1990'sguy

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

•   Cas Liber (1210), our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three DYKs. He also made good use of the bonus points available, more than doubling his score by choosing appropriate articles to work on.
•   Kosack (750), last year's runner up, with an FA, a GA, two FLs, and five DYKs.
•   Adam Cuerden (480), a WikiCup veteran, with 16 featured pictures, mostly restorations.
•   Zwerg Nase (461), a seasoned competitor, with a FA, a GA and an ITN item.

Other notable performances were put in by   Barkeep49 with six GAs,   Ceranthor,   Lee Vilenski, and   Canada Hky, each with seven GARs, and   MPJ-DK with a seven item GT.

So far contestants have achieved nine featured articles between them and a splendid 80 good articles. Commendably, 227 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2019 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. The judges are pleased with the thorough GARs that are being performed, and have hardly had to reject any. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

FYI – see Talk:Ron DeSantis#DeSantis's photo. I don't like the image they replaced it with and would much rather prefer his House photo, but that's just me.. Corky 15:41, 9 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Corkythehornetfan: I saw that discussion, but they didn't even consider the CPAC photo, which is newer and actually focuses on his head and upper body. Regardless, we now have an IP (falsely) claiming it's somehow his "official portrait." --1990'sguy (talk) 17:34, 9 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Saw that too. They really don't have a consensus and it should probably be rediscussed. Corky 15:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Birth date incorrect. It says 66/67 - this is simply a guess. Please stop adding it back, thanks. Josephlsanders (talk) 08:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

This is sick.[1]

"the domestic partner of Barack Obama." She's married to him. Suggesting she's not isn't excusable.

"A Christian, unlike her husband, Michelle was born and raised on the south side of Chicago." His article at least says " said to have converted to Protestantism (the liberal United Church of Christ)".

" Michelle's birth gender has at times been the subject of speculation." Based on this YouTube video[2] which I think is a joke - one comment sayhs "once i heard the robotic voice i knew this was fuckery".

There's obviously more nonsense in it, but can you really defend the content above? Doug Weller talk 12:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm going to be brave here and stand up to an established administrator... @Doug Weller:, in my opinion, someone who has been around as long as you have should know better than to bring off-site matters to someone's talk page. I assume you have read WP:NOT. This type of behavior contributed to User:Kingdamian1 and User:Keegscee being community banned. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 17:59, 26 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

That last sentence didn't come across the way I meant it to, the edits weren't his responsibility and I apologies for losing my cool. - i was really shocked to see the page (which I noticed after an edit to Conservapedia. It really is a plea to 1990's Guy to do something about a few edits that I'm sure he will find unacceptable. But User:PCHS-NJROTC, you brought both of those cases and I sincerely hope you aren't really comparing my behavior o theirs. And WP:NOT is about articles, not user talk pages. Talk pages can be used for more or less anything so long as WP:CIVIL is followed, and I am definitely not here to attack 1990'sguy. By the way, I think the edit I mentioned should be reverted, but I don't edit the article. As another editor wrote, "None of the edits is supported by sources outside Conservapedia noting them." Doug Weller talk 18:37, 26 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

I encourage you to reread WP:NOTWEBHOST, @Doug Weller:. I hate to come across condescending, but I get thoroughly annoyed when I see Conservapedia or RationalWiki business cross over to Wikipedia, please do not take it personally. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 18:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

@PCHS-NJROTC: I can understand that, but the section you are pointing to is about an editor's user page, not a talk page. We give great latitude to what people can discuss on their talk page. In any case I have no intention of getting into an argument here. I've made a plea and if it is ignored, that's the end of it so far as I'm concerned. Doug Weller talk 18:54, 26 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

The article has been improved. Also, for the record, the info added to WP's article on Conservapedia violates WP:OR and should be removed. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:29, 26 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Glad to see that. Was it a coincidence to you think? I've already said it shouldn't be there and it's been removed twice. If it gets reinserted and I notice it I'll deal with it. Doug Weller talk 09:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

It was a coincidence -- I only saw the activity on Wikipedia's "Conservapedia" page after CP began dealing with the "Michelle Obama" article. I brought the page, and your complaints, to the attention of CP's leadership, and they agreed that the page should be changed. The original wording was an oversight, something which can happen on most wikis. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi 1990'sguy do you know how to upload pictures on to wikipedia?96.36.68.29 (talk) 23:18, 22 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

@96.36.68.29: Yes -- click on this link here, and it guides you through the process: Wikipedia:Files for upload. It's pretty easy since these are presumably Public Domain images, but uploading images in general is a bit of a pain for me. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:08, 23 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Well my acount been blocked for over 2 years so I can't upload pictures if you can try to upload half of these's pictures that would be great.96.36.68.29 (talk) 01:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Ok If you can try to upload them to wikipedia that would be great I will help you by Department each day I will give you 6 pics today

Department of Health and Human Services:

Herschel Walker: https://www.hhs.gov/fitness/meet-the-council/herschel-walker/index.html

Bill Belichick: https://www.hhs.gov/fitness/meet-the-council/bill-belichick/index.html

Johnny Damon: https://www.hhs.gov/fitness/meet-the-council/johnny-damon/index.html

Dr. Nan Hayworth: https://www.hhs.gov/fitness/meet-the-council/dr-nan-hayworth/index.html

Dr. Mehmet Oz: https://www.hhs.gov/fitness/meet-the-council/dr-mehmet-oz/index.html

Department of the Interior: Douglas W. Domenech's new picture https://www.doi.gov/oia/who-we-are/dwd-bio Thanks:96.36.68.29 (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Here are 6 more Independent councils: Neil Romano: https://ncd.gov/council_and_staff/ncd_council_members

Independent boards: John Bragg: https://www.rrb.gov/OurAgency/LaborMember/JohnBragg

Erhard R. Chorlé: https://www.rrb.gov/OurAgency/Chairman/ErhardRChorle

Thomas R. Jayne: https://www.rrb.gov/OurAgency/ManagementMember/ThomasRJayne

Environmental Protection Agency: Chad McIntosh: https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/current-epa-leadership

Independent commissions: JUSTIN SHUBOW: https://www.cfa.gov/about-cfa/who-we-are/justin-shubow Thanks and Happy 4th!96.36.68.29 (talk) 01:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

@96.36.68.29: I'll try go get to these, though I don't have much time. I already did Domenech. Happy Independence Day! --1990'sguy (talk) 03:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hope you had a good Independence Day.96.36.68.29 (talk) 01:30, 8 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello 1990'sguy,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.

QUALITY of REVIEWING

Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.

Backlog

The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.

Move to draft

NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.

Notifying users

Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.

PERM

Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.

Other news

School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.

---

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Admins may impose discretionary sanctions on users who repeatedly include pseudoscience-related content in scientific articles. Jytdog reminded you already and you even took part in the discussion at the laminin talk page. So please, refrain from including such content unless there is clear consensus to do so.

 

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Neodop (talk) 19:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

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

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

Contestants managed 4 (5) featured articles, 4 featured lists, 18 featured pictures, 29 good articles, 50 DYK entries, 9 ITN entries, and 39 good article reviews. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them, and it is imperative to claim them in the correct round; one FA claim had to be rejected because it was incorrectly submitted (claimed in Round 3 when it qualified for Round 2), so be warned! When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Hello. I wanted to let you know that in your recent contributions, you seemed to act as if you were the owner of a page. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. This means that editors do not own articles, including ones they create, and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

I understand the editor who made the changes to the soviet union edits didn't do the greatest job but it would have been trivial to review the sources and realize that two of them, the two used for the 20 million estimate were unreliable per WP:FRINGE. I'd suggest that you should consider WP:BITE and rather than templating edit war warnings after one revert actually engage the editor at talk and discuss their concerns with the line. Simonm223 (talk) 13:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Uh-huh, so one edit by me equals "owning" a page, but four much more significant edits by you (1,2,3,4), which I know you will fight to the death to preserve no matter who reverts, does not. I appreciate the logic in that. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, fellow 1990's guy!

I found Freightera Logistics while doing Page Curation. It's extremely promotional and uses lots of business jargon. Did you approve the article in its current state? if so, do you really think it's ready for prime time? --Slashme (talk) 11:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

To me, it didn't seem promotional enough to reject, and, I admit, I was working rather quickly -- too quickly, apparently, to take a closer look. There was a sentence in the intro that I changed -- from reading as a statement of fact to the company's description of itself. If you would like the article moved back to draftspace or AfD'd, let me know, and I'll do it. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

I took a moment and cleaned up what I saw as promotional language. Here's the diff. I think it's OK now, but go ahead and make any improvements that you feel still need doing. Here's to teamwork! --Slashme (talk) 06:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Your changes are good, and I approve. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Frankly I think it was a bit of a mistake accepting this draft, although at first glance it looks ok. But most of the article is about the Middle Ages, not the Renaissance. It isn't well-written, or even very accurate if you know the subject. It doesn't link to other articles on Venice, & I can't really see a useful place for it. Johnbod (talk) 01:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Johnbod: Good points. Do you think it should be deleted, or can it be saved, possibly by taking info from the Italian WP article? --1990'sguy (talk) 01:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

That's very full, but mostly on painting, which we cover at Venetian school (art), which is almost all on the Renaissance. Any expansion should go there, I think. There are other bits in the Italian that we don't really have articles on, but what with much fuller treatments than here at the other two articles I've added as "mains", there isn't much left. Maybe the guild section could be salvaged, but then you ask yourself, what does "The Venetian community in the Renaissance was constructed on the emphasis on the relationships between neighbours, ritual brothers and kinsmen all living together in equality from the upper and lower social class." actually mean - I doubt the very good source says anything much like that. It doesn't cover music, printing or glass, other important topics. I'd be inclined just to redirect to ? - where I don't exactly know. Johnbod (talk) 01:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Johnbod: If the article needs to become a redirect, either redirecting it to History of the Republic of Venice or Italian Renaissance seems most appropriate to me. That said, I personally would prefer improving the article rather than deleting/redirecting it (assuming it's realistically possible). --1990'sguy (talk) 02:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

(Phew! You want to archive this page.) History of the Republic of Venice is a political history of the Venetian state; the cultural history is in the long history section at Venice. Italian Renaissance so far only gives Florence its own section. I'm not at all against a Venetian Renaissance article, but this one would need near-total rewriting to reach an acceptable standard - that might be relatively quick if one had the sources, & could check what they actually say. There is a case for a disam page perhaps. Johnbod (talk) 17:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

We could possibly create a short section for Venice in the "Italian Renaissance" article? I prefer improving the article, but I don't have the time or necessary experience in the topic area to do so. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

• I'm copying this section to the talk page there, in the hope we attract more views/offers of help. I suggest we continue there. Johnbod (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

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

Round 4 saw the achievement of 11 featured articles. In addition, Adam Cuerden scored with 18 FPs, Lee Vilenski led the GA score with 8 GAs while Kosack performed 15 GA reviews. There were around 40 DYKs, 40 GARs and 31 GAs overall during round 4. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.

As we start round 5, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi. See the latest editing history for the Swiss People's Party article. Will need a eye kept on this one, sadly. Thanks. Sumorsǣte (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

I agree, and I have the page on my watchlist. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello 1990'sguy,

Backlog

Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Coordinator

A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.

This month's refresher course

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.

Deletion tags

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.

Paid editing

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion

• Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
• Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.

Not English

• A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.

Tools

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

2008 Mumbai attacks (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to The Telegraph

Pakistan and state-sponsored terrorism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to The Telegraph

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

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

1.   Adam Cuerden (submissions) with 964 points
2.   Lee Vilenski (submissions) with 899 points
3.   Casliber (submissions) with 817 points
4.   Kosack (submissions) with 691 points
5.   SounderBruce (submissions) with 388 points
6.   Enwebb (submissions) with 146 points
7.   Usernameunique (submissions) with 145 points
8.   HaEr48 (submissions) with 74 points

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

•   Casliber (submissions) wins the featured article prize, for a total of 7 FAs during the course of the competition.
•   Lee Vilenski (submissions) wins the good article prize, for 14 GAs in round 5.
•   Yashthepunisher (submissions) wins the featured list prize, for 4 FLs overall.
•   Adam Cuerden (submissions) wins the featured picture prize, for 91 FPs overall.
•   MPJ-DK (submissions) wins the topic prize, for 7 articles in good topics in round 2.
•   Lee Vilenski (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 14 did you know articles in round 5.
•   Muboshgu (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 7 in the news articles in round 1.
•   Ed! (submissions) wins the reviewer prize, for 56 good article reviews in round 1.

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

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

 

Hello 1990'sguy,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.

Getting the queue to 0

There are now 806 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.

Coordinator

Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.

This month's refresher course

Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.

Tools

• It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
• It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.

Reviewer Feedback

Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.

Second set of eyes

• Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
• Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.

Arbitration Committee

The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.

Community Wish list

There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Pinging you because you were a recent contributor to the page. Some seriously WP:BLP violating content has been repeatedly added to Stephen McAllister (lawyer) by an IP in the last day or so. I've been reverting but wanted to let you know as well and get your opinion on whether I should seek protection for the page. Thanks. Marquardtika (talk) 01:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Marquardtika: I would probably hold off until the IP(s) revert one or two more times, since many admins would reject protecting a page for two attempts to add defamatory, non-neutral info. But I agree with you that the IPs are adding BLP-violating and POV info, so I support page protection if the problem continues. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Been a while since I've had time to do a new article, but I thought this one might be of interest to you and folks who watch your page: Paul Chitwood. Improve away, if interested. Dr. Chitwood has spoken at my church before, and we are trying to schedule him again. Hopefully, I can get a picture at that time. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for letting me know, Acdixon! I'll see if/where I can improve the article. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Acdixon: I know this is a belated reply, but you did a really good job with the article -- there wasn't much that I could find that the article didn't already have. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for taking a look. Glad I haven't lost whatever "touch" I might have had in creating and sourcing new articles. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

Reviewer of the Year

 

This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.

Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

Top 10 Reviewers over the last 365 days

Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	Rosguill (talk)	47,395	Patrol Page Curation
2	Onel5969 (talk)	41,883	Patrol Page Curation
3	JTtheOG (talk)	11,493	Patrol Page Curation
4	Arthistorian1977 (talk)	5,562	Patrol Page Curation
5	DannyS712 (talk)	4,866	Patrol Page Curation
6	CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk)	3,995	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	3,812	Patrol Page Curation
8	Boleyn (talk)	3,655	Patrol Page Curation
9	Ymblanter (talk)	3,553	Patrol Page Curation
10	Cwmhiraeth (talk)	3,522	Patrol Page Curation

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

Redirect autopatrol

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.

Source Guide Discussion

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.

This month's refresher course

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello! Colleague, could you please to patrol this and this articles? Thank you. — Green Zero обг 16:40, 22 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Happy New Year, Happy New Decade and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders and improvers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. We are relaxing the rule that only content on which you have completed significant work during 2020 will count; now to be eligible for points in the competition, you must have completed significant work on the content at some time! Any questions on the rules or on anything else connected to the Cup should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. Good luck! The judges for the WikiCup are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello 1990'sguy,

Source Guide Discussion

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.

Redirects

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.

Discussions and Resources

• There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
• A recent discussion of whether Michelin starred restraunts are notable was archived without closure.
• A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
• A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.

Refresher

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

•   Epicgenius, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with a featured article, five good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 895 points.
•   Gog the Mild came next with 464 points, from a featured article, two good articles and a number of reviews, the main theme being naval warfare.
•   Raymie was in third place with 419 points, garnered from one good article and an impressive 34 DYKs on radio and TV stations in the United States.
•   Harrias came next at 414, with a featured article and three good articles, an English civil war battle specialist.
•   CaptainEek was in fifth place with 405 points, mostly garnered from bringing Cactus wren to featured article status.
• The top ten contestants at the end of Round 1 all scored over 200 points; they also included   L293D,   Kingsif,   Enwebb,   Lee Vilenski and   CAPTAIN MEDUSA. Seven of the top ten contestants in Round 1 are new to the WikiCup.

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

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Some contestants made claims before the new submissions pages were set up, and they will need to resubmit them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

There was an error in the WikiCup 2020 March newsletter;   L293D should not have been included in the list of top ten scorers in Round 1 (they led the list last year), instead,   Dunkleosteus77 should have been included, having garnered 334 points from five good articles on animals, living or extinct, and various reviews. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi!

Can you review these pages:
Agence Ecofin
Grand Eweng Hydroelectric Power Station

thanks in advance --Legion Legion (talk) 18:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I decided to do it. The "Agence Ecofin" page needs secondary sources, however. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

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

Our top scorers in round 2 were:

•   Epicgenius, with 2333 points from one featured article, forty-five good articles, fourteen DYKs and plenty of bonus points
•   Gog the Mild, with 1784 points from three featured articles, eight good articles, a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews and lots of bonus points
•   The Rambling Man, with 1262 points from two featured articles, eight good articles and a hundred good article reviews
•   Harrias, with 1141 points from two featured articles, three featured lists, ten good articles, nine DYKs and a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews
•   Lee Vilenski with 869 points,   Hog Farm with 801,   Kingsif with 719,   SounderBruce with 710,   Dunkleosteus77 with 608 and   MX with 515.

The rules for featured article reviews have been adjusted; reviews may cover three aspects of the article, content, images and sources, and contestants may receive points for each of these three types of review. Please also remember the requirement to mention the WikiCup when undertaking an FAR for which you intend to claim points. Remember also that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth. - MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hey - I've been pretty vocal in past years that I think Anglicanism should clearly be listed as Protestant. I also have not done any admin things involving talk pages in many a year. Not sure how comfortable I am closing something at this point. I'll weigh in with my opinion, though. john k (talk) 12:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

OK, thanks for letting me know -- the more input, the better! --1990'sguy (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Leaving bare urls as citations is bad practice - see WP:BAREURLS for an explanation why. There's a quick and easy way to avoid this problem, though, which usually requires minimal or sometimes even no further corrections to make sure the citation is properly formatted. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I usually fill in citations (see my edit history), though occasionally when I'm in a hurry, I do not since filling in references takes time for me. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Well, I shouldn't have doubted an obviously experienced editor. In any case, have you considered archiving your talk page – it's larger than many articles... Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@RandomCanadian: Yes, that's a good idea. For my talk page, would that be something I do manually? --1990'sguy (talk) 14:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

You can do it manually (with or without a using a script), or you can configure a bot to do it (Help:Archiving_a_talk_page#Automated_archiving); or you can configure the bot and do those that are already in here manually using a script such as this one. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! --1990'sguy (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alan Tonelson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Internationalism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I used the visual editor to make the change to the url you reverted, the spacing of the info box was done by the editor, not by me. Seems that may be how they want it and you just undid it. Beaupedia (talk) 13:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Underdog83: Thanks for letting me know about this. No big deal, it's more of a matter of preference, though the extra spaces use up more bytes than necessary. I kept your URL change, by the way. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello 1990'sguy,

Your help can make a difference

NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.

Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate

In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.

Discussions and Resources

• A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
• Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
• A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
• Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

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

•   Epicgenius, with one featured article, 28 good articles and 17 DYKs, amassing 1836 points
•   The Rambling Man , with 1672 points gained from four featured articles and seventeen good articles, plus reviews of a large number of FACs and GAs
•   Gog the Mild, a first time contestant, with 1540 points, a tally built largely on 4 featured articles and related bonus points.

Between them, contestants managed 14 featured articles, 9 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 152 good articles, 136 DYK entries, 55 ITN entries, 65 featured article candidate reviews and 221 good article reviews. Additionally,   MPJ-DK added 3 items to featured topics and 44 to good topics. Over the course of the competition, contestants have completed 710 good article reviews, in comparison to 387 good articles submitted for review and promoted. These large numbers are probably linked to a GAN backlog drive in April and May, and the changed patterns of editing during the COVID-19 pandemic. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Thanks for maintaining the integrity of the Wikipedia. Zakaria1978 (talk) 20:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! --1990'sguy (talk) 23:49, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

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

•   Bloom6132, with 1478 points gained mainly from 5 featured lists, 12 DYKs and 63 in the news items;
•  HaEr48 with 1318 points gained mainly from 2 featured articles, 5 good articles and 8 DYKs;
•   Lee Vilenski with 1201 points mainly gained from 2 featured articles and 10 good articles.

Between them, contestants achieved 14 featured articles, 14 featured lists, 2 featured pictures, 87 good articles, 90 DYK entries, 75 ITN entries, 95 featured article candidate reviews and 81 good article reviews. Congratulations to all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Persecution of Christians -- where you left me a thank you -- is a difficult page to edit, so I just wanted to say thanx for taking the time to spread some appreciation for the effort of other editors -- mostly what's out there is opposition and denigration, so I am genuinely appreciative of those with a positive turn of mind. Thank you for your thank you!   Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Jenhawk777: You're welcome, and once again, I appreciate the edits you have made! --1990'sguy (talk) 11:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

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

The other finalists were   Hog Farm (submissions),   HaEr48 (submissions),   Harrias (submissions) and   Bloom6132 (submissions). The final round was very productive, and besides 15 FAs, contestants achieved 75 FAC reviews, 88 GAs and 108 GAN reviews. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!

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

•   Gog the Mild (submissions) wins the featured article prize, for a total of 14 FAs during the course of the competition.
•   Bloom6132 (submissions) win the featured list prize, for 5 FLs in round 4.
•   Rhododendrites (submissions) wins the featured picture prize, for 3 FPs in round 3 and 5 overall.
•   Lee Vilenski (submissions) wins the featured article reviewer prize, for 23 FAC reviews in round 5.
•   Epicgenius (submissions) wins the good article prize, for 45 GAs in round 2 and 113 overall.
•   MPJ-DK (submissions) wins the topic prize, for 33 articles in good topics in round 2.
•   The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the good article reviewer prize, for 100 good article reviews in round 2.
•   Epicgenius (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 22 Did you know articles in round 4 and 94 overall.
•   Bloom6132 (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 63 In the news articles in round 4 and 136 overall.

Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2021 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

This[3] was a good find. Eliko007 (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! --1990'sguy (talk) 16:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Thank you for being reasonable, fair and compassionate in a very harsh environment. Zakaria1978 ښه راغلاست (talk) 05:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! --1990'sguy (talk) 13:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Regarding this edit of yours. The number 1250173 is of the Srinagar district as clearly written in the source [4]. This has been added in the Srinagar district. The Srinagar is the city article, so for the parameter |city= the source is this (1,180,570) and for |metro= the number is 1,273,312 sourced here. Note that it is the same in the status quo version. this old version for example, before one user Soumo Dutt added the population of the district in the city. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

The version I intended to restore was this one: [5] Are there any issues you see with this? --1990'sguy (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Ah..I see. You seem to have mistakenly restored this one  . Well, this recent addition doesn't seem neutral, although as per consensus, we include the phrase administerd by XYX (India, China, Pakistan) in the lead when it comes to parts of "Kashmir". I believe Mehrajmir13 should've discussed this in the talk page before adding it. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yes! Please go ahead and restore it then, and if you don't get to it, I'll try to do it later tonight. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello 1990'sguy,

 

Year in review

It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.

Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	DannyS712 bot III (talk)	67,552	Patrol Page Curation
2	Rosguill (talk)	63,821	Patrol Page Curation
3	John B123 (talk)	21,697	Patrol Page Curation
4	Onel5969 (talk)	19,879	Patrol Page Curation
5	JTtheOG (talk)	12,901	Patrol Page Curation
6	Mcampany (talk)	9,103	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	6,401	Patrol Page Curation
8	Mccapra (talk)	4,918	Patrol Page Curation
9	Hughesdarren (talk)	4,520	Patrol Page Curation
10	Utopes (talk)	3,958	Patrol Page Curation

 

 

Reviewer of the Year

John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.

NPP Technical Achievement Award

As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

18:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

	Cathedral Builder
	I've stopped and looked around — and I appreciate all the little improvements you keep making. The Little Platoon (talk) 00:13, 20 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@The Little Platoon: Thank you! :) --1990'sguy (talk) 01:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. We thank Vanamonde93 and Godot13, who have retired as judges, and we thank them for their past dedication. The judges for the WikiCup this year are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or something else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Syed Ahmad Khan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eid.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

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

Our top scorers in Round 2 were:

•   The Rambling Man, with 2963 points from three featured articles, 20 featured article reviews, 37 good articles, 73 good article reviews, as well as 22 DYKs.
•   Epicgenius, with 1718 points from one featured article, 29 good articles, 16 DYKs and plenty of bonus points.
•   Bloom6132, with 990 points from 13 DYKs and 64 "In the news" items, mostly recent deaths.
•   Hog Farm, with 834 points from two featured articles, five good articles, 14 featured article reviews and 15 good article reviews.
•   Gog the Mild, with 524 points from two featured articles and four featured article reviews.
•   Lee Vilenski, with 501 points from one featured article, three good articles, six featured article reviews and 25 good article reviews.
•   Sammi Brie, with 485 points from four good articles, eight good article reviews and 27 DYKs, on US radio and television stations.
•   Ktin, with 436 points from four good articles, seven DYKs and 11 "In the news" items.

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

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

The third round of the 2021 WikiCup has now come to an end. Each of the sixteen contestants who made it into the fourth round had at least 294 points, and our top six scorers all had over 600 points. They were:

•   The Rambling Man, with 1825 points from 3 featured articles, 44 featured article reviews, 14 good articles, 30 good article reviews and 10 DYKs. In addition, he completed a 34-article good topic on the EFL Championship play-offs.
•   Epicgenius, a New York specialist, with 1083 points from 2 featured article reviews, 18 good articles, 30 DYKs and plenty of bonus points.
•   Bloom6132, with 869 points from 11 DYKs, all with bonus points, and 54 "In the news" items, mostly covering people who had recently died.
•   Gog the Mild, with 817 points from 3 featured articles on historic battles in Europe, 5 featured article reviews and 3 good articles.
•   Hog Farm, with 659 points from 2 featured articles and 2 good articles on American Civil War battles, 18 featured article reviews, 2 good articles, 6 good article reviews and 4 DYKs.
•   BennyOnTheLoose, a snooker specialist and new to the Cup, with 647 points from a featured article, 2 featured article reviews, 6 good articles, 6 good article reviews and 3 DYKs.

In round three, contestants achieved 19 featured articles, 7 featured lists, 106 featured article reviews, 72 good articles, 1 good topic, 62 good article reviews, 165 DYKs and 96 ITN items. We enter the fourth round with scores reset to zero; any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (one contestant in round 3 lost out because of this). When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

 

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in edits about, and articles related to, COVID-19, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi @1990'sguy – Taking Electoral history of Ronald Reagan as an ideal, I recently expanded "Electoral history of Bill Clinton" and hoping to nominate for GA. Would appreciate if you could give any comments for improving the article. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Kavyansh.Singh: Thank you. I intend on taking a look in the coming days. At my first glance, you have done an excellent job! --1990'sguy (talk) 03:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

@1990'sguy – Thanks! Meanwhile, I'll nominate it for GA as well, as noways (especially after a backlog drive), nominations are reviewed a bit slower. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

The fourth round of the competition has finished with over 500 points being required to qualify for the final round. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants,   The Rambling Man and   Epicgenius, each scoring over 3000 points, and six contestants scoring over 1000. All but one of the finalists achieved one or more FAs during the round, the exception being   Bloom6132 who demonstrated that 61 "in the news" items produces an impressive number of points. Other contestants who made it to the final are   Gog the Mild,   Lee Vilenski,   BennyOnTheLoose,   Amakuru and   Hog Farm. However, all their points are now swept away and everyone starts afresh in the final round.

Round 4 saw the achievement of 18 featured articles and 157 good articles.   Bilorv scored for a 25-article good topic on Black Mirror but narrowly missed out on qualifying for the final round. There was enthusiasm for FARs, with 89 being performed, and there were 63 GARs and around 100 DYKs during the round. As we start round 5, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it to the final round; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. For other contestants, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Please point me to the exact page in Przybyszewski's biography of Harlan (which is one of the footnotes following the sentence in question) in which she characterizes him as a "fundamentalist." I cannot find it in her book. The other "source" is a brief promotional webpage which has no named author and no attribution for the label "fundamentalist." My point is not that he was a religious liberal ... her certainly wasn't ... but the term "fundamentalist" in regards to Christians was not used in print until 1920, nine years after Harlan's death. Thank you. Ballinacurra Weston (talk) 18:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

WNET (a PBS affiliate) is a reliable source. You're right that the term didn't really exist before the early 1920s, but the concept existed well before the actual term. I agree with you, though, that regardless of the specific term, he was theologically conservative.[6] However, I encourage you to start an RfC on the talk page if you still think the term "fundamentalist" should be removed. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

The WikiCup is over for another year and the finalists can relax! Our Champion this year is   The Rambling Man (submissions), who amassed over 5000 points in the final round, achieving 8 featured articles and almost 500 reviews. It was a very competitive round; seven of the finalists achieved over 1000 points in the round (enough to win the 2019 contest), and three scored over 3000 (enough to win the 2020 event). Our 2021 finalists and their scores were:

1.   The Rambling Man (submissions) with 5072 points
2.   Lee Vilenski (submissions) with 3276 points
3.   Amakuru (submissions) with 3197 points
4.   Epicgenius (submissions) with 1611 points
5.   Gog the Mild (submissions) with 1571 points
6.   BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 1420 points
7.   Hog Farm (submissions) with 1043 points
8.   Bloom6132 (submissions) with 528 points

All those who reached the final round will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. Awards will be handed out in the next few days.

•   The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the featured article prize, for 8 FAs in round 5.
•   Lee Vilenski (submissions) wins the featured list prize, for 3 FLs in round 5.
•   Gog the Mild (submissions) wins the featured topic prize, for 13 articles in a featured topic in round 5.
•   Epicgenius (submissions) wins the good article prize, for 63 GAs in round 4.
•   The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the good topic prize, for 86 articles in good topics in round 5.
•   The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the reviewer prize, for 68 FAC reviews and 213 GAN reviews, both in round 5.
•   Epicgenius (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 30 did you know articles in round 3 and 105 overall.
•   Bloom6132 (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 71 in the news articles in round 1 and 284 overall.

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether they made it to the final round or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup, some of whom did very well. Wikipedia has benefitted greatly from the quality creations, expansions and improvements made, and the numerous reviews performed. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition, not forgetting User:Jarry1250, who runs the scoring bot.

If you have views on whether the rules or scoring need adjustment for next year's contest, please comment on the WikiCup talk page. Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2022 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

I have rolled-back your reversion. See the Talk page of Harlan’s article for a detailed explanation why. Ballinacurra Weston (talk) 02:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

 

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 17:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2022 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2022 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

 

A tag has been placed on Prezzee, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Onel5969: @Jimfbleak: I wish to contest this speedy deletion, and I disagree with the WP:G11 reasoning for deletion, but I see the page has already been deleted. Would you please restore it and start a regular AfD? --1990'sguy (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough, I've done that Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Jimfbleak: Thank you. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Prezzee is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

And so ends the first round of the WikiCup. Last year anyone who scored more than zero points moved on to Round 2, but this was not the case this year, and a score of 13 or more was required to proceed. The top scorers in Round 1 were:

•   Epicgenius, a finalist last year, who led the field with 1906 points, gained from 32 GAs and 19 DYKs, all on the topic of New York buildings.
•   AryKun, new to the contest, was second with 1588 points, having achieved 2 FAs, 11 GAs and various other submissions, mostly on the subject of birds.
•   Bloom6132, a WikiCup veteran, was in third place with 682 points, garnered from 51 In the news items and several DYKs.
•   GhostRiver was close behind with 679 points, gained from achieving 12 GAs, mostly on ice hockey players, and 35 GARs.
•   Kavyansh.Singh was in fifth place with 551 points, with an FA, a FL, and many reviews.
•   SounderBruce was next with 454 points, gained from an FA and various other submissions, mostly on United States highways.
•   Ktin, another WikiCup veteran, was in seventh place with 412 points, mostly gained from In the news items.

These contestants, like all the others who qualified for Round 2, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews of a large number of good articles as the contest ran concurrently with a GAN backlog drive. Well done all! To qualify for Round 3, contestants will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two participants.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Anything that should have been claimed for in Round 1 is no longer eligible for points. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

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. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I saw your comments on the Intinction page, I added that because that is what those religions hold, for example, Presbyterians hold that for them it does not effect an actual change, see Wikipedia article on it which states, "Those in the Reformed tradition (inclusive of Continental Reformed, Presbyterian, Congregationalist, Reformed Anglican and Reformed Baptist churches), particularly those following John Calvin, hold that the reality of Christ's body and blood do not come corporally (physically) to the elements, but that "the Spirit truly unites things separated in space" (Calvin). This view is known as the real spiritual presence, spiritual presence, or pneumatic presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper." It is not a POV for they do not hold that.KEleison (talk) 18:17, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

The Episcopal, Lutheran, Reformed, and Methodist churches all teach a doctrine of the real presence of Christ in communion (though they are not in agreement on how it is effected). Your edits changed "consecrated bread" and "consecrated wine" everywhere in that article to "Body and Blood of Christ" when Catholicism is discussed while claiming that the aforementioned churches only have bread and wine. That's not neutral so I removed what you added in parenthesis; it implies that these churches don't affirm (or have) the real presence. Notice that the article still uses the terminology "dipping the host in the chalice," so you should have no problem with it. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

The second round of the 2022 WikiCup has now finished. It was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 115 points to advance to round 3. There were some very impressive efforts in round 2, with the top seven contestants all scoring more than 500 points. A large number of the points came from the 11 featured articles and the 79 good articles achieved in total by contestants.

Our top scorers in round 2 were:

1.   Epicgenius, with 1264 points from 2 featured article, 4 good articles and 18 DYKs. Epicgenius was a finalist last year but has now withdrawn from the contest as he pursues a new career path.
2.   AryKun, with 1172 points from two featured articles, one good article and a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews.
3.   Bloom6132, with 605 points from 44 in the news items and 4 DYKs.
4.   Sammi Brie, with 573 points from 8 GAs and 21 DYKs.
5.   Ealdgyth, with 567 points from 11 GAs and 34 good and featured article reviews.
6.   Panini!, with 549 points from 1 FA, 4 GAs and several other sources.
7.   Lee Vilenski, with 545 points from 1 FA, 4 GAs and a number of reviews.

The rules for featured and good article reviews require the review to be of sufficient length; brief quick fails and very short reviews will generally not be awarded points. Remember also that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

 

 

Hello 1990'sguy,

Backlog status

At the time of the last newsletter (No.27, May 2022), the backlog was approaching 16,000, having shot up rapidly from 6,000 over the prior two months. The attention the newsletter brought to the backlog sparked a flurry of activity. There was new discussion on process improvements, efforts to invite new editors to participate in NPP increased and more editors requested the NPP user right so they could help, and most importantly, the number of reviews picked up and the backlog decreased, dipping below 14,000^[a] at the end of May.

Since then, the news has not been so good. The backlog is basically flat, hovering around 14,200. I wish I could report the number of reviews done and the number of new articles added to the queue. But the available statistics we have are woefully inadequate. The only real number we have is the net queue size.^[b]

In the last 30 days, the top 100 reviewers have all made more than 16 patrols (up from 8 last month), and about 70 have averaged one review a day (up from 50 last month).

While there are more people doing more reviews, many of the ~730 with the NPP right are doing little. Most of the reviews are being done by the top 50 or 100 reviewers. They need your help. We appreciate every review done, but please aim to do one a day (on average, or 30 a month).

Backlog drive

A backlog reduction drive, coordinated by buidhe and Zippybonzo, will be held from July 1 to July 31. Sign up here.   Barnstars will be awarded.

TIP – New school articles

Many new articles on schools are being created by new users in developing and/or non-English-speaking countries. The authors are probably not even aware of Wikipedia's projects and policy pages. WP:WPSCH/AG has some excellent advice and resources specifically written for these users. Reviewers could consider providing such first-time article creators with a link to it while also mentioning that not all schools pass the GNG and that elementary schools are almost certainly not notable.

Misc

There is a new template available, {{NPP backlog}}, to show the current backlog. You can place it on your user or talk page as a reminder:

Very high unreviewed pages backlog: 13758 articles, as of 04:00, 28 November 2024 (UTC), according to DatBot

There has been significant discussion at WP:VPP recently on NPP-related matters (Draftification, Deletion, Notability, Verifiability, Burden). Proposals that would somewhat ease the burden on NPP aren't gaining much traction, although there are suggestions that the role of NPP be fundamentally changed to focus only on major CSD-type issues.

Reminders

• Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
• If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
• If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
• To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Notes

1. ^ not including another ~6,000 redirects
2. ^ The number of weekly reviews reported in the NPP feed includes redirects, which are not included in the backlog we primarily track.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

New Page Patrol | July 2022 Backlog Drive
On 1 July, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 20:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

The third round of the 2022 WikiCup has now come to an end. Each of the sixteen contestants who made it into the fourth round had at least 180 points, which is a lower figure than last year when 294 points were needed to progress to round 4. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

•   BennyOnTheLoose, with 746 points, a tally built both on snooker and other sports topics, and on more general subjects.
•   Bloom6132, with 683 points, garnered mostly from "In the news" items and related DYKs.
•   Sammi Brie, with 527, from a variety of submissions related to radio and television stations.

Between them contestants achieved 5 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 51 good articles, 149 DYK entries, 68 ITN entries, and 109 good article reviews. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article nomination, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. WikiCup judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello 1990'sguy,

Backlog status

After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators Buidhe and Zippybonzo, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to Dr vulpes who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.

Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.

Coordination

MB and Novem Linguae have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out. MPGuy2824 will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.

Open letter to the WMF

The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.

TIP - Reviewing by subject

Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.

 

New reviewers

The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.

Reminders

• Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
• If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
• If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
• To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

 

Hi 1990'sguy,

Invitation

For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

The fourth round of the WikiCup has now finished. 383 points were required to reach the final, and the new round has got off to a flying start with all finalists already scoring. In round 4, Bloom6132 with 939 points was the highest points-scorer, with a combination of DYKs and In the news items, followed by BennyOnTheLoose, Sammi Brie and Lee Vilenski. The points of all contestants are swept away as we start afresh for the final round.

At this stage, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. For the remaining competitors, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them, and importantly, before the deadline on October 31st!

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. The judges are Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

New Page Patrol | October 2022 backlog drive
On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive. Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Sign up here!
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 21:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello 1990'sguy,

 

Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.

Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.

 

Suggestions:

• There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
• Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
• Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
• This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog:

 

Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!

The 2022 WikiCup has drawn to a close with the final round going down to the wire. The 2022 champion is

•   Lee Vilenski (1752 points), who won in 2020 and was runner up in both 2019 and last year. In the final round he achieved 3 FAs and 15 GAs, mostly on cue sports. He was closely followed by
•   Bloom6132 (1732), who specialised in "In the news" items and DYKs, and who has reached the final round of the Cup for the past three years. Next was
•   BennyOnTheLoose (1238), another cue sports enthusiast, also interested in songs, followed by
•   Muboshgu (1082), an "In the news" contributor, a seasoned contestant who first took part in the Cup ten years ago. Other finalists were
•   Sammi Brie (930), who scored with a featured article, good articles and DYKs on TV and radio stations,
•   Kavyansh.Singh (370), who created various articles on famous Americans, including an FA on Louis H. Bean, famed for his prediction of election outcomes. Next was
•   PCN02WPS (292), who scored with good articles and DYKs on sporting and other topics and
•   Z1720 (25) who had DYKs on various topics including historic Canadians.

During the WikiCup, contestants achieved 37 featured articles, 349 good articles, 360 featured article reviews, 683 good article reviews and 480 In the news items, so Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors. Well done everyone! All those who reached the final round will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or the overall leader in this field.

•   Lee Vilenski wins the featured article prize, for a total of 6 FAs during the course of the competition and 3 in the final round.
•   Kavyansh.Singh wins the featured list prize, for 3 FLs in round 2.
•   Adam Cuerden wins the featured picture prize, for 39 FPs during the competition.
•   Z1720 wins the featured article reviewer prize, for 35 FARs in round 4.
•   Epicgenius wins the good article prize, for 32 GAs in round 1.
•   SounderBruce wins the featured topic prize, for 4 FT articles in round 1.
•   Lee Vilenski wins the good topic prize, for 34 GT articles in round 5.
•   Sammi Brie wins the good article reviewer prize, for 71 GARs overall.
•   Sammi Brie wins the Did you know prize, for 30 DYKs in round 3 and 106 overall.
•   Bloom6132 wins the In the news prize, for 106 ITNs in round 5 and 289 overall.

Next year's competition will begin on 1 January and possible changes to the rules and scoring are being discussed on the discussion page. You are invited to sign up to take part in the contest; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to have a good turnout for the 2023 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners and finalists, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello, on your initial edit, there are differing death dates for DeBovoise between the lead, infobox and 'death and legacy' section. This difference exists today. Can you confirm what date is accurate, as I don't have access to the source used? Thank you, --Engineerchange (talk) 01:24, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Engineerchange: Good question. Unfortunately, I no longer have access to the source. I am pinging @TeriEmbrey: just in case, as I know they work closely on military-related articles. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Engineerchange: I've added a couple more sources to this article. TeriEmbrey (talk) 12:29, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

@TeriEmbrey: Findagrave isn't a reliable source, per WP:ELPEREN. Do have an alternative source? Thanks, --Engineerchange (talk) 16:02, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Engineerchange: I double checked Davis' Generals in Khaki dates are correct. TeriEmbrey (talk) 20:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

@TeriEmbrey: Excellent – I think you're good to update the in-line cite then. Best, --Engineerchange (talk) 21:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2023 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

So ends the first round of the 2023 WikiCup. Everyone with a positive score moved on to Round 2, with 54 contestants qualifying. The top scorers in Round 1 were:

•   Unlimitedlead with 1205 points, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with two featured articles on historical figures and several featured article candidate reviews.
•   Epicgenius was in second place with 789 points; a seasoned WikiCup competitor he specialises in buildings and locations in New York.
•   FrB.TG was in third place with 625 points, garnered from a featured article on a filmmaker which qualified for an impressive number of bonus points.
•   TheJoebro64, another WikiCup newcomer, came next with 600 points gained from two featured articles on video games.
•   Iazyges was in fifth place with 532 points, from two featured articles on classical history.

The top sixteen contestants at the end of Round 1 had all scored over 300 points; these included   LunaEatsTuna,   Thebiguglyalien,   Sammi Brie,   Trainsandotherthings,   Lee Vilenski,   Juxlos,   Unexpectedlydian,   SounderBruce,   Kosack,   BennyOnTheLoose and   PCN02WPS. It was a high-scoring start to the competition.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start again from scratch. The first round finished on February 26. Remember that any content promoted after that date but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Some contestants made claims before the new submissions pages were set up, and they will need to resubmit them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

New Page Patrol | May 2023 Backlog Drive
On 1 May, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of redirects patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive. Article patrolling is not part of the drive. Sign up here! There is a possibility that the drive may not run if there are <20 registered participants. Participants will be notified if this is the case.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

The second round of the 2023 WikiCup has now finished. Contestants needed to have scored 60 points to advance into round 3. Our top five scorers in round 2 all included a featured article among their submissions and each scored over 500 points. They were:

•   Iazyges (1040) with three FAs on Byzantine emperors, and lots of bonus points.
•   Unlimitedlead (847), with three FAs on ancient history, one GA and nine reviews.
•   Epicgenius (636), a WikiCup veteran, with one FA on the New Amsterdam Theatre, four GAs and eleven DYKs
•   BennyOnTheLoose (553), a seasoned competitor, with one FA on snooker, six GAs and seven reviews.
•   FrB.TG (525), with one FA, a Lady Gaga song and a mass of bonus points.

Other notable performances were put in by   Sammi Brie,   Thebiguglyalien,   MyCatIsAChonk,   PCN02WPS, and   AirshipJungleman29.

So far contestants have achieved thirteen featured articles between them, one being a joint effort, and forty-nine good articles. The judges are pleased with the thorough reviews that are being performed, and have hardly had to reject any. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello 1990'sguy,

The New Page Patrol team is sending you this impromptu message to inform you of a steeply rising backlog of articles needing review. If you have any extra time to spare, please consider reviewing one or two articles each day to help lower the backlog. You can start reviewing by visiting Special:NewPagesFeed. Thank you very much for your help.

Reminders:

• There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery at 06:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I notice that you have two archives at the top of your talk page. Could you please point me to a source that will explain how I can put old material in an archive too? Thank you. OckRaz ^talk 08:37, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

The third round of the 2023 WikiCup has come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round had at least 175 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

•   Thebiguglyalien, with 919 points from a featured article on Frances Cleveland as well as five good articles and many reviews,
•   Unlimitedlead, with 862 points from a high-scoring featured articles on Henry II of England and numerous reviews,
•   Iazyges, with 560 points from a high-scoring featured article on Tiberius III.

Contestants achieved 11 featured articles, 2 featured lists, 47 good articles, 72 featured or good article reviews, over 100 DYKs and 40 ITN appearances. As always, any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:17, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

The fourth round of the competition has finished, with anyone scoring less than 673 points being eliminated. It was a high scoring round with all but one of the contestants who progressed to the final having achieved an FA during the round. The highest scorers were

•   Epicgenius, with 2173 points topping the scores, gained mainly from a featured article, 38 good articles and 9 DYKs. He was followed by
•   Sammi Brie, with 1575 points, gained mainly from a featured article, 28 good articles and 50 good article reviews. Close behind was
•   Thebiguglyalien, with 1535 points mainly gained from a featured article, 15 good articles, 26 good article reviews and lots of bonus points.

Between them during round 4, contestants achieved 12 featured articles, 3 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 126 good articles, 46 DYK entries, 14 ITN entries, 67 featured article candidate reviews and 147 good article reviews. Congratulations to our eight finalists and all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them and within 24 hours of the end of the final. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.

I will be standing down as a judge after the end of the contest. I think the Cup encourages productive editors to improve their contributions to Wikipedia and I hope that someone else will step up to take over the running of the Cup. Sturmvogel 66 (talk), and Cwmhiraeth (talk)

New Page Patrol | October 2023 Backlog Drive
On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Articles will earn 3x as many points compared to redirects. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello 1990'sguy,

 

Backlog update: At the time of this message, there are 11,300 articles and 15,600 redirects awaiting review. This is the highest backlog in a long time. Please help out by doing additional reviews!

October backlog elimination drive: A one-month backlog drive for October will start in one week! Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Articles will earn 4x as many points compared to redirects. You can sign up here.

PageTriage code upgrades: Upgrades to the PageTriage code, initiated by the NPP open letter in 2022 and actioned by the WMF Moderator Tools Team in 2023, are ongoing. More information can be found here. As part of this work, the Special:NewPagesFeed now has a new version in beta! The update leaves the NewPagesFeed appearance and function mostly identical to the old one, but updates the underlying code, making it easier to maintain and helping make sure the extension is not decommissioned due to maintenance issues in the future. You can try out the new Special:NewPagesFeed here - it will replace the current version soon.

Notability tip: Professors can meet WP:PROF #1 by having their academic papers be widely cited by their peers. When reviewing professor articles, it is a good idea to find their Google Scholar or Scopus profile and take a look at their h-index and number of citations. As a very rough rule of thumb, for most fields, articles on people with a h-index of twenty or more, a first-authored paper with more than a thousand citations, or multiple papers each with more than a hundred citations are likely to be kept at AfD.

Reviewing tip: If you would like like a second opinion on your reviews or simply want another new page reviewer by your side when patrolling, we recommend pair reviewing! This is where two reviewers use Discord voice chat and screen sharing to communicate with each other while reviewing the same article simultaneously. This is a great way to learn and transfer knowledge.

Reminders:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. — Newslinger talk 00:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Help copy edit and removed template for acticle Akane Yamaguchi. Thanks you.171.247.210.89 (talk) 04:10, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

The WikiCup is a marathon rather than a sprint and all those reaching the final round have been involved in the competition for the last ten months, improving Wikipedia vastly during the process. After all this hard work,   BeanieFan11 has emerged as the 2023 winner and the WikiCup Champion. The finalists this year were:-

•   BeanieFan11 with 2582 points
•   Thebiguglyalien with 1615 points
•   Epicgenius with 1518 points
•   MyCatIsAChonk with 1012 points
•   BennyOnTheLoose with 974 points
•   AirshipJungleman29 with 673 points
•   Sammi Brie with 520 points
•   Unlimitedlead with 5 points

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether they made it to the final round or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the competition, some of whom did very well. Wikipedia has benefitted greatly from the quality creations, expansions and improvements made, and the numerous reviews performed. All those who reached the final round will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. Awards will be handed out in the next few days.

•   Unlimitedlead wins the featured article prize, for 7 FAs in total including 3 in round 2.
•   MyCatIsAChonk wins the featured list prize, for 5 FLs in total.
•   Lee Vilenski wins the featured topic prize, for a 6-article featured topic in round 4.
•   MyCatIsAChonk wins the featured picture prize, for 6 FPs in total.
•   BeanieFan11 wins the good article prize, for 75 GAs in total, including 61 in the final round.
•   Epicgenius wins the good topic prize, for a 41-article good topic in the final round.
•   LunaEatsTuna wins the GA reviewer prize, for 70 GA reviews in round 1.
•   MyCatIsAChonk wins the FA reviewer prize, for 66 FA reviews in the final round.
•   Epicgenius wins the DYK prize, for 49 did you know articles in total.
•   Muboshgu wins the ITN prize, for 46 in the news articles in total.

The WikiCup has run every year since 2007. With the 2023 contest now concluded, I will be standing down as a judge due to real life commitments, so I hope that another editor will take over running the competition. Please get in touch if you are interested. Next year's competition will hopefully begin on 1 January 2024. You are invited to sign up to participate in the contest; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors. It only remains to congratulate our worthy winners once again and thank all participants for their involvement! (If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.) Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

New Page Patrol | January 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 January 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2024 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close on 31 January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), Epicgenius (talk · contribs · email), and Frostly (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

The 2024 WikiCup is off to a flying start, with 135 participants. This is the largest number of participants we have seen since 2017.

Our current leader is newcomer   Generalissima (submissions), who has one FA on John Littlejohn (preacher) and 10 GAs and 12 DYKs mostly on New Zealand coinage and Inuit figures. Here are some more noteworthy scorers:

•   AirshipJungleman29 (submissions), with one FA on Hö'elün, two GAs on Mongolia-related articles, and two DYKs;
•   Vami_IV (submissions), with one FA on Doom (2016 video game), one GA on Boundary Fire (2017), and 11 reviews;
•   MaranoFan (submissions), with one FA on Holidays (Meghan Trainor song), a nine-article FT on 30 (album), and two DYKs;
•   Skyshifter (submissions), with one FA on OneShot and one DYK;
•   Sammi Brie (submissions), with five GAs and five DYKs on television and radio stations;
•   voorts (submissions) and   Elli (submissions), both with one FA and one DYK each.

As a reminder, competitors may submit work for the first round until 23:59 (UTC) on 27 February, and the second round starts 1 March. Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round; currently, competitors need at least 15 points to progress. 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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

The first round of the 2024 WikiCup ended at 23:59 (UTC) on 27 February. Everyone with at least 30 points moved on to Round 2, the highest number of points required to advance to the second round since 2014. Due to a six-way tie for the 64th-place spot, 67 contestants have qualified for Round 2.

The following scorers in Round 1 all scored more than 300 points:

•   Generalissima (submissions), who has 916 points mostly from one FA on John Littlejohn (preacher), 15 GAs, and 16 DYKs on a variety of topics including New Zealand coinage and Inuit figures, in addition to seven reviews
•   Vami_IV (submissions), who has 790 points from two FAs on Felix M. Warburg House and Doom (2016 video game), two GAs, one DYK, and 11 reviews
•   AirshipJungleman29 (submissions), who has 580 points from one FA on Hö'elün, two GAs on Mongolia-related articles, two DYKs, and five reviews
•   Sammi Brie (submissions), who has 420 points mostly from nine GAs and seven DYKs on television and radio stations
•   MaranoFan (submissions), who has 351 points from one FA on Holidays (Meghan Trainor song), a nine-article FT on 30 (album), and three DYKs
•   Skyshifter (submissions), who has 345 points from one FA on OneShot, one DYK and two reviews

In this newsletter, the judges would like to pay a special tribute to   Vami_IV (submissions), who unfortunately passed away this February. At the time of his death, he was the second-highest-scoring competitor. Outside the WikiCup, he had eight other featured articles, five A-class articles, eight other good articles, and two Four Awards. Vami also wrote an essay on completionism, a philosophy in which he deeply believed. If you can, please join us in honoring his memory by improving one of the articles on his to-do list.

Remember that any content promoted after 27 February but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply