugBot's talk page describing what page the conflict was on. Depending on how often this happens, I'll see what steps should be taken. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 01:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like the safest solution. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Wugapodes, I was hoping you could expand the edit summary. Right now it just mentions which nominations are being moved, and doesn't list an equally important bit of information, which is how many are being deleted from the page outside of the move. These deletions are most frequently from the /Approved page when a hook is promoted, but occasionally hooks are also deleted directly from the nominations page, either promoted prior to being moved, or rejected. It helps, when tracking things down, to have more of a visible trail of what has happened, and I don't imagine it will be that much work to give the numbers of how many entries are deleted. (I don't think it's particularly important to note the deletion of dates on the Approved page, just the deletion of entries.) Thanks for anything you can do here. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I can add that. Give me a bit since the removal is more of a happy accident than something I planned. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 05:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I forgot to say: it looks like everything working as it ought since my most recent post; nothing has been lost mid-move, and the only transclusions that have been deleted are ones that were either promoted to prep or rejected. Thanks for the great work. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

That was also my impression, so I'm glad you agree things are running smoothly. Though the bot hasn't posted to its talk page yet, so it hasn't had to be tested yet. I'll hold my breath for that (or try to figure out a way to implement my own test that won't disrupt the page) Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 05:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox song. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• Lingzhi ♦ (talk)
  02:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for review

	Thanks for the GA Review
	I was on a long wiki-break, and thanks for making the review of Demographics of Filipino Americans in my absence. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• @RightCowLeftCoast: You, of course, did the work in improving it and deserve far more praise. Some final polishing and it should sail through. It really is one of the most thorough articles I've read, so I'm glad you're back and hope you keep adding such quality content! Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 20:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

		Welcome to... Women's History Month worldwide online editathon Facilitated by Women in Red
		March 2017 Featuring: "Art+Feminism" and "The Women You Have Never Met" Feel free to add articles in other languages too (To subscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk ) 22:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Wugapodes, this update to the Approved page was very odd, in that two separate February 19 sections were created on the /Approved page as part of the same edit.

Unfortunately, it so happened that an editor had added a completely separate February 19 subsection at the very top of the Current nominations section of the Nominations page for their new hook (adjacent to February 12), instead of using the existing February 19 one. And it was also unfortunate that the hook was reviewed and approved in very short order, but left in that improperly created section, so that it was picked up by Wugbot. However, it probably means that the bot will need to be smarter about this very possibility, and only create one February 19 section if such a thing occurs again. (It was building up two separate September 19 sections, too, which is a bit weird.)

I know you added code to make sure that if the Nominations page was edited in between the time you started the bot run and ended it, you'd not proceed with the update. I think it would be a good idea to put that same sort of safeguard into the Approve page, since people can move hooks from the rest of the page into the Special occasions section, or do other edits like the one I just did to combine the two February 19 sections. Also, I sometimes move the DYK checklist approved hooks from the Nominations page to the Approved page so they can be picked up by reviewers, though that won't be necessary once you've updated the code. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Well that is strange, but at least the bot was smart enough to fill in both of the sections, haha. This should be an easy enough change. Also, the dyk checklist handling was implemented a day or two ago, so if you see any approved reviews using it that haven't been moved, let me know as those not being moved would be a bug. Thanks! Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 06:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Wugapodes, this nomination is currently under January 25 on the nominations page despite having received a tick on February 10. I think the tick is valid; can you please take a look and see why the bot hasn't picked it up? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I was a little stumped at first but I think I found the culprit: it's listed on

WP:DYKN as {{Did_you_know_nominations/Kodandera M. Cariappa}} so I'm guessing it has to do with the underscores. I'm a little busy at the moment, but I'll look to see if that's the source once I'm free and fix it if so (and keep looking if not). Thanks for keeping me on my toes! Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz]

02:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome! I think that the underscores are the issue; the same appears to be true with Template:Did you know nominations/Jadunath Singh, which was approved on February 21, and has even more underscores in its transclusion than the Cariappa. I'll leave them as they are, so you can use them to test out your new code. (There may be others, but if so I haven't noticed them yet.) BlueMoonset (talk) 06:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Took longer to track down than expected, but it's fixed! Bot should run in a few minutes so we'll see. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 20:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sean Hannity. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

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

13:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

4th GA Cup - The Final

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Final Hello, GA Cup competitors! Sunday, February 26 saw the end of Round 3. Shearonink finished in first with 616 points, which is more than the point totals for all the other competitors combined! In second place, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga earned an impressive 152 points, followed by Sturmvogel_66 in third with 111 points. Chris troutman and Kees08 each received a wild-card and were able to advance to the Final Round. There was a major error on the part of the judges, and initially, 8 users were advanced instead of 5. This has been corrected, and we sincerely apologize for this confusion. In Round 3, 71 reviews were completed! At the beginning of this GA Cup, the longest wait was over 7 months; at the end of Round 3, the longest wait is still holding steady at a little over 6 months, the same as for the previous round. By the end of all three Rounds, the total number of nominations increased slightly - this suggests that users are more willing to nominate, knowing that their articles will be reviewed. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in the Final so we can keep tackling the backlog. In the Final Round, the user with the highest score will be the winner. The Final has already started and will end on March 31st at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Finals and the pools can be found here. Good luck and have fun! Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, and MrWooHoo. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, 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) 19:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Robert Plant. Legobot (talk) 04:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tony Blair. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Wugapodes, I thought you'd want to know that WugBot has not done the 01:00 updates to the /Report page two nights in a row, including the run a couple of hours ago. It also missed the Report back on March 15. It would be great if you could look into this right away. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Currently working on it. Seems to be an error coming from the bot trying to handle a malformed nomination. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 16:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

So the March 15th issue was a malformed nomination (having trouble finding the diff where it was added, but it's the second misc item here). The other two were a bug that has now been fixed. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 17:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

For March 15, a reviewer a bit short of clue tried to add a GA nominee template with a second opinion request to the Bobbi Campbell GA1 review page itself, rather than editing the Talk:Bobbi Campbell page in the specified manner (and what they really wanted to do was withdraw from reviewing); I eventually straightened everything out and removed the offending template, but not in time to keep your bot from choking on the entry from it that one evening. Thanks for fixing the more recent bug. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

		Welcome to Women in Red's April 2017 worldwide online editathons. Participation is welcome in any language.
		"Psychology" "Book Artists" "CEE Countries"

(To subscribe:

) 18:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:American Automobile Association. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography. Legobot (talk) 04:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Wugapodes, the bot has missed the April 2 and 3 reports. Anything you can do to get it reporting again would be most appreciated. The DYK work is being done without any problems that I can see. Thank you as always. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. There were two problems. One was a problem with a review that didn't exist being listed, so I fixed that. The other was a bug in the code not handling Miscellaneous nominations well. Thanks for the heads up! Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 16:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. I hate to post again, but the bot didn't do the April 4 report. Shouldn't it have? (I've just removed "onreview" from one article's GA nominee template that wasn't really under review—the nominator had accidentally opened their own review, and I hadn't been on today to see that the speedy delete I submitted had gone through.) Thanks, and sorry if that delay caused the bot to die today. (It does happen more often than I'd like, so if there's a way to protect the bot from this situation, it would probably be a useful thing to do.) BlueMoonset (talk) 01:34, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I just took a look, and it was indeed the Boat Race nomination causing the issue: editing the

WP:GAN page as you did gives you at most 20 minutes relief, since it's the article's talk page that's the issue, and the bot will reset the GAN page based on the various talk pages every 20 minutes. If the reviewer is said to be "Example", though, it generally means that the review page has been deleted (for whatever reason), and all you need to do is remove the "onreview" status from the GA nominee template on the talk page, and you'll be all set fairly permanently. BlueMoonset (talk

) 01:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

That's good to know. I'll update it to reflect that as soon as possible. I'm under some tight deadlines in real life so haven't been able to do as much bot coding as I would like, but this is a significant bug so I should have it fixed within a day or two. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 06:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Generation Snowflake. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Wugapodes, WugBot last updated the /Reports page on April 8; this means it's missed the April 9–12 reports. Please get it back on line.

If you can, please check on it at regular intervals, since I'm going to be less able to do so over the next couple of months (as witness my missing these recent issues). Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/WugBot 2 as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 02:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.

This is to let you know that the

) 02:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for another piece of justice: "This article is about a recent US Supreme Court decision regarding First Amendment protections of public employees. The first amendment protects the rights of public employees, and the Court has previously held that being fired or demoted for political speech or political association is unconstitutional, but in this case, Heffernan was fired not for what he did but what his employer mistakenly thought he did. The Court had to answer whether public employees are protected when their employer bases their decision on factually incorrect information." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The

) 04:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017

) 19:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Dennis Bratland: Thanks for bringing this to my attention. It seems to be the result of a chrome extension I never turned off that replaced it without my knowing. Apologies for that. As a polite request, please don't template me in the future, but explain specifically what I did as it took me a while to figure out (especially given I had recently reformatted my own comment and thought you had templated me for that!). I can understand the hesitation in this instance and apologize for my mistake, I'll post a not there with my apologies as well. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 20:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Just checked, actually, and you reverted rather quickly so I think it's best not to draw attention to it. If it comes up there I'll address it, but it seems to have yet to cause any trouble so no reason to make a problem of it. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 20:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I know some editors don't like to be "templated", but there are thousands of editors and nobody can keep track of who does and doesn't want to be templated. I would suggest considering that template messages are a core part of how Wikipedia works, and the numbers of editors who don't like them are too small to put an end to them. The consensus process often results in outcomes that a minority is unhappy with, but so far nobody has come up with any better way for this wiki to function.

Of course everyone would like a personalized note rather than a form letter. Who wouldn't? A personalized note indicates someone took significant time to write something special, just for you. That's something to be grateful for, sure. But assuming everyone must make the time to write a personalized note is unrealistic. Basic maintenance of Wikipedia would be impossible if in every case a unique missive had to be created. If I did do that, I would find myself re-writing the same information over and over. I would soon memorize the same boilerplate and type it out by rote, without even thinking about it. And then you're back to a template.

Problem edits need to be reverted sooner rather than later. If you get offended at templates, that's nothing to how offended many editors get when you "put words in their mouth", which is the uncharitable way to interpret refactoring their comments. The longer it takes to revert it, the more likely it is to escalate into a conflict. So I reverted it as quickly as I could, and gave you the only explanation I had time for: a template with a one sentence addition. The alternative would have been no message at all on your talk page, and at least as many editors get offended if you revert them without saying anything. Now it appears I have a little more free time and can write a unique note to you that goes on at great length. Although, many of the points I am making now have already been made many times by other editors in various past discussions and essays. I could simply link to them, or use a template, to say the same things I'm saying now.

I don't have any solution, other than to suggest that you can do your part by charitably interpreting the intent behind any template messages you find on your talk page. The message was very likely put there by someone who is only here to build an encyclopedia. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

		Welcome to Women in Red's May 2017 worldwide online editathons. Participation is welcome in any language.
		"Organizations" "Sports" "Pacific islanders"

(To subscribe:

) 19:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

May 2017 WikiCup newsletter

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
  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

13:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names). Legobot (talk) 04:32, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Supreme Court of the United States. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Laura Prepon. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/WugBot 2 as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 03:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.

		Welcome to Women in Red's June 2017 worldwide online editathons.
		File:Nefertari.jpg "Met artwork by women" "LGBTQ women & Wiki Loves Pride" "Pre-20-century women"

(To subscribe:

) 20:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Politics of the Republic of China. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Russo-Georgian War. Legobot (talk) 04:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gisele Bündchen. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Pages needing translation into English. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

		Welcome to Women in Red's July 2017 worldwide online editathons.
		File:60C0074BA4FF-1 Джемма Халид.jpg "Women in dance" "Women in music" "Women from India"

(To subscribe:

) 02:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

WikiCup 2017 July newsletter

The third round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 288 points being required to qualify for round 4. It was a hotly competitive round with all but four of the contestants exceeding the 106 points that was necessary to proceed to round 4 last year.

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

05:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Battle for Caen. Legobot (talk) 04:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

		Women in Red is pleased to introduce... A new initiative for worldwide online coverage: 1day1woman
		Create articles on any day of any month Cover women and their works in any field of interest Feel free to add articles in other languages, too Social media hashtag campaign: #1day1woman (To subscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk ) 03:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

		Welcome to Women in Red's August 2017 worldwide online editathons.
		"Indigenous women" "Women in peace" "Canadian women"

(To subscribe:

) --

A new WiR initiative starting in August

		Introducing... WiR's new initaitve: 1day1woman for worldwide online coverage Facilitated by Women in Red
		Create articles on any day of any month Cover women and their works in any field of interest Feel free to add articles in other languages too (To subscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --MediaWiki message delivery (talk ) 12:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

		Welcome to Women in Red's September 2017 worldwide online editathons.
		"Hispanic and Latina Women" "Women in the Olympics" "Women from New Zealand"

(To subscribe:

) --

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

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

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

06:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red October editathon invitation

		Welcome to Women in Red's October 2017 worldwide online editathons. New: "Women and disability" "Healthcare" "Geofocus on the Nordic countries" Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative Begin preparing for November's big event: Women World Contest
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list )

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Hi there. Apparently, your bot edit-conflicted with me yesterday and removed my addition from T:TDYK. Maybe you might want to look into a more robust edit-conflict handling code. Regards SoWhy 18:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The

) 04:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, this nom was approved on October 16 but is still at

) 18:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

@Yoninah: There's a hidden html comment after the transclusion code which is causing the bot not to recognize it. I've removed the comment, and the bot should get to it in the next run, if not I'll give it another look. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 23:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate the work you do here!

Keedlebeedle (talk) 22:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Keedlebeedle: Thank you! I look forward to seeing your work contribute to our coverage of languages, especially endangered ones! We have a definite gap there. Let me know if I can be of any help down the line! Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 00:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Gifted (TV series). Legobot (talk) 04:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

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) 11:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The

) 04:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018

So the 2017 WikiCup has come to an end. Congratulations to the winner, to the other finalists and to all those who took part. 177 contestants signed up, more than usual, but not all of them submitted entries in the first round. Were editors attracted by the cash prizes offered for the first time this year, or were these irrelevant? Do the rules and scoring need changing for the 2018 WikiCup? If you have a view on these or other matters, why not join in the WikiCup discussion about next year's contest? Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Antisemitism in the United Kingdom. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

A year ago ...

dialogues, linguistic and legal
... you were recipient no. 1513 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Richard Blumenthal. Legobot (talk) 04:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)