I am preoccupied due to recent events in Asia and will be limited in my presence here for the foreseeable future.

This is KimChee's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Gordon Brown's favourite cookie. Since you had some involvement with the Gordon Brown's favourite cookie redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Diego Grez (EMSIUB) ( talk) 14:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Joseph Mitchell Parsons you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 10 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Lord Roem ( talk) 17:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your time. I have responded to your comments in the GA review. KimChee ( talk) 01:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi, I did some research with the help from a friend which wrote the page number for me. I cant personally verify those as I wasnt present but I do trust my friend. I guess its up to DYK standard now.Thanks for the help.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 23:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC) reply

And sorry if I didnt format it right. Im not 100% into that field of the Wikipedia yet Thanks for doing it.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 23:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC) reply

That is fine. For future reference, you do not need to repeat full publication data for every citation if the complete literary information is included at the bottom. KimChee ( talk) 23:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC) reply

OK, thanks again.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 23:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC) reply

I left a note on the DYK page so it can be evaluated. But I dont see any problems for it not to pass for DYK.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 00:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC) reply

I responded to the question about the references on the article's talk page. KimChee ( talk) 04:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Perhaps read WP:POINT.  狐 FOX  01:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Fair enough. You have my apologies. KimChee ( talk) 01:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC) reply

By the by, thanks for being understanding about this whole issue. Sorry that it's been dragged out like this.  狐 FOX  13:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC) reply

No worries, this process has been an interesting new experience to me. KimChee ( talk) 13:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC) reply

I would like to give you a advice if you are in the mood to make a new crime article, ten days ago DNA evidence finally officially freed Cornelius Dupree who had been in jail for 30 years for a crime that he didnt commit, he was already out when the DNA answers came. He has also been the subject of tv-documentaries because he was known to be innocent of the crime he was in prison for but the district attorney didnt want it to got to court etc etc etc.. Perhaps an interesting case. Just a suggestion.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 02:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC) reply

I started a stub if you would like to add to it. KimChee ( talk) 03:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC) reply

I was just wondering if you could make a comment on DYK so that the DYK nomination of the Fran Otto Erikssons gets moving and evaluated? Or that is perhaps not needed, just asking.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 16:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC) reply

The Frans Otto Eriksson article appears to be verified now. I added my name to the nom if that is okay with you. Also, I think the Cornelius Dupree article has cleared minimum length. If you can add some more edits to expand the article further, then I will go ahead and include your name in the DYK nom for this one, too. KimChee ( talk) 08:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Fixed the issue you brought up.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 11:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Also the Afd on Joanna Yeates has been closed as Keep, not that I expected anything else ofcourse. Anyway now the DYK nomination can be completed and I have left a comment confirming that the Afd has been closed. If you feel like it leave a comment to.;)-- BabbaQ ( talk) 17:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Just to let you know, I made DYK nomination for Cornelius Dupree, on the January 4 section. Feel free to change anything as you created the article.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 20:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC) reply

The Dupree article and the hook I suggested has now been OK:ed. So congratulations is in order for us, three DYK-ready articles in a matter of days.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 22:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi KimChee. In answer to your query on my talk page, I found Dupree's date of birth on the Writ of Habeus Corpus, available as the first link at the bottom of the Innocence Project webpage that you cite as your second external link.-- 198.145.102.216 ( talk) 01:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Yesterday Cornelius Duprees article was viewed 16.600 times and the day before that about 9.000 times. I find it strange that it suddenly get that mutch views..hmm.. it only got around 2.000 views when it was a DYK. Haha.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 00:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks, I'm embarrassed I left so many errors, thought I checked it but I must be too tired. -- Pontificalibus ( talk) 13:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the heads up (small world!), I've now responded with an alt. Thanks :)  狐 FOX  00:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Muchas gracias. ;D  狐 FOX  00:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC) reply

On 6 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Murder of Joanna Yeates, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the inquiry into the murder of Joanna Yeates, dubbed "Operation Braid", has become one of the largest police investigations in Bristol, England? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks from me and the DYK project Victuallers ( talk) 17:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Congratulations is in order, You have done a great job on this article. Anyway, now it has been placed on DYK, I guess it wont be removed before midnight tonight so I guess we have to count in the views for January 6 and January 7. Just like the John and Sarah Makin article for a correct view figure..-- BabbaQ ( talk) 17:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Now the DYK for Joanna Yeates has ended so in about 50 minutes we will be able to see how many checked it out during January 6.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 23:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC) reply

9.900 views... so close to the 10.000 view treshold but anyway impressive amount of views for Murder of Joanna Yeates.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 01:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC) reply

On 9 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Frans Otto Eriksson, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Frans Otto Eriksson was a Swedish baker who committed a double murder in 1909? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project ( nominate) 00:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems that after the story has developed, that the weapon was indeed a Glock 19, not a Glock 17. I understand the confusion of the media at first as they are basically the same gun; with interchangeable parts. Also the assailant had two 33 round 9x19mm magazines for his weapon, which are interchangeable with all 9mm Glock weapons even the Glock 36 (Baby Glock). I assume that this further added to the confusion.

Thanks for correcting my error and keeping Wiki a friendly place for the exchange of information and cross checking. I truly appreciate it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonanaggie ( talk • contribs) 02:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC) reply

No problem, your edit was specific enough that I presumed it was done in good faith. KimChee ( talk) 02:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC) reply

The problem with a 30 round magazine is that it conflicts with CNN reports that there were 31 9mm rounds left in his magazine, and the fact that Glock Magazines are not made in 30 round capacity. Glock 19 high-capacity magazines are made in 33 rounds as you can see here: http://www.topglock.com/item/42680_Glock_High_Capacity_Magazine_Glock_MF17033_G17_Magazin.aspx. If you search around you will see that this is the only high-capacity magazine for the Glock 19 for a 9mm Parabellum round.

According to reports his second magazine jammed due to a spring failure, thankfully!

Jasonanaggie ( talk) 08:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC) reply

On 11 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cornelius Dupree, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Cornelius Dupree was cleared by DNA profiling of committing a robbery for which he served 30 years in prison, longer than any other exonerated inmate in Texas? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project ( nominate) 06:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I think 'reactions' still covers it all o.k , but 'political debate' is better than the other subsection heading - the tag could go for all I can see. Sayerslle ( talk) 07:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi KimChee,

I noticed that you re-created (and perhaps originally created) the subsection "Recovery" in the section regarding Gifford's assassination attempt. While we are all certainly hopeful she will only continue to improve from here, that is not a factual guarantee. Doctors have repeatedly stressed that the 3rd and 4th days are especially critical, because that is when the swelling is at its worst. In other words, awful as it is to say in the midst of optimistic results on her current condition, she may still not survive this, nor is she certain to retain this level of response. For this reason, it is still too early to create a "Recovery" subsection - we need to be sure that our edits are made from a historical perspective whenever possible, and this is a superficial change that is honestly premature. If you still disagree, I would appreciate hearing why - you appear to be a much more senior editor than I, and it's certainly possibly I'm viewing this the wrong way. Thank you.

- DrLight11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drlight11 ( talk • contribs) 20:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC) reply

That is not my term. That is the term used by her attending doctors. If you feel this is premature, I am happy to wait until a later date. KimChee ( talk) 21:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC) reply

The web site is msnbc.com, not MSNBC. The publisher of the web site is MSN.

You arbitrarily reverted changes that were correct and ones that included corrections to the incorrect date formats, added fields, and the name of the victim for no benefit. Whywhenwhohow ( talk) 05:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC) reply

One size does not fit all, it may be beneficial to check if an item is a specific program or publication vs. a network or news agency. Hence, why various fields are provided by the various citation templates. KimChee ( talk) 05:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC) reply

We obviously disagree. I know what end users will see. I have been editing Wikipedia for several years. You are quick with undo and wiped out other needed corrections and updates. Whywhenwhohow ( talk) 05:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Outside of the reference formatting, can you identify an edit conflict that should be fixed? Your account looks relatively new and Jack Merridew has been here a very long time with a focus on reference formatting. I trust his judgement. KimChee ( talk) 05:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Jack agreed with my changes. He wrote "saw your edit summary, which makes sense. Sorry for the bump." I suggest you review the differences between MSNBC and msnbc.com and the brand confusion that is described on the msnbc.com page. Whywhenwhohow ( talk) 05:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Jack is very friendly about edit conflicts, but I would stick with the guidelines presented in the {{ cite news}} template -- make sure you distinguish between a publication such as The New York Times vs. an organization such as The McClatchy Company vs. an agency such as Associated Press. KimChee ( talk) 05:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Hey, KimChee. The Quinones ref doesn't say Randy is a retired truck driver. It says the neighbor is a retired gasoline truck driver. -- Kenatipo ( talk) 16:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Good eye! KimChee ( talk) 16:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Is RL really a retired truck driver or is this just a wikimistake? -- Kenatipo ( talk) 17:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC) reply

The L.A. Times says "stay-at-home dad", but that sounded a little too informal to include as-is in the article. KimChee ( talk) 19:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi, I have followed a criminal case involving a Las Vegas show dancer who disappeared in December 2010 and whos body was found this saturday in a quite bizzarre manor. If you feel like it then do a stub for this case, as you are so good at doing those if you find time and interest for it ofcourse. The case has recived alot of coverage from american media as you can see here.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 20:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Yes, in my opinion, Jared Lee Loughner would be acceptable for DYK if the hook doesn't have to do with current events. - PM800 ( talk) 05:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi, please check out the Death of Linda Norgrove GA nomination.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 15:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC) reply

I am a little preoccupied right now, but I will be happy to help if it does not pass by this weekend. KimChee ( talk) 18:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Yeah I can inform you that it passed the GA review moments ago, after just a few hours;). I asked the reviewer about a possible GA nomination for Joanna Yeates. The user answered, At first glance it looks detailed enough to have a good shot - maybe try expanding the 'Background' section. I dont know your stand in this KimChee but it would certainly be a good way to keep the article away from possible future second time Afd requests if it passes GA. Which the user in my opinion thought would be very possible. Cheers.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 18:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Congratulations. I think the Yeates article may be a good candidate in the future, but will likely be too unstable to meet GA criteria for a while. KimChee ( talk) 19:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Thank you for uploading File:Photograph of Jared Lee Loughner by Pima County Sheriff's Office.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Active Banana (^bananaphone 21:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC) reply

I did not upload this file, I am the one who asked about its status in WP:MCQ. KimChee ( talk) 22:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Okay I just wanted to add the picture from talk. Thanks. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 05:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC) reply

On 17 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Federal Correctional Institution, Phoenix, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Cris Kirkwood of the Meat Puppets and Jerry Posin of Steppenwolf teamed up to perform music while both were imprisoned at the Federal Correctional Institution in Phoenix, Arizona? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thank you for this contribution to our second decade of wikipedia Victuallers ( talk) 06:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi! I noticed your activity as a Good Article reviewer, and wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors in the coming term. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

I hope to hear from you soon.-- Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation ( talk) 03:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Hello! Your submission of Vein matching at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Otherwise a very interesting article and hook. -- Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 16:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC) reply

This article might interest you, Murder of Anni Dewani.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 16:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC) reply

If you have the time, this article might interest you too. Carlina White kidnapping.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 22:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Sure, I will take a look at it this weekend. KimChee ( talk) 22:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC) reply

On 22 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ajmer Dargah attack, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the 2007 Ajmer Dargah attack was carried out by explosives hidden in a Tiffin carrier? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC) reply

For your improvements to the article Carlina White kidnapping. Edison ( talk) 02:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC) reply

No problem, another editor suggested I look at this. I hope it looks good for DYK. KimChee ( talk) 10:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Your edits have greatly improved the article. Edison ( talk) 05:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Well, I was just commenting on the plot/references issue :D

But yeah, even though the rules seem to discourage it, DYK does approve nominations for films that haven't been released. Don't ask me why. - PM800 ( talk) 13:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Interesting caveat. I will wait to hear back from the nominator, but I guess I will go easy on this one. Thanks. :) KimChee ( talk) 13:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Hello and welcome to the 2011 WikiCup! Your submissions' page can be found here and instructions of how to update the page can be found here and on the submissions' page itself. From the submissions' page, a bot will update the main scoresheet. Our rules have been very slightly updated from last year; the full rules can be found here. Please remember that you can only receive points for content on which you have done significant work in 2011; nominations of work from last year and "drive-by" nominations will not be awarded points. Signups are going to remain open through January, so if you know of anyone who would like to take part, please direct them to Wikipedia:WikiCup/2011 signups. The judges can be contacted on the WikiCup talk page, on their respective talk pages, or by email. Other than that, we will be in contact at the end of every month with the newsletter. If you want to stop or start receiving newsletters, please remove your name from or add your name to this list. Good luck! J Milburn and The ed17 21:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi - As far as I know, it's not really necessary to include the date in every ref name - the idea is just that there be an easy to reproduce nickname for each reference, so anything unique works. Sometimes the date's a good idea when many refs are coming in from the same publication or with similar titles, but I find it's most useful and least prone to error when the ref name is kept relatively short and memorable, so the date doesn't have to be embedded there. Cheers. Tvoz/ talk 09:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC) reply

I agree and tend to use simpler name tags for refs in smaller articles. That said, I prefer using dates in naming news citations, especially in large articles that have bursts of activity during cycles of breaking news as there will be a literal avalanche of incoming information, often from a recurring pool of sources in a short period of time. I have seen other users cut and paste more difficult-to-remember numbers and data from URLs as ref names, so I find dates to be the most practical to use ... and perhaps a memorable word from the headline if the same source publishes multiple articles on the same day. KimChee ( talk) 11:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC) reply

I just try to keep it as simple as possible, but yeah. Meanwhile, I think the work we've done on Giffords has improved it significantly. Tvoz/ talk 17:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Merci! Comte0 ( talk) 08:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC) reply

On 26 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Vein matching, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the FBI and CIA used vein matching as evidence that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed of al-Qaeda had killed journalist Daniel Pearl? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC) reply

I have recently reviewed your nomination of Neoregelia 'Dr. Who' at Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know and have found that there are still outstanding issues. Please review the new comment underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for helping this years April Fools be funny! -- Found5dollar ( talk) 02:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC) reply

On 27 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jared Lee Loughner, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Jared Lee Loughner was detained at the Federal Correctional Institution at Phoenix after the 2011 Tucson shooting? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Anytime! I knew he had to be on the BOP database, so I used some variations of his name WhisperToMe ( talk) 13:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi I was wondering if you could help me by checking out Bright Lights, Bigger City I have nominated it for DYK but I could need some pro help as I got this message Alt 1 will be fine once the all-caps reference titles in the article are fixed.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 05:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC) reply

I made a couple passes through the article to clean up the references. Let me know if you need more help. KimChee ( talk) 09:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Thank you very mutch:). I have followed a missing persons case this week from Michigan concerning two women who was found buried and shot today. Did a search for the victims names and found a quite large number of hits, this story has been a top news in American media for the entire week. See here for information, maybe just maybe we could start a stub perhaps Amy Sue Henslee and Tonya Howarth murders or similar. I wanted to hear your opinion first as you are better aware of what can survive on Wikipedia.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 18:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi, the Murder of Anni Dewani article that became DYK has reached 5,100 views during its time as DYK yesterday could you help me by adding it to the DYK stats. Thanks.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 11:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the help. I have noticed that the GimmeBot is removing Afd results and DYKs on the talk pages of articles. Is that really good? I would assume that if an article ever have gone trough a Afd process that would be something useful to know for people who is perhpas willing to put it up for deletion again. And the DYKs like the one on Anni Dewani for example would be something that I for example dont want removed. The bot had removed the Afd on Death of Linda Norgrove recently which I restored. What is your opinion?.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 12:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Ok I think Im starting to get it now. After your edits. Its ofcourse shown on the articles milestones. Oh my apologies;).-- BabbaQ ( talk) 12:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Just a question, I was thinking of doing a total re-write on an article which is about a Swedish person. Anyway my question is if I do this complete re-write and the length and hook and everything is OK then would it pass trough the DYK process?.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 17:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC) reply

If an article is not new (less than 5 days old), then the expanded prose (text minus headers, captions, infoboxes, tables, etc.) of the rewritten article must be 5x longer to qualify for DYK. For biographical articles that previously lacked references or citations, the article must be expanded 2x to qualify. All other rules are the same (i.e. work must have been done within the last 5 days). I hope this answers your question. KimChee ( talk) 00:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC) reply

A Star Is Born (2012 film) has gained over 10,500 views during its DYK: Please add it to DYK stats as no one has done it. Thanks-- BabbaQ ( talk) 13:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi. I've found some time to look again at this article which I peer reviewed in Deceember. You appear to have addressed the points I raised, and the article is clearly better for this. One point that I missed in my earlier review is the use of cites in the lead. Normally, material that is cited in the text does not need to be also cited in the lead, so I wonder how many of these cites are necessary. If your intention is to take the article to FAC, it might be as well to have a brief second peer review with someone else's eyes on it, though I would watch it and comment if necessary. My problem at the moment is that I am extremely short of time for detailed reviews, a situation likely to continue for another two or three weks at least. Brianboulton ( talk) 00:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your reply, I really do appreciate it! KimChee ( talk) 00:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Hello! Your submission of Article at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! — Rod ^talk 13:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC) reply

We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. Signups are now closed, and we have 129 listed competitors, 64 of whom will make it to round two. Congratulations to The Bushranger ( submissions), who, at the time of writing, has a comfortable lead with 228 points, followed by Hurricanehink ( submissions), with 144 points. Four others have over 100 points. Congratulations also go to Yellow Evan ( submissions), who scored the first points in the competition, claiming for Talk:Hurricane King/GA1, Miyagawa ( submissions), who scored the first non-review points in the competition, claiming for Dognapping, and Jarry1250 ( submissions) who was the first in the competition to use our new "multiplier" mechanic ( explanation), claiming for Grigory Potemkin, a subject covered on numerous Wikipedias. Thanks must also go to Jarry1250 for dealing with all bot work- without you, the competition wouldn't be happening!

A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round two is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! 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 GAC, 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 are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 22:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC) reply

On 1 February 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article ROKS Choi Young (DDH-981), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the South Korean naval vessel Choi Young (pictured) launched a rescue operation that freed the tanker Samho Jewelry from Somali pirates with only one hostage injured? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC) reply

On 1 February 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article MV Samho Jewelry, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the South Korean naval vessel Choi Young (pictured) launched a rescue operation that freed the tanker Samho Jewelry from Somali pirates with only one hostage injured? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I have recently reviewed your nomination of USCGC Alexander Hamilton (WPG-34) at Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know and have found that there are still outstanding issues. Please review the new comment underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for helping this years April Fools be funny!-- Found5dollar ( talk) 14:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi, I was thinking of putting Joanna yeates article up for GA. Now I personally think that the article has reached stability. Not another court date until May 4, not trial until October this year. And those event wont I guess have a huge effect on the overall article prose, and even so those events are months away and those changes will be quite few and made properly. I just want to know your opinion. Thanks.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 18:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Her funeral has not even been held yet. The article has developed in a piecemeal fashion and is still at C-class. I would recommend waiting until the plea hearing in May. KimChee ( talk) 19:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Yeah,.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 20:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Hey. I'm afraid I've removed your GA, as the article was nominated last year. Hope you understand. J Milburn ( talk) 12:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Ah, I had presumed it was okay since the first GA entry was reviewed before mine, but I get it now. KimChee ( talk) 19:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC) reply

It's ambiguous and doesn't tell us whether Joran or Radio Nederlands was seeking the interview.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 12:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I took another pass at clarification. I am flattered you are still following this. :) KimChee ( talk) 13:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Altez who?-- Wehwalt ( talk) 13:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC) reply

On 8 February 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Peter M. Rhee, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Peter M. Rhee, one of the first American battlefield surgeons in Afghanistan, was the attending physician of U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords after the shooting in Tucson? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply

On 8 February 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cheonghae Unit, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that a South Korean naval unit defended a North Korean ship against Somali pirates? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply

On 8 February 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John David Duty, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that John David Duty is the first person to be executed in the United States with pentobarbital, which is commonly used for animal euthanasia? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC) reply

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		You've popped up in my watchlist an awful lot... what can I say? You deserve this Egg Centric ( talk) 18:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC) reply

감사합니다! KimChee ( talk) 20:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC) reply

You might be interested in this stub, suggested by me and started by user ErrantX. Schenecker double murders.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 18:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC) reply

On 12 February 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sugar House Prison (Utah), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that much of the demolition of Sugar House Prison in Utah had to be carried out stone by stone, because dynamite had little effect on its heavy walls? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady ( talk) 06:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Thank you for reviewing the hook for Richard Smith (silent film director). I have responded to your comment, at T:TDYK. Please see Template_talk:Did_you_know#Richard_Smith_.28silent_film_director.29. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt ( talk) 07:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Thank you! ;) -- Cirt ( talk) 07:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC) reply

My own Zen garden. Thank you! —  Malik Shabazz  ^Talk/ _Stalk 06:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC) reply

On 14 February 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sugar house prisons (New York), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the British Army used sugar houses in New York City to hold prisoners during the American Revolutionary War? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist ( talk) 12:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I will help out where I can but unfortunately, I am swamped with work in the real life so I may not be able to do much. You are doing a great job nonetheless, I will try to help out where I can. Remember ( talk) 17:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Tvoz/ talk 19:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi maybe you want to participate in the Afd put on my latest stub for Emilia Carr. I find it strange that it was put on just hours after and for a policy that isnt even relevant ONEEVENT as Emilia Carr is notable in many aspects (in my personal opinion) which I have stated on the afd.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 17:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Thank you so much for all the help with the Emilia Carr article. Thanks!-- BabbaQ ( talk) 18:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply

		The 50 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal
		The D.Y.K. Project thanks you for your many contributions to the Encyclopedia. The Interior (Talk) 17:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks again! KimChee ( talk) 18:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I saw your first post-PR note but failed to reply quickly, then forgot. I looked at the PR just now, and all looks fine. "Overshadowed" is just right. The subtle mention of Condit's wife is just right. The revised "Sentencing and appeals" section looks fine with one possible exception: Susan Levy responded, "Did you really take her life? Look me in my eyes and tell me." before being reminded by Judge Gerald Fisher to address the court and not Guandique directly. The double terminal-period problem arises here because of the nested complete sentences. When this sort of thing pops up in my writing, I usually opt for a work-around. Maybe: Before Judge Gerald Fisher reminded her to address the court and not Grandique directly, Susan Levy responded, "Did you really take her life? Look me in my eyes and tell me." Please let me know when you take this to FAC. I think it's ready. Finetooth ( talk) 19:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply

So begins round two of the WikiCup! We now have eight pools, each with eight random contestants. This round will continue until the end of April, when the top two of each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers of those remaining, will make it to round three. Congratulations to The Bushranger ( submissions) (first, with 487 points) and Hurricanehink ( submissions) (second, with 459), who stormed the first round. Casliber ( submissions) finished third with 223. Twelve others finished with over 100 points- well done to all of you! The final standings in round one can be seen here. A mere 8 points were required to reach round two; competition will no doubt be much more fierce this round, so be ready for a challenge! A special thanks goes, again, to Jarry1250 ( submissions) for dealing with all bot work. This year's bot, as well as running smoothly, is doing some very helpful things that last year's did not. Also, thanks to Stone ( submissions) for some helpful behind-the-scenes updating and number crunching.

Some news for those who are interested- March will see a GAN backlog elimination drive, which you are still free to join. Organised by WikiProject Good articles, the drive aims to minimise the GAN backlog and offers prizes to those who help out. Of course, you may well be able to claim WikiCup points for the articles you review as part of the drive. Also ongoing is the Great Backlog Drive, looking to work on clearing all of the backlogs on Wikipedia; again, incentives are offered, and the spirit of friendly competition is alive, while helping the encyclopedia is the ultimate aim. Though unrelated to the WikiCup, these may well be of interest to some of you.

Just a reminder of the rules; if you have done significant work on content this year and it is promoted in this round, you may claim for it. Also, anything that was promoted after the end of round one but before the beginning of round two may be claimed for in round two. Details of the rules can be found on this page. For those interested in statistics, a running total of claims can be seen here, and a very interesting table of that information (along with the highest scorers in each category) can be seen here. 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 GAC, 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 are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Daniel Hernandez Jr. 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/Daniel Hernandez Jr. until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 16:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC) reply

You might be interested in joining the current talk page discussion on the Joanna Yeates article as a user has removed all information on Chris Jeffries. -- BabbaQ ( talk) 18:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi, the Afd on Emilia Carr was closed as No Consensus. However I think that the article could need a change in focus and perhaps a namechange as suggested in the Afd. If you feel like it and have the time and interest perhaps you could take a look. To minimize the risk of future re-nominations of the article.Thanks.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 00:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply

The article Joran van der Sloot you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Joran van der Sloot for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells ( talk) 21:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Please comment here. Materialscientist ( talk) 07:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply

On 15 March 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Emilia Carr, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Emilia Carr is the first woman from Marion County, Florida to be sentenced to death since Aileen Wournos in 1992? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC) reply

• Hi, the DYK on Emilia Carr recieved 8,900 views. Could you please add that to the DYKstats. Great.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 14:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply

If you have the time, please check out this article that I have made.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 14:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I will look when I have a chance, but it may take me a while under present circumstances. KimChee ( talk) 10:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi, my DYK for Linni Meister recieved 13.300 views. Please add to DYKstats, thanks. Really good.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 05:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Have been helped by another user. Thanks anyway.:)-- BabbaQ ( talk) 16:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC) reply

We are half way through round two of the WikiCup, which will end on 28 April. Of the 64 current contestants, 32 will make it through to the next round; the two highest in each pool, and the 16 next highest scorers. At the time of writing, our current overall leader is Hurricanehink ( submissions) with 231 points, who leads Pool H. Piotrus ( submissions) (Pool G) also has over 200 points, while 9 others (three of whom are in Pool D) have over 100 points. Remember that certain content (specifically, articles/portals included in at least 20 Wikipedias as of 31 December 2010 or articles which are considered " vital") is worth double points if promoted to good or featured status, or if it appears on the main page in the Did You Know column. There were some articles last round which were eligible for double points, but which were not claimed for. For more details, see Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring.

A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round three is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! 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 GAC, 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 are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 01:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC) reply

On 1 April 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Neoregelia 'Dr. Who', which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Dr. Who's parents are Brazilians from a family known for pineapples? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project ( nominate) 08:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi,I had to put Colin Hatch first AFD result up for deletion review and it was established that the result somewat wasnt Delete when closed and it was closed prematurely. I have to tell you that I am personally a bit suspicious over the AFD result of the second Colin Hatch AFD result today. First of all it was closed by the same user that closed the first one prematurely and also I am still personally not convinced that the actual "result" should be delete. In my opinion a closing of this AFD should have been handled by someone else than this user once again for the second time, pone could question that users bias or non-bias in the direction of delete or keep. I want your opinion before taking it back to Deletion review. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colin Hatch-- BabbaQ ( talk) 17:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Round 2 of the 2011 WikiCup is over, and the new round will begin on 1 May. Note that any points scored in the interim (that is, for content promoted or reviews completed on 29-30 April) can be claimed in the next round, but please do not start updating your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. Fewer than a quarter of our original contestants remain; 32 enter round 3, and, in two months' time, only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. Casliber ( submissions), who led Pool F, was our round champion, with 411 points, while 7 contestants scored between 200 and 300 points. At the other end of the scale, a score of 41 was high enough to reach round 3; more than five times the score required to reach round 2, and competition will no doubt become tighter now we're approaching the later rounds. Those progressing to round 3 were spread fairly evenly across the pools; 4 progressed from each of pools A, B, E and H, while 3 progressed from both pools C and F. Pools D and G were the most successful; each had 5 contestants advancing.

This round saw our first good topic points this year; congratulations to Hurricanehink ( submissions) and Nergaal ( submissions) who also led pool H and pool B respectively. However, there remain content types for which no points have yet been scored; featured sounds, featured portals and featured topics. In addition to prizes for leaderboard positions, the WikiCup awards other prizes; for instance, last year, a prize was awarded to Candlewicke ( submissions) (who has been eliminated) for his work on In The News. For this reason, working on more unusual content could be even more rewarding than usual!

Sorry this newsletter is going out a little earlier than expected- there is a busy weekend coming up! A running total of claims can be seen here. 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 GAC, 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 are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 19:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply

We're half way through round 3 of the 2011 WikiCup. There are currently 32 remaining in the competition, but only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. Casliber ( submissions), of pool D, is our overall leader with nearly 200 points, while pools A, B and C are led by Racepacket ( submissions), Hurricanehink ( submissions) and Canada Hky ( submissions) respectively. The score required to reach the next round is 35, though this will no doubt go up significantly as the round progresses. We have a good number of high scorers, but also a considerable number who are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. Also, an important note concerning nominations at featured article candidates: if you are nominating content for which you intend to claim WikiCup points, please make this clear in the nomination statement so that the FAC director and his delegates are aware of the fact.

A running total of claims can be seen here. 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 GAC, 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 are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply

We are half way through 2011, and entering the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; the semi-finals are upon us! Points scored in the interim (29/30 June) may be counted towards next round, but please do not update your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. 16 contestants remain, and all have shown dedication to the project to reach this far. Our round leader was Casliber ( submissions) who, among other things, successfully passed three articles through featured article candidates and claimed an impressive 29 articles at Did You Know, scoring 555 points. Casliber led pool D. Pool A was led by Wizardman ( submissions), claiming points for a featured article, a featured list and seven good article reviews, while pool C was led by Eisfbnore ( submissions), who claimed for two good articles, ten articles at Did You Know and four good article reviews. They scored 154 and 118 respectively. Pool B was by far our most competitive pool; six of the eight competitors made it through to round 4, with all of them scoring over 100 points. The pool was led by Hurricanehink ( submissions), who claimed for, among other things, three featured articles and five good articles. In addition to the four pool leaders, 12 others (the four second places, and the 8 next highest overall) make up our final 16. The lowest scorer who reached round 4 scored 76 points; a significant increase on the 41 needed to reach round 3. Eight of our semi-finalists scored at least twice as much as this.

No points were awarded this round for featured pictures, good topics or In the News, and no points have been awarded in the whole competition for featured topics, featured portals or featured sounds. Instead, the highest percentage of points has come from good articles. Featured articles, despite their high point cost, are low in number, and so, overall, share a comparable number of points with Did You Know, which are high in number but low in cost. A comparatively small but still considerable number of points come from featured lists and good article reviews, rounding out this round's overall scores.

We would again like to thank Jarry1250 ( submissions) and Stone ( submissions) for invaluable background work, as well as all of those helping to provide reviews for the articles listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Please do keep using it, and please do help by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup.

Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here, for those interested, though it appears that neither are completely accurate at this time. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Murder on a Horse Trail 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/Murder on a Horse Trail until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 02:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:MurderOnAHorseTrail cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 07:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi I have nominated 2011 Kosovo–Serbia border clashes for ITN. Please join the discussion.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 13:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC) reply

We are half way through the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; there is less than a month to go before we have our final 8. Our pool leaders are Adabow ( submissions) (Pool A, 189 points) and PresN ( submissions) (Pool B, 165 points). The number of points required to reach the next round is not clear at this time; there are some users who still do not have any recorded points. Please remember to update your submissions' pages promptly. In addition, congratulations to PresN, who scored the first featured topic points in the competition for his work on Thatgamecompany related articles. Most points this round generally have, so far, come from good articles, with only one featured article ( White-bellied Sea Eagle, from Casliber ( submissions)) and two featured lists ( Hugo Award for Best Graphic Story, from PresN and Grammy Award for Best Native American Music Album, from Another Believer ( submissions)). Points for Did You Know and good article reviews round out the scoring. No points have been awarded for In the News, good topics or featured pictures this round, and no points for featured sounds or portals have been awarded in the entire competition. On an unrelated note, preparation will be beginning soon for next year's WikiCup- watch this space!

There is little else to be said beyond the usual. Please list anything you need reviewing on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, so others following the WikiCup can help, and please do help if you can by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup- points are, of course, offered for reviews at GAC. Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 11:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC) reply

		A beer on me!
		Here's a beer for your fine efforts on improving Wikipedia! Cheers! -- BabbaQ ( talk) 11:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply

The article Hyland Edgar Driver has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable organisation.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Christopher Connor ( talk) 09:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC) reply

A tag has been placed on Hyland Edgar Driver requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about it should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you can assert the notability of the subject, . Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the article's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

See the guidelines for specific types of articles: biographies, websites, bands, or companies. 88.104.39.209 ( talk) 13:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Based on your contributions at Talk:Jared_Lee_Loughner/Archive_2#Fair_use_status_of_Pima_County_photo, you may be interested in commenting at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_August_29#File:Jared Loughner sheriff's office.jpg. Thanks, Calliopejen1 ( talk) 21:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply

The finals are upon us; we're down to the last few. One of the eight remaining contestants will be this year's WikiCup champion! 150 was the score needed to progress to the final; just under double the 76 required to reach round 4, and more than triple the 41 required to reach round 3. Our eight finalists are:

• Casliber ( submissions), Pool A's winner. Casliber has the highest total score in the competition, with 1528, the bulk of which is made up of 8 featured articles. He has the highest number of total featured articles (8, 1 of which was eligible for double points) and total did you knows (72) of any finalist. Casliber writes mostly on biology, including ornithology, botany and mycology.
• PresN ( submissions), Pool B's winner and the highest scorer this round. PresN is the only finalist who has scored featured topic points, and he has gathered an impressive 330, but most of his points come from his 4 featured articles, one of which scored double. PresN writes mostly on video games and the Hugo Awards.
• Hurricanehink ( submissions), Pool A's runner-up. Hurricanehink's points are mostly from his 30 good articles, more than any other finalist, and he is also the only finalist to score good topic points. Hurricanehink, as his name suggests, writes mostly on meteorology.
• Wizardman ( submissions), Pool B's runner-up. Wizardman has completed 86 good article reviews, more than any other finalist, but most of his points come from his 2 featured articles. Wizardman writes mostly on American sport, especially baseball.
• Miyagawa ( submissions), the "fastest loser" (Pool A). Miyagawa has written 3 featured lists, one of which was awarded double points, more than any other finalist, but he was awarded points mostly for his 68 did you knows. Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, including dogs, military history and sport.
• Resolute ( submissions), the second "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Resolute's points come from his 9 good articles. He writes mostly on Canadian topics, including ice hockey.
• Yellow Evan ( submissions), who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool A). Most of Evan's points come from his 10 good articles, and he writes mostly on meteorology.
• Sp33dyphil ( submissions), who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Phil's points come from his 9 good articles, 4 of which (more than any other finalist) were eligible for double points. He writes mostly on aeronautics.

We say goodbye to our seven other semi-finalists, Another Believer ( submissions), Piotrus ( submissions), Grandiose ( submissions), Stone ( submissions), Eisfbnore ( submissions), Canada Hky ( submissions) and MuZemike ( submissions). Everyone still in the competition at this stage has done fantastically well, and contributed greatly to Wikipedia. We're on the home straight now, and we will know our winner in two months.

In other news, preparations for next year's competition have begun with a brainstorming thread. Please, feel free to drop by and share any thoughts you have about how the competition should work next year. Sign ups are not yet open, but will be opened in due course. Watch this space. Further, there has been a discussion about the rule whereby those in the WikiCup must delcare their participation when nominating articles at featured article candidates. This has resulted in a bot being created by new featured article delegate Ucucha ( talk · contribs). The bot will leave a message on FAC pages if the nominator is a participant in the WikiCup.

A reminder of the rules: any points scored after August 29 may be claimed for the final round, and please remember to update submission pages promptly. If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, 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 are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC) reply

We are on this year's home straight, with less than a month to go until the winner of the 2011 WikiCup will be decided. The fight for first place is currently being contested by Miyagawa ( submissions), Hurricanehink ( submissions) and Sp33dyphil ( submissions), all of whom have over 200 points. This round has already seen multiple featured articles ( 1991 Atlantic hurricane season from Hurricanehink and Northrop YF-23 from Sp33dyphil) and a double-scoring featured list (Miyagawa's 1948 Summer Olympics medal table). The scores will likely increase far further before the end of the round on October 31 as everyone ups their pace. There is not much more to say- thoughts about next year's competition are welcome on the WikiCup talk page or the scoring talk page, and signups will open once a few things have been sorted out.

If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, 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 are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 12:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC) reply

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello KimChee! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

The 2011 WikiCup is now over, and our new champion is Hurricanehink ( submissions), who joins the exclusive club of the previous winners: Dreamafter (2007), jj137 (2008), Durova (2009) and Sturmvogel_66 (2010). The final standings were as follows:

1. Hurricanehink ( submissions)
2. Sp33dyphil ( submissions)
3. Yellow Evan ( submissions)
4. Miyagawa ( submissions)
5. Wizardman ( submissions)
6. Casliber ( submissions)
7. Resolute ( submissions)
8. PresN ( submissions)

Prizes for first, second, third and fourth will be awarded, as will prizes for all those who reached the final eight. Every participant who scored in the competition will receive a ribbon of participation. In addition to the prizes based on placement, the following special prizes will be awarded based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, the prize is awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round.

• The Featured Article Award: Casliber ( submissions), for his performance in round 2. Hurricanehink ( submissions) matched the score, but Casliber won the tiebreaker.
• The Good Article Award: Yellow Evan ( submissions), for his performance in round 4.
• The Featured List Award: Miyagawa ( submissions), for his performance in round 4. PresN ( submissions) matched the score, but Miyagawa won the tiebreaker.
• The Recognised Topic Award (for good and featured topics): PresN ( submissions), for his performance in round 3.
• The Did You Know Award: The Bushranger ( submissions), for his performance in round 1.
• The In the News Award: Candlewicke ( submissions), for his performance in round 1.
• The Reviewer Award (for good article reviews): Wizardman ( submissions), for his performance in round 3.

No prize was awarded for featured pictures, sounds or portals, as none were claimed throughout the competition. The awards will be handed out over the next few days. Congratulations to all our participants, and especially our winners; we've all had fun, and Wikipedia has benefitted massively from our content work.

Preparation for next year's WikiCup is ongoing. Interested parties are invited to sign up and participate in our straw polls. It's been a pleasure to work with you all this year, and, whoever's taking part in and running the competition in 2012, we hope to see you all in January! J Milburn and The ed17 00:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC) reply

It was good to have you on board this time around- we hope you enjoyed the competition! In case you are interested, signups for next year are open. Thanks, J Milburn and The ed17 20:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC) reply

I am new to this and I have been told to submit references. Natassia whos real name is Dominique asked to to write this page for her. If I send you her contact info is that verification? Or can I submit something from her stating she asked me to do tjis? Write this page for her? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rit56 ( talk • contribs) 17:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Hello, I responded on your talk page. KimChee ( talk) 13:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC) reply

I have userfied the page for you to User:KimChee/Hyland Edgar Driver where you can work on it. The reference you gave is probably enough to get it past the WP:CSD#A7 threshold, but if it is to be kept you will need more to establish notability - see WP:CORP, WP:42, and WP:BFAQ for advice. Regards, JohnCD ( talk) 18:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Thank you! KimChee ( talk) 21:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC) reply

On 30 November 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Stan Case, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that CNN Radio news anchor Stan Case was also a licensed attorney in the U.S. state of Georgia? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Stan Case.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady ( talk) 22:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC) 16:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC) reply

		★*★*★*★*★*★*★*★* Merry Christmas And Happy New Year 2012 *★*★*★*★*★*★*★*★
		I Wish You And Your Family A Merry Christmas And A Happy New Year 2012. May The New Year Bring Much Happiness, Prosperity, Peace, And Success In Your Life. I Am Very Happy To be Part of Wikipedia And To Have Great Friends Like You. Cheers. - -- BabbaQ ( talk) 16:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi! As you've previously expressed interest in the competition, I'm just letting you know that the 2012 WikiCup is due to start in less than 24 hours. Signups are open, and will remain so for a few weeks after the beginning of the competition. The competition itself will follow basically the same format as last year, with a few small tweaks to point costs to reflect the opinions of the community. If you're interested in taking part, you're more than welcome, and if you know anyone who might be, please let them know too- the more the merrier! To join, simply add your name to Wikipedia:WikiCup/2012 signups, and we will be in touch. Please feel free to direct any questions to me, or leave a note on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! You are receiving this note as you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Please feel free to add or remove yourself. EdwardsBot ( talk) 01:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi, if you find any improvements that need to be done on the Oba Chandler article, now after some expansion because of his execution please make them :) Cheers.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 15:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply

SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC) reply

WikiCup 2012 is off to a flying start. At the time of writing, we have 112 contestants; comparable to last year, but slightly fewer than 2010. Signups will remain open for another week, after which time they will be closed for this year. Our currrent far-away leader is Grapple X ( submissions), due mostly to his work on a slew of good articles about The X-Files; there remain many such articles waiting to be reviewed at good article candidates. Second place is currently held by Ruby2010 ( submissions), whose points come mostly from good articles about television episodes, although good article reviews, did you knows and an article about a baroness round out the score. In third place is Jivesh boodhun ( submissions), who has scored 200 points for his work on a single featured article, as well as points for work on others, mostly in the area of pop music. In all, nine users have 100 or more points. However, at the other end of the scale, there are still dozens of participants who are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly!

The 64 highest scoring participants will advance to round 2 in a month's time. There, they will be split into eight random groups of eight. The score needed to reach the next round is not at all clear; last year, 8 points guaranteed a place. The year before, 20.

A few participants and their work warrant a mention for achieving "firsts" in this competition.

• 12george1 ( submissions) was the first to score, with his good article review of Illinois v. McArthur.
• 12george1 ( submissions) was also the first to score points for an article, thanks to his work on Hurricane Debby (1982)- now a good article. Tropical storms have featured heavily in the Cup, and good articles currently have a relatively fast turnaround time for reviews.
• Sp33dyphil ( submissions) was the first to score points for a did you know, with Russian submarine K-114 Tula. Military history is another subject which has seen a lot of Cup activity.
• Sp33dyphil ( submissions) is also the first person to successfully claim bonus points. Terminator 2: Judgment Day is now a good article, and was eligible for bonus points because the subject was covered on more than 20 other Wikipedias at the start of the competition. It is fantastic to see bonus points being claimed so early!
• Speciate ( submissions) was the first to score points for an In the News entry, with Paedophryne amauensis. The lead image from the article was also used on the main page for a time, and it's certainly eye-catching!
• Jivesh boodhun ( submissions) was the first to score points for a featured article, and is, at the moment, the only competitor to claim for one. The article, "Halo" (Beyoncé Knowles song), was also worth double points because of its wide coverage. While this is an article that Jivesh and others have worked on for some time, it is undeniable that he has put considerable work into it this year, pushing it over the edge.

We are yet to see any featured lists, featured topics or good topics, but this is unsurprising; firstly, the nomination processes with each of these can take some time, and, secondly, it can take a considerable amount of time to work content to this level. In a similar vein, we have seen only one featured article. The requirement that content must have been worked on this year to be eligible means that we did not expect to see these at the start of the competition. No points have been claimed for featured portals or pictures, but these are not content types which are often claimed; the former has never made a big impact on the WikiCup, while the latter has not done so since 2009's competition.

A quick rules clarification before the regular notices: If you are concerned that another user is claiming points inappropriately, please contact a judge to take a look at the article. Competitors policing one another can create a bad atmosphere, and may lead to inconsistencies and mistakes. Rest assured that we, the judges, are making an effort to check submissions, but it is possible that we will miss something. On a loosely related note: If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, 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 are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi, If you have some time to check out my stub on the Murder of Jane Bashara please do.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 18:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Round 1 is already over! The 64 highest scorers have progressed to round 2. Our highest scorer was Grapple X ( submissions), again thanks mostly to a swathe of good articles on The X-Files. In second place was Tigerboy1966 ( submissions), thanks an impressive list of did you knows about racehorses. Both scored over 400 points. Following behind with over 300 points were Ruby2010 ( submissions), Cwmhiraeth ( submissions), Miyagawa ( submissions) and Casliber ( submissions). February also saw the competition's first featured list: List of colleges and universities in North Dakota, from Ruby2010 ( submissions). At the other end of the scale, 11 points was enough to secure a place in this round, and some contestants with 10 points made it into the round on a tiebreaker. This is higher than the 8 points that were needed last year, but lower than the 20 points required the year before. The number of points required to progress to round 3 will be significantly higher.

The remaining contestants have been split into 8 pools of 8, named A through H. Round two will finish in two months time on 28 April, when the two highest scorers in each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers, will progress to round 3. The pools were entirely random, so while some pools may end up being more competitive than others, this is by chance rather than design.

The judges would like to point out two quick rules reminders. First, any content promoted during the interim period (that is, on or after 27 February) is eligible for points in round 2. Second, any content worked on significantly this year is eligible for points if promoted in this round. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which would otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk • email) and The ed17 ( talk • email) 00:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply

We are over half way through the second round of this year's WikiCup and things are going well! Grapple X ( submissions), of Pool B, is our highest overall scorer thanks to his prolific writings on television and film. In second place is Pool H's Cwmhiraeth ( submissions), thanks primarily to work on biological articles, especially in marine biology and herpetology. Third place goes to Pool E's Casliber ( submissions), who also writes primarily on biology (including ornithology and botany) and has already submitted two featured articles this round. Of the 63 contestants remaining, 15 (just under a quarter) have over 100 points this round. However, 25 are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly. 32 contestants, the top two from each pool and the 16 next-highest scorers, will advance to round 3.

Congratulations to Matthewedwards ( submissions), whose impressive File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg became the competition's first featured picture. Also, congratulations to 12george1 ( submissions), who claimed good topic points, our first contestant this year to do so, for his work on Wikipedia:Featured topics/1982 Atlantic hurricane season. This leaves featured topics and featured portals as the only sources of points not yet utilised. However, as recent statistics from Miyagawa ( submissions) show, no source has yet been utilised this competition to the same extent it has been previously!

It has been observed that the backlogs at good article candidates are building up again. While the points for good article reviews will be remaining constant, any help that can be offered keeping the backlog down would be appreciated. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk • email) and The ed17 ( talk • email) 23:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Round 2 of this year's WikiCup is over, and so we are down to our final 32, in what could be called our quarter-finals. The two highest scorers from each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers overall, have entered round 3, while 30 participants have been eliminated. Pool B's Grapple X ( submissions) remains our top scorer with over 700 points; he continues to gain high numbers of points for his good articles on The X-Files, but also Millennium and other subjects. He has also gained points for a good topic, a featured list, multiple good article reviews and several did you knows. Pool E's Casliber ( submissions) was second, thanks primarily to his biology articles, with Pool H's Muboshgu ( submissions) coming in third, with an impressive 46 did you knows, mostly on the subject of baseball. Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both scored over 600 points. Pools E and H proved our most successful, with each seeing 5 members qualify for round 3, while Pools C and D were the least, with each seeing only 3 reach round 3. However, it was Pool G which saw the lowest scoring, with a little under 400 points combined; Pool H, the highest scoring group, saw over triple that score.

65 points was the lowest qualifying score for round 3; significantly higher than the 11 required to enter round 2, and also higher than the 41 required to reach round 3 last year. However, in 2010, 100 points were needed to secure a place in round 3. 16 will progress to round 4. In round 3, 150 points was the 16th highest score, though, statistically, people tend to up their game a little in later rounds. Last year, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 points were needed. Guessing how many points will be required is not easy. We still have not seen any featured portals or topics this year, but, on the subject of less common content types, a small correction needs to be made to the previous newsletter: File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg, our first featured picture, was the work of both Matthewedwards ( submissions) and Grandiose ( submissions), the latter of whom has also gone on to score with File:Map of the Battle of Guam, 1944.svg. Bonus points also continue to roll in; this round, Ealdgyth ( submissions) earned triple points for her good articles on William the Conqueror and the Middle Ages, Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both earned triple points for their work on Western Jackdaw, now a good article, Dana Boomer ( submissions) earned triple points for her work on lettuce and work by Stone ( submissions) to ready antimony for good article status earned him triple points. Jarry1250 ( submissions) managed to expand Vitus Bering far enough for a did you know, which was also worth triple points. All of these highly important topics featured on 50 or more Wikipedias at the start of the year.

An article on the WikiCup in the Wikimedia Blog, " Improving Wikipedia with friendly competition", was posted at the end of April. This may be of interest to those who are signed up to this newsletter, as well as serving as another way to draw attention to our project. Also, we would again like to thank Jarry1250 ( submissions) and Stone ( submissions), for continued help behind the scenes. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk • email) and The ed17 ( talk • email) 23:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply

We're halfway through round 3 (or the quarter finals, if you prefer) and things are running smoothly. We're seeing very high scoring; as of the time of writing, the top 16 all have over 90 points. This has already proved to be more competative than this time last year- in 2011, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 was the lowest qualifying score. People have also upped their game slightly from last round, which is to be expected as we approach the end of the competition. Leading Pool A is Cwmhiraeth ( submissions), whose points have mostly come from a large number of did you knows on marine biology. Pool B's leader, Grapple X ( submissions), is for the first time not our highest scorer at the time of newsletter publication, but his good articles on The X-Files and Millenium keep him in second place overall. Miyagawa ( submissions) leads Pool C, our quietest pool, with content in a variety of areas on a variety of topics. Pool D is led by Casliber ( submissions), our current overall leader. Nearly half of Casliber's points come from his triple-scored Western Jackdaw, which is now a featured article.

This round has seen an unusually high number of featured lists, with nearly one in five remaining participants claiming one, and one user, Muboshgu ( submissions), claiming two. Miyagawa's featured list, 1936 Summer Olympics medal table, was even awarded double points. By comparison, good article reviews seem to be playing a smaller part, and featured topics portals remain two content-types still unutilised in this competition. Other than that, there isn't much to say! Things are coming along smoothly. As ever, 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. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk • email) and The ed17 ( talk • email) 23:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Apologies for the lateness of this letter; our usual bot wasn't working. We are now entering round 4, our semi-finals, and have our final 16. A score of 243 was required to reach this round; significantly more than 2011's 76 points, and only a little behind 2010's 250 points. By comparison, last year, 150 points in round 4 secured a place in the final; in 2010, 430 were needed. Commiserations to Pool A's igordebraga ( submissions), who scored 242 points, missing out on a place in the round by a whisker. However, congratulations to Pool B's Grapple X ( submissions), whose television articles have brought him another round victory. Pool A's Cwmhiraeth ( submissions) came second overall, with an impressive list of biological did you knows, good articles and featured articles. Third overall was Pool D's Muboshgu ( submissions), with a long list of contibutions, mostly relating to baseball. Of course, with the points resetting every round, the playing field has been levelled. The most successful Pool was Pool D, which saw seven into the final round. Pool B saw four, C saw three and Pool A saw only the two round leaders.

A quick note about other competitions taking place on Wikipedia which may be of interest. There are 13 days remaining in the June-July GAN backlog elimination drive, but it is not too late to take part. August will also see the return of The Core Contest- a one month long competition first run in 2007. While the WikiCup awards points for audited content on any subject, The Core Contest about is raw article improvement, focussing heavily on the most important articles on Wikipedia. As ever, 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. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk • email) and The ed17 ( talk • email) 11:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC) reply

We're approaching the beginning of 2012's final round. Pool A sees Cwmhiraeth ( submissions) as the leader, with 300 points being awarded for the featured article Bivalvia, and Pool B sees Grapple X ( submissions) in the lead, with 10 good articles, and over 35 articles eligible for good topic points. Pool A sees Muboshgu ( submissions) in second place with a number of articles relating to baseball, while Pool B's Ruby2010 ( submissions) follows Grapple X, with a variety of contributions including the high-scoring, high-importance featured article on the 2010 film Pride & Prejudice. Ruby2010, like Grapple X, also claimed a number of good topic points; despite this, not a single point has been claimed for featured topics in the contest so far. The same is true for featured portals.

Currently, the eighth-place competitor (and so the lowest scorer who would reach the final round right now) has scored 332, more than double the 150 needed to reach the final round last year. In 2010, however, 430 was the lowest qualifying score. In this competition, we have generally seen scores closer to those in 2010 than those in 2011. Let's see what kind of benchmark we can set for future competitions! As ever, 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. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk • email) and The ed17 ( talk • email) 22:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC) reply

The final is upon us! We are down to our final 8. A massive 573 was our lowest qualifying score; this is higher than the 150 points needed last year and the 430 needed in 2010. Even in 2009, when points were acquired for mainspace edit count in addition to audited content, 417 points secured a place. That leaves this year's WikiCup, by one measure at least, our most competitive ever. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:

1. Grapple X ( submissions) once again finishes the round in first place, leading Pool B. Grapple X writes articles about television, and especially The X-Files and Millenium, with good articles making up the bulk of the score.
2. Miyagawa ( submissions) led Pool A this round. Fourth-place finalist last year, Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, and has reached the final primarily off the back of his massive number of did you knows.
3. Ruby2010 ( submissions) was second in Pool B. Ruby2010 writes primarily on television and film, and scores primarily from good articles.
4. Casliber ( submissions) finished third in Pool B. Casliber is something of a WikiCup veteran, having finished sixth in 2011 and fourth in 2010. Casliber writes on the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. Over half of Casliber's points this round were bonus points from the high-importance articles he has worked on.
5. Cwmhiraeth ( submissions) came second in Pool A. Also writing on biology, especially marine biology, Cwmhiraeth received 390 points for one featured article ( Bivalvia) and one good article ( pelican), topping up with a large number of did you knows.
6. Muboshgu ( submissions) was third in Pool A. Muboshgu writes primarily on baseball, and this round saw Muboshgu's first featured article, Derek Jeter, promoted on its fourth attempt at FAC.
7. Dana Boomer ( submissions) was fourth in Pool A. She writes on a variety of topics, including horses, but this round also saw the high-importance lettuce reach featured article status.
8. Sasata ( submissions) is another WikiCup veteran, having been a finalist in 2009 and 2010. He writes mostly on mycology.

However, we must also say goodbye to the eight who did not make the final, having fallen at the last hurdle: GreatOrangePumpkin ( submissions), Ealdgyth ( submissions), Calvin999 ( submissions), Piotrus ( submissions), Toa Nidhiki05 ( submissions), 12george1 ( submissions), The Bushranger ( submissions) and 1111tomica ( submissions). We hope to see you all next year.

On the subject of next year, a discussion has been opened here. Come and have your say about the competition, and how you'd like it to run in the future. This brainstorming will go on for some time before more focused discussions/polls are opened. As ever, 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. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk • email) and The ed17 ( talk • email) 00:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC) reply

We're over half way through the final, and so it is less than a month until we know for certain our 2012 WikiCup champion. Grapple X ( submissions) currently leads, followed by Sasata ( submissions), Cwmhiraeth ( submissions) and Casliber ( submissions). However, we have no one resembling a breakaway leader, and so the competition is a long way from over. Next month's newsletter will feature a list of our winners (who are not necessarily only the finalists) and keep your eyes open for an article on the WikiCup in a future edition of The Signpost. The leaders are already on a par with last year's winners, but a long way from the huge scores seen in 2010. That said, a repeat of the competition from 2010 seems unlikely.

It is good to see that three-quarters of our finalists have already scored bonus points this round. This shows that, contrary to criticism that the WikiCup has received in the past, the competition does not merely incentivise the writing of trivial articles; instead, our top competitors are still spending their time contributing to high-importance articles, and bringing them to a high standard. This does a great service to the encyclopedia and its readers. Thank you, and good work!

The planning for next year's WikiCup is ongoing. Some straw polls have been opened concerning the scoring, and you can now sign up for next year's competition. As ever, 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. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk • email) and The ed17 ( talk • email) J Milburn ( talk) 19:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC) reply

The 2012 WikiCup has come to a close; congratulations to Cwmhiraeth ( submissions), our 2012 champion! Cwmhiraeth joins our exclusive club of previous winners: Dreamafter (2007), jj137 (2008), Durova (2009), Sturmvogel 66 (2010) and Hurricanehink (2011). Our final standings were as follows:

1. Cwmhiraeth ( submissions)
2. Sasata ( submissions)
3. Grapple X ( submissions)
4. Casliber ( submissions)
5. Muboshgu ( submissions)
6. Miyagawa ( submissions)
7. Ruby2010 ( submissions)
8. Dana Boomer ( submissions)

Prizes for first, second, third and fourth will be awarded, as will prizes for all those who reached the final eight. Every participant who scored in the competition will receive a ribbon of participation. In addition to the prizes based on placement, the following special prizes will be awarded based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, the prize is awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round.

• The featured article award goes to Grapple X ( submissions), for four featured articles in the final round.
• The good article award also goes to Grapple X ( submissions), for 19 good articles in the second round.
• The list award goes to Muboshgu ( submissions), for three featured lists in the final round.
• The topic award goes to Grapple X ( submissions), for three good topics (with around 40 articles) in round 4.
• The did you know award goes to Cwmhiraeth ( submissions), for well over 100 DYKs in the final round.
• The news award goes to ThaddeusB ( submissions), for 10 in the news items in round 3.
• The picture award goes to Grandiose ( submissions), for two featured pictures in round 2.
• The reviewer award goes to both Ruby2010 ( submissions) (14 reviews in round 1) and Grandiose ( submissions) (14 reviews in round 3).
• Finally, for achieving an incredible bonus point total in the final round, and for bringing the top-importance article frog to featured status, a biostar has been awarded to Cwmhiraeth ( submissions).

Awards will be handed out in the coming days; please bear with us! This year's competition also saw fantastic contributions in all rounds, from newer Wikipedians contributing their first good or featured articles, right up to highly experienced Wikipedians chasing high scores and contributing to topics outside of their usual comfort zones. It would be impossible to name all of the participants who have achieved things to be proud of, but well done to all of you, and thanks! Wikipedia has certainly benefited from the work of this year's WikiCup participants.

Next year's WikiCup will begin in January. Currently, discussions and polls are open, and all contributions are welcome. You can also sign up for next year's competition. There will be no further newsletters this year, although brief notes may be sent out in December to remind everyone about the upcoming competition. It's been a pleasure to work with you all, and we hope to see you all in January! J Milburn ( talk • email) and The ed17 ( talk • email) 00:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi there; you're receiving this message because you have previously shown interest in the WikiCup. This is just to remind you that the 2013 WikiCup will be starting on 1 January, and that signups will remain open throughout January. Old and new Wikipedians and WikiCup participants are warmly invited to take part in this year's competition. (Though, as a note to the more experienced participants, there have been a few small rules changes in the last few months.) If you have already signed up, let this be a reminder; you will receive a message with your submissions' page soon. Please direct any questions to the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! J Milburn 19:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Signups are now closed; we have our final 127 contestants for this year's competition. 64 contestants will make it to the next round at the end of February, but we're already seeing strong scoring compared to previous years. Sturmvogel_66 ( submissions) currently leads, with 358 points. At this stage in 2012, the leader ( Grapple X ( submissions)) had 342 points, while in 2011, the leader had 228 points. We also have a large number of scorers when compared with this stage in previous years. 12george1 ( submissions) was the first competitor to score this year, as he was last year, with a detailed good article review. Some other firsts:

• 12george1 ( submissions) was also the first to score for an article, with the good article Hurricane Gordon (2000). Again, this is a repeat of last year!
• Buggie111 ( submissions) was the first to score for a did you know, with Marquis Flowers.
• Spencer ( submissions) was the first to score for an in the news, with 2013 Houphouët-Boigny stampede.
• Status ( submissions) was the first to score for a featured list, with list of Billboard Social 50 number-one artists.
• Adam Cuerden ( submissions) was the first to score for a featured picture, with File:Thure de Thulstrup - L. Prang and Co. - Battle of Gettysburg - Restoration by Adam Cuerden.jpg.

Featured articles, portals and topics, as well as good topics, are yet to feature in the competition.

This year, the bonus points system has been reworked, with bonus points on offer for old articles prepared for did you know, and "multiplier" points reworked to become more linear. For details, please see Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. There have been some teething problems as the bot has worked its way around the new system, but issues should mostly be ironed out- please report any problems to the WikiCup talk page. Here are some participants worthy of note with regards to the bonus points:

• Ed! ( submissions) was the first to score bonus points, with Portland-class cruiser, a good article.
• Hawkeye7 ( submissions) has the highest overall bonus points, as well as the highest scoring article, thanks to his work on Enrico Fermi, now a good article. The biography of such a significant figure to the history of science warrants nearly five times the normal score.
• HueSatLum ( submissions) claimed bonus points for René Vautier and Nicolas de Fer, articles that did not exist on the English Wikipedia at the start of the year; a first for the WikiCup. The articles were eligible for bonus points because of fact they were both covered on a number of other Wikipedias.

Also, a quick mention of The C of E ( submissions), who may well have already written the oddest article of the WikiCup this year: did you know that the Fucking mayor objected to Fucking Hell on the grounds that there was no Fucking brewery? The gauntlet has been thrown down; can anyone beat it?

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. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk • email) and The ed17 ( talk • email) 00:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC) reply

Round 1 is now over. The top 64 scorers have progressed to round 2, where they have been randomly split into eight pools of eight. At the end of April, the top two from each pool, as well as the 16 highest scorers from those remaining, will progress to round 3. Commiserations to those eliminated; if you're interested in still being involved in the WikiCup, able and willing reviewers will always be needed, and if you're interested in getting involved with other collaborative projects, take a look at the WikiWomen's Month discussed below.

Round 1 saw 21 competitors with over 100 points, which is fantastic; that suggests that this year's competition is going to be highly competative. Our lower scores indicate this, too: A score of 19 was required to reach round 2, which was significantly higher than the 11 points required in 2012 and 8 points required in 2011. The score needed to reach round 3 will be higher, and may depend on pool groupings. In 2011, 41 points secured a round 3 place, while in 2012, 65 was needed. Our top three scorers in round 1 were:

1. Sturmvogel_66 ( submissions), primarily for an array of warship GAs.
2. Miyagawa ( submissions), primarily for an array of did you knows and good articles, some of which were awarded bonus points.
3. Casliber ( submissions), due in no small part to Canis Minor, a featured article awarded a total of 340 points. A joint submission with Keilana ( submissions), this is the highest scoring single article yet submitted in this year's competition.

Other contributors of note include:

• Sven Manguard ( submissions), whose Portal:Massachusetts is the first featured portal this year. The featured portal process is one of the less well-known featured processes, and featured portals have traditionally had little impact on WikiCup scores.
• Sasata ( submissions), whose Mycena aurantiomarginata was the first featured article this year.
• Muboshgu ( submissions) and Wizardman ( submissions), who both claimed points for articles in the Major League Baseball tie-breakers topic, the first topic points in the competition.
• Toa Nidhiki05 ( submissions), who claimed for the first full good topic with the Casting Crowns studio albums topic.

Featured topics have still played no part in this year's competition, but once again, a curious contribution has been offered by The C of E ( submissions): did you know that there is a Shit Brook in Shropshire? With April Fools' Day during the next round, there will probably be a good chance of more unusual articles...

March sees the WikiWomen's History Month, a series of collaborative efforts to aid the women's history WikiProject to coincide with Women's History Month and International Women's Day. A number of WikiCup participants have already started to take part. The project has a to-do list of articles needing work on the topic of women's history. Those interested in helping out with the project can find articles in need of attention there, or, alternatively, add articles to the list. Those interested in collaborating on articles on women's history are also welcome to use the WikiCup talk page to find others willing to lend a helping hand. Another collaboration currently running is an an effort from WikiCup participants to coordinate a number of Easter-themed did you know articles. Contributions are welcome!

A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. 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. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk • email) and The ed17 ( talk • email) J Milburn ( talk) 11:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC) reply

We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's Sturmvogel_66 ( submissions) (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate Miyagawa ( submissions) (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's Casliber ( submissions) (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr ( Hawkeye7 ( submissions)), on the European hare ( Cwmhiraeth ( submissions)), on the constellation Circinus ( Keilana ( submissions) and Casliber ( submissions)) and on the Third Epistle of John ( Cerebellum ( submissions)). All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. 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. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk • email) and The ed17 ( talk • email) J Milburn ( talk) 22:32, 31 March 2013 (UTC) reply

We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with Sven Manguard ( submissions) claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and Cwmhiraeth ( submissions) claiming for a did you know of sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place Casliber ( submissions) and second place Sturmvogel_66 ( submissions) both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.

The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.

A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. 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. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk • email) and The ed17 ( talk • email) 15:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

We are down to our final 16: the 2013 semi-finals are upon us. A score of 321 was required to survive round 3, further cementing this as the most competitive WikiCup yet; round 3 was survived in 2012 with 243 points, in 2011 with 76 points and in 2010 with 250 points. The change may in part be to do with the fact that more articles are now awarded bonus points, in addition to more competitive play. Reaching the final has, in the past, required 573 points (2012, a 135% increase on the score needed to reach round 4), 150 points (2011, a 97% increase) and 417 points (2010, a 72% increase). This round has seen over a third of participants claiming points for featured articles (with seven users claiming for multiple featured articles) and most users have also gained bonus points. However, the majority of points continue to come from good articles, followed by did you know articles. In this round, every content type was utilised by at least one user, proving that the WikiCup brings together content contributors from all corners of the project.

Round 3 saw a number of contributions of note. Figureskatingfan ( submissions) claimed the first featured topic points in this year's competition for her excellent work on topics related to Maya Angelou, the noted American author and poet. We have also continued to see high-importance articles improved as part of the competition: Ealdgyth ( submissions) was awarded a thoroughly well-earned 560 points for her featured article Middle Ages and 102 points for her good article Battle of Hastings. Good articles James Chadwick and Stanislaw Ulam netted Hawkeye7 ( submissions) 102 and 72 points respectively, while 72 points were awarded to Piotrus ( submissions) for each of Władysław Sikorski and Emilia Plater, both recently promoted to good article status. Collaborative efforts between WikiCup participants have continued, with, for example, Casliber ( submissions) and Sasata ( submissions) being awarded 180 points each for their featured article on Boletus luridus.

A rules reminder: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on the 29/30 June, which may be claimed in this round. 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. We are currently seeing concern about the amount of time people have to wait for reviews, especially at GAC- if you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk • email) and The ed17 ( talk • email) 10:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC) reply

We're halfway through this year's penultimate round, and the competition is moving along well. Pool A's Sasata ( submissions) currently leads overall, while Pool B's Sturmvogel_66 ( submissions) is second. Both leaders are WikiCup veterans, and both have already scored over 600 points this month. If the round were to end today, Miyagawa ( submissions), with 274 points, would be the lowest-scoring participant to make it through. This indicates that participants will need a score comparable to last year's (573, the highest ever) to qualify for the final. The high scores this year are a testament both to the quality of participants and to the increased focus on significant content (eligible for bonus points) in this year's competition. So far this round, both Sasata and Cwmhiraeth ( submissions) have made up over half of their score through bonus points, with, for example, high importance FA koala earning Sasata a total of 440 points (from a multiplier of 4.4) and high-importance GA sea earning Cwmhiraeth a total of 216 points (from a multiplier of 7.2). Other articles on important topics submitted this round include a featured article on the Norman conquest of England by Ealdgyth ( submissions), and good articles on Nobel laureate in literature Henryk Sienkiewicz, Nobel laureate in physics Hans Bethe, and the noted Japanese aircraft carrier Hiryū. These articles are by Piotrus ( submissions), Hawkeye7 ( submissions) and Sturmvogel_66 respectively.

Other than that, there is not much to report! 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 reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk • email) and The ed17 ( talk • email) 23:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC) reply

This year's final is upon us. Our final eight, in order of last round's score, are:

1. Hawkeye7 ( submissions), a WikiCup newcomer who has contributed on topics of military history and physics, including a number of high-importance topics. Good articles have made up the bulk of his points, but he has also scored a great deal of bonus points. He has the second highest score overall so far, with more than 3000 points accumulated.
2. Casliber ( submissions), another WikiCup veteran who reached the finals in 2012, 2011 and 2010. He writes on a variety of topics including botany, mycology and astronomy, and has claimed the highest or joint highest number of featured articles every round so far this year. He has the third highest score overall, with just under 3000 points accumulated.
3. Cwmhiraeth ( submissions), 2012 WikiCup champion, who writes mostly on marine biology. She has also contributed to high-importance topics, seeing huge numbers of bonus points for high-importance featured and good articles. Previous rounds have seen her scoring the most bonus points, with scoring spread across did you knows, good articles and featured articles.
4. Sasata ( submissions), a WikiCup veteran who finished in second place in 2012, and competed as early as 2009. He writes articles on biology, especially mycology, and has scored highly for a number of collaborations at featured article candidates.
5. Sturmvogel_66 ( submissions), the winner of the 2010 competition. His contributions mostly concern Naval history, and he has scored a very large number of points for good articles and good article reviews in every round. He is the highest scorer overall this year, with over 3500 points in total.
6. Ealdgyth ( submissions), who is competing in the WikiCup for the second time, though this will be her first time in the final. A regular at FAC, she is mostly interested in British medieval history, and has scored very highly for some top-importance featured articles on the topic.
7. Miyagawa ( submissions), a finalist in 2012 and 2011. He writes on a broad variety of topics, with many of this year's points coming from good articles about Star Trek. Good articles make up the bulk of his points, and he had the most good articles back in round 2; he was also the highest scorer for DYK in rounds 1 and 2.
8. Adam Cuerden ( submissions) has previously been involved with the WikiCup, but hasn't participated for a number of years. He scores mostly from restoration work leading to featured picture credits, but has also done some article writing and reviewing.

We say goodbye to eight great participants who did not qualify for the final: Piotrus ( submissions), Figureskatingfan ( submissions), ThaddeusB ( submissions), Dana boomer ( submissions), Status ( submissions), Ed! ( submissions), 12george1 ( submissions), Calvin999 ( submissions). Having made it to this stage is still an excellent achievement, and you can leave with your heads held high. We hope to see you all again next year. Signups are now open for the 2014 WikiCup, which will begin on 1 January. All Wikipedians, whatever their interest or level of experience, are warmly invited to participate in next year's competition.

This last month has seen some incredible contributions; for instance, Cwmhiraeth's Starfish and Ealdgyth's Battle of Hastings—two highly important, highly viewed pages—made it to featured article status. It would be all too easy to focus solely on these stunning achievements at the expense of those participants working in lower-scoring areas, when in fact all WikiCup participants are doing excellent work. A mention of everything done is impossible, but here are a few: Last round saw the completion of several good topics (on the 1958, 1959 and 1962 Atlantic hurricane seasons) to which 12george1 had contributed. Calvin999 saw "S&M" (song), on which he has been working for several years, through to featured article status on its tenth try. Figureskatingfan continued towards her goal of a broad featured/good topic on Maya Angelou, with two featured and four good articles. ThaddeusB contributed significantly to over 20 articles which appeared on the main page's "in the news" section. Adam Cuerden continued to restore a large number of historical images, resulting in over a dozen FP credits this round alone. The WikiCup is not just about top-importance featured articles, and the work of all of these users is worthy of commendation.

Finally, the usual notices: 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 reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk • email) and The ed17 ( talk • email) 05:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC) reply

In 30 days, we will know the identity of our 2013 WikiCup champion. Cwmhiraeth ( submissions) currently leads; if that lead is held, she will become the first person to have won the WikiCup twice. Sasata ( submissions), Hawkeye7 ( submissions)—who has never participated in the competition before—and Casliber ( submissions) follow. The majority of points in this round have come from a mix of good articles and bonus points. This final round is seeing contributions to a number of highly important topics; recent submissions include Phoenix (constellation) (FA by Casliber), Ernest Lawrence (GA by Hawkeye7), Pinniped, and red fox (both GAs by Sasata).

The did you know (DYK) eligibility criteria have recently changed, meaning that newly passed good articles are accepted as "new" for did you know purposes. However, in the interests of not changing the WikiCup rules mid-competition, please note that only articles eligible for DYK under the old system (that is, newly created articles or 5x expansions) will be eligible for points in this year's WikiCup. We do, however, have time to discuss how this new system will work for next year's competition; a discussion will be opened in due course. On that note, thoughts are welcome on changes you'd like to see for next year. What worked? What didn't work? What would you like to see more of? What would you like to see less of? All Wikipedians, new or old, are also warmly invited to sign up for the 2014 WikiCup.

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 reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk • email) and The ed17 ( talk • email) 23:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC) reply

The WikiCup is over for another year! Our champion, for the second year running, is Cwmhiraeth ( submissions). Our final nine were as follows:

1. Cwmhiraeth ( submissions)
2. Hawkeye7 ( submissions)
3. Sasata ( submissions)
4. Sturmvogel_66 ( submissions)
5. Casliber ( submissions)
6. Adam Cuerden ( submissions)
7. Miyagawa ( submissions)
8. Piotrus ( submissions)
9. Ealdgyth ( submissions)

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

• Casliber ( submissions) wins the FA prize, for four featured articles in round 4, worth 400 points.
• Sturmvogel_66 ( submissions) wins the GA prize, for 20 good articles in round 3, worth 600 points.
• Another Believer ( submissions) wins the FL prize, for four featured lists in round 2, worth 180 points.
• Adam Cuerden ( submissions) wins the FP prize, for 23 featured pictures in round 5, worth 805 point.
• Sven Manguard ( submissions) wins the FPo prize, for 2 featured portals in round 3, worth 70 points.
• Hawkeye7 ( submissions) wins the topic prize, for a 23-article featured topic in round 5, worth 230 points.
• Cwmhiraeth ( submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 79 did you know articles in round 5, worth 570 points.
• ThaddeusB ( submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 23 in the news articles in round 4, worth 270 points.
• Ed! ( submissions) wins the GAR prize, for 24 good article reviews in round 1, worth 96 points.
• The judges are awarding the Oddball Barnstar to The C of E ( submissions), for some curious contributions in earlier rounds.
• Finally, the judges are awarding Cwmhiraeth ( submissions) the Geography Barnstar for her work on sea, now a featured article. This top-importance article was the highest-scoring this year; when it was promoted to FA status, Cwmhiraeth could claim 720 points.

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

Congratulations to everyone who has been successful in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and a particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition. While it has been an excellent year, errors have opened up the judges' eyes to the need for a third judge, and it is with pleasure that we announce that experienced WikiCup participant Miyagawa will be acting as a judge from now on. We hope you will all join us in welcoming him to the team.

Next year's competition begins on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; it is open to all Wikipedians, new and old. Brainstorming and discussion remains open for how next year's competition will work, and straw polls will be opened by the judges soon. Those interested in friendly competition may also like to keep an eye on the stub contest, being organised by Casliber. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2014 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk • email) and The ed17 ( talk • email) 00:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

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

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk • email), The ed17 ( talk • email) and Miyagawa ( talk • email) 19:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC) reply

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

1. Godot13 ( submissions), a WikiCup newcomer whose high-quality scans of rare banknotes represent an unusual, interesting and valuable contribution to Wikipedia. Most of Godot's points this round have come from a large set of pictures used in Treasury Note (1890–91).
2. Adam Cuerden ( submissions), a WikiCup veteran and a finalist last year, Adam is also a featured picture specialist, focusing on the restoration of historical images. This month's promotions have included a carefully restored set of artist William Russell Flint's work.
3. WikiRedactor ( submissions), another WikiCup newcomer. WikiRedactor has claimed points for good article reviews and good articles relating to pop music, many of which were awarded bonus points. Articles include Sky Ferreira, Hannah Montana 2: Meet Miley Cyrus and "Wrecking Ball" (Miley Cyrus song).

Other competitors of note include:

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

After such a competitive first round, expect the second round to also be fiercely fought. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2, but please do not update your submission page until March (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk • email), The ed17 ( talk • email) and Miyagawa ( talk • email) 00:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC) reply

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

With 26 people having already scored over 100 points, it is likely that well over 100 points will be needed to secure a place in round 3. Recent years have required 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) and 100 (2010). Remember that only 64 will progress to round 3 at the end of April. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page; if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk • email), The ed17 ( talk • email) and Miyagawa ( talk • email) 22:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Round 3 of the 2014 WikiCup has just begun; 32 competitors remain. Pool G's Adam Cuerden ( submissions) was Round 2's highest scorer, with a large number of featured picture credits. In March/April, he restored star charts from Urania's Mirror, lithographs of various warships (such as SMS Gefion) and assorted other historical media. Second overall was Pool E's Godot13 ( submissions), whose featured list Silver certificate (United States) contains dozens of scans of banknotes recently promoted to featured picture status. Third was Pool G's ChrisGualtieri ( submissions) who has produced a large number of good articles, many, including Falkner Island, on Connecticut-related topics. Other successful participants included Cliftonian ( submissions), who saw three articles (including the top-importance Ian Smith) through featured article candidacies, and Caponer ( submissions), who saw three lists (including the beautifully-illustrated list of plantations in West Virginia) through featured list candidacies. High-importance good articles promoted this round include narwhal from Reid,iain james ( submissions), tiger from Cwmhiraeth ( submissions) and The Lion King from Igordebraga ( submissions). We also saw our first featured topic points of the competition, awarded to Czar ( submissions) and Red Phoenix ( submissions) for their work on the Sega Genesis topic. No points have been claimed so far for good topics or featured portals.

192 was our lowest qualifying score, again showing that this WikiCup is the most competitive ever. In previous years, 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) or 100 (2010) secured a place in Round 3. Pool H was the strongest performer, with all but one of its members advancing, while only the two highest scorers in Pools G and F advanced. At the end of June, 16 users will advance into the semi-finals. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk • email), The ed17 ( talk • email) and Miyagawa ( talk • email) 17:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC) reply

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

The round saw this year's first featured portal, with Sven Manguard ( submissions) taking Portal:Literature to featured status. The round also saw the first good topic points, thanks to 12george1 ( submissions) and the 2013 Atlantic hurricane season. This means that all content types have been claimed this year. Other contributions of note this round include a featured topic on Maya Angelou's autobiographies from Figureskatingfan ( submissions), a good article on the noted Czech footballer Tomáš Rosický from Cloudz679 ( submissions) and a now-featured video game screenshot, freely released due to the efforts of Sven Manguard ( submissions).

The judges would like to remind participants to update submission pages promptly. This means that content can be checked, and allows those following the competition (including those participating) to keep track of scores effectively. This round has seen discussion about various aspects of the WikiCup's rules and procedures. Those interested in the competition can be assured that formal discussions about how next year's competition will work will be opened shortly, and all are welcome to voice their views then. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk · contribs) The ed17 ( talk · contribs) and Miyagawa ( talk · contribs) 18:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

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

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

In one month's time, we will know our WikiCup 2014 champion. Newcomer Godot13 ( submissions) has taken a strong lead with a featured list ( historical coats of arms of the U.S. states from 1876) and a raft of featured pictures. Reigning champion Cwmhiraeth ( submissions) is in second place with a number of high-importance biology articles, including new FA Isopoda and new GA least weasel. Casliber ( submissions), who is in his fifth WikiCup final, is in third, with featured articles Pictor and Epacris impressa.

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

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

A full list of our prize-winners follows:

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

Congratulations to everyone who has been successful in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and a particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have participated this year. We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, and all are welcome to participate. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2014 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk · contribs) The ed17 ( talk · contribs) and Miyagawa ( talk · contribs) 22:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

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

Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round, and one of the new changes this year is that all scores must be claimed within two weeks of an article's promotion or appearance, so don't forget to add them to your submissions pages! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on 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 are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! Figureskatingfan ( talk · contribs), Miyagawa ( talk · contribs) and Sturmvogel 66 ( talk · contribs)
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 20:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC) reply

That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. 64 competitors made it into this round, and are now broken into eight groups of eight. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups. Round 1 saw some interesting work on some very important articles, with the round leader Freikorp ( submissions) owing most of his 622 points scored to a Featured Article on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, as Godot13 ( submissions) had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge, Sturmvogel_66 ( submissions) led round 1 with 601 points in 2013.

In addition to Freikorp's work, some other important articles and pictures were improved during round one, here's a snapshot of a few of them:

• Cwmhiraeth ( submissions) took Bumblebee, a level-4 vital article, to Good Article;
• AHeneen ( submissions) worked-up the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 article, also to Good Article status;
• Rodw ( submissions) developed an extremely timely article to Good Article, taking Magna Carta there some 800 years after it was first sealed;
• And last but not least, Godot13 ( submissions) ( FP bonus points) worked up a number of Featured Pictures during round 1, including the 1948 one Deutsche Mark (pictured right), receiving the maximum bonus due to the number of Wikis that the related article appears in.

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

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Figureskatingfan ( talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa ( talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 ( talk · contribs · email)

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

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

Five years ago, you were recipient no. 1147 of Precious, a prize of QAI! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

The points varied across groups, with the lowest score required to gain automatic qualification was 68 in Group A - meanwhile the second place score in Group H was 404, which would have been high enough to win all but one of the other Groups! As well as the top two of each group automatically going through to the third round, a minimum score of 55 was required for a wildcard competitor to go through. We had a three-way tie at 55 points and all three have qualified for the next round, in the spirit of fairness. The third round ends on June 28, with the top two in each group progressing automatically while the remaining 16 highest scorers across all four groups go through as wildcards. Good luck to all competitors for the third round! Figureskatingfan ( talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa ( talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 ( talk · contribs · email) 16:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A full list of our award winners are:

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

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

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

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

-- BabbaQ ( talk) 13:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

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

Hi man :) I'm translating the page of Joanna Yeates murder from English into italian, and I would know if I can use your image. Since the fair use means that a photo can be used only in the en.wiki, but this time I saw that I can ask to use it to the original uploader :) DylanDogLondon ( talk).-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 09:20, 05 February 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Thanks to everyone for participating, and good luck to those moving into round 2. Sturmvogel 66 ( talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan ( talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 ( talk · contribs · email) -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Thanks to everyone for participating, and good luck to those moving into round 2. Sturmvogel 66 ( talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan ( talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 ( talk · contribs · email) -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 03:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC) reply

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

• First Place - Cas Liber ( submissions)
• Second Place - MPJ-DK ( submissions)
• Third Place - Adam Cuerden ( submissions)

In addition to recognizing the achievements of the top finishers and everyone who worked hard to make it to the final round, we also want to recognize those participants who were most productive in each of the WikiCup scoring categories:

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

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

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

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

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

On 1 January 2017, WikiCup 2017 (the 10th Annual WikiCup) will begin. This year we are trying something a little different – monetary prizes.

For the WC2017 the prizes will be as follows (amounts are based in US$ and will be awarded in the form of an online Amazon gift certificate):

• First place – $200
• Second & Third place – $50 each
• Category prizes – $25 per category (which will be limited to FA, FL, FP, GA, and DYK for 2017). Winning a category prize does not require making it to the final round.

Note: Monetary prizes are a one-year experiment for 2017 and may or may not be continued in the future. In order to be eligible to receive any of the prizes above, the competing Wikipedia account must have a valid/active email address.

After two years as a WikiCup judge, Figureskatingfan is stepping down. We thank her for her contributions as a WikiCup judge. We are pleased to announce that our newest judge is two-time WikiCup champion Cwmhiraeth.

The judges for the 2017 WikiCup are Godot13 ( talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth ( talk · contribs), and Sturmvogel 66 ( talk · contribs · email).

Signups are open now and will remain open until 5 February 2017. You can sign up here.

If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 20:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC) reply

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:USP Lee.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 23:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC) reply

And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. It would have been 5 points, but when a late entrant was permitted to join the contest in February, a promise was made that his inclusion would not result in the exclusion of any other competitor. To achieve this, the six entrants that had the lowest positive score of 4 points have been added to the 64 people who otherwise would have qualified. As a result, some of the groups have nine contestants rather than eight. Our top four scorers in round 1 were:

• Cas Liber, last year's winner, led the field with two featured articles on birds and a total score of 674.
• Iry-Hor, a WikiCup newcomer, came next with a featured article, a good article and a tally of 282 bonus points for a score of 517. All these points came from the article Nyuserre Ini, an Ancient Egyptian pharaoh,
• 1989, another WikiCup newcomer, was in joint third place at 240. 1989 has claimed points for two featured lists and one good article relating to anime and comedy series, all of which were awarded bonus points.
• Peacemaker67 shared third place with five good articles and thirteen good article reviews, mostly on naval vessels. He is also new to the competition.

The largest number of DYKs have been submitted by Vivvt and The C of E, who each claimed for seven, and MBlaze Lightning achieved eight articles at ITN. Carbrera and Peacemaker67 each claimed for five GAs and Krishna Chaitanya Velaga was well out in front for GARs, having reviewed 32. No featured pictures, featured topics or good topics yet, but we have achieved three featured articles and a splendid total of fifty good articles.

So, on to the second round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

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

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC) reply

The third round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 288 points being required to qualify for round 4. It was a hotly competitive round with all but four of the contestants exceeding the 106 points that was necessary to proceed to round 4 last year. Coemgenus and Freikorp tied on 288, and both have been allowed to proceed, so round 4 now has one pool of eight competitors and one of nine.

Round 3 saw the achievement of a 26-topic Featured topic by MPJ-DK as well as 5 featured lists and 13 featured articles. PanagiotisZois and SounderBruce achieved their first ever featured articles. Carbrera led the GA score with 10, Tachs achieved 17 DYKs and MBlaze Lightning 10 In the news items. There were 167 DYKs, 93 GARs and 82 GAs overall, this last figure being higher than the number of GAs in round 2, when twice as many people were taking part. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.

As we start round 4, we say goodbye to the fifteen or so competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 05:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:Overboord.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:44, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Round 4 of the WikiCup has ended and we move forward into the final round. In round 4, a total of 12 FAs, 3 FLs, 44 GAs, 3 FLs, 79 DYKs, 1 ITN and 42 GARs was achieved, with no FPs or FTs this time. Congratulations to Peacemaker67 on the Royal Yugoslav Navy Good Topic of 36 items, and the 12 featured articles achieved by Cas Liber (5), Vanamonde93 (3), Peacemaker67 (2), Adityavagarwal (1) and 12george1 (1). With a FA scoring 200 points, and bonus points available on top of this, FAs are likely to feature heavily in the final round. Meanwhile Yellow Evan, a typhoon specialist, was contributing 12 DYKs and 10 GAs, while Adityavagarwal and Freikorp topped the GAR list with 8 reviews each. As we enter the final round, we are down to eight contestants, and we would like to thank those of you who have been eliminated for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. The lowest score needed to reach round 5 was 305, and I think we can expect a highly competitive final round.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck, and let the best man (or woman) win! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 06:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:Kpa badge.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

In addition to recognizing the achievements of the top finishers and everyone who worked hard to make it to the final round, we also want to recognize those participants who were most productive in each of the WikiCup scoring categories:

• Featured Article – Cas Liber (actually a two-way tie with themselves for an astonishing five FAs in R2 and R4).
• Good Article – Adityavagarwal had 14 GAs promoted in R5.
• Featured List – Bloom6132 ( submissions) and 1989 ( submissions) both produced 2 FLs in R2
• Featured Pictures – SounderBruce ( submissions) improved an image to FP status in R5, the only FP this year.
• Featured Topic – MPJ-DK ( submissions) has the only FT of the Cup in R3.
• Good Topic – Four different editors created a GT in R2, R3 and R4.
• Did You Know – Adityavagarwal had 22 DYKs on the main page in R5.
• In The News – MBlaze Lightning ( submissions) had 14 ITN on the main page in R2.
• Good Article Review – Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( submissions) completed 31 GARs in R1.

Over the course of the 2017 WikiCup the following content was added or improved on Wikipedia: 51 Featured Articles, 292 Good Articles, 18 Featured Lists, 1 Featured Picture, 1 Featured Topics, 4 Good Topics, around 400 Did You Knows, 75 In The News, and 442 Good Article Reviews. Thank you to all the competitors for your hard work and what you have done to improve Wikipedia.

Regarding the prize vouchers - @ Adityavagarwal, Vanamonde93, Casliber, Bloom6132, 1989, and SounderBruce: please send Godot13 ( talk · contribs · email) an email from the email address to which you would like your Amazon voucher sent. Please include your preference of global Amazon marketplace as well. We hope to have the electronic gift cards processed and sent within a week.

We will open up a discussion for comments on process and scoring in a few days. The 2018 WikiCup is just around the corner! Many thanks from all the judges. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 ( talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth ( talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 ( talk · contribs · email) MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 11:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply

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

And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. With 53 contestants qualifying, the groups for round 2 are slightly smaller than usual, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining users.

Our top scorers in round 1 were:

• Aoba47 led the field with a featured article, 8 good articles and 42 GARs, giving a total of 666 points.
• FrB.TG , a WikiCup newcomer, came next with 600 points, gained from a featured article and masses of bonus points.
• Ssven2, another WikiCup newcomer, was in third place with 403 points, garnered from a featured article, a featured list, a good article and twelve GARs.
• Ceranthor, Numerounovedant, Carbrera, Farang Rak Tham and Cartoon network freak all had over 200 points, but like all the other contestants, now have to start again from scratch. A good achievement was the 193 GARs performed by WikiCup contestants, comparing very favourably with the 54 GAs they achieved.

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

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 ( talk), Sturmvogel 66 ( talk), Cwmhiraeth ( talk) and Vanamonde ( talk) 15:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC) reply

The second round of the 2018 WikiCup has now finished. Most contestants who advanced to the next round scored upwards of 100 points, but two with just 10 points managed to scrape through into round 3. Our top scorers in the last round were:

• Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with three featured articles
• Iazyges, with nine good articles and lots of bonus points
• Yashthepunisher, a first time contestant, with two featured lists
• SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with seventeen good topic articles
• Usernameunique, a first time contestant, with fourteen DYKs
• Muboshgu, a seasoned competitor, with three ITNs and
• Courcelles, another first time contestant, with twenty-seven GARs

So far contestants have achieved twelve featured articles between them and a splendid 124 good articles. Commendably, 326 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2018 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met; most of the GARs are fine, but a few have been a bit skimpy.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 ( talk), Sturmvogel 66 ( talk), Vanamonde ( talk) and Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 06:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC) reply

The third round of the 2018 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round had at least 227 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

• Courcelles, a first time contestant, with 1756 points, a tally built largely on 27 GAs related to the Olympics
• Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three GAs on natural history and astronomy topics
• SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with a variety of submissions related to transport in the state of Washington

Contestants managed 7 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 120 good articles, 1 good topic, 124 DYK entries, 15 ITN entries, and 132 good article reviews. Over the course of the competition, contestants have completed 458 GA reviews, in comparison to 244 good articles submitted for review and promoted. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process; several submissions, particularly in abstruse or technical areas, have needed additional work to make them completely verifiable.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 ( talk), Sturmvogel 66 ( talk), Cwmhiraeth ( talk), Vanamonde ( talk) 04:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC) reply

The fourth round of the 2018 WikiCup has now come to an end. The eight users who made it to the final round had to score a minimum of 422 points to qualify, with the top score in the round being 4869 points. The leaders in round 4 were:

• Courcelles scored a magnificent 4869 points, with 92 good articles on Olympics-related themes. Courcelles' bonus points alone exceeded the total score of any of the other contestants!
• Kees08 was second with 1155 points, including a high-scoring featured article for Neil Armstrong, two good topics and some Olympics-related good articles.
• Cas Liber, with 1066 points, was in third place this round, with two featured articles and a good article, all on natural history topics.
• Other contestants who qualified for the final round were Nova Crystallis, Iazyges, SounderBruce, Kosack and Ceranthor.

During round four, 6 featured articles and 164 good articles were promoted by WikiCup contestants, 13 articles were included in good topics and 143 good article reviews were performed. There were also 10 "in the news" contributions on the main page and 53 "did you knows". Congratulations to all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck, and let the best editor win! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:31, 1 September 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

• Cas Liber ( submissions) wins the FA prize, for three featured articles in round 2.
• Courcelles ( submissions) wins the GA prize, for 92 good articles in round 3.
• Kosack ( submissions) wins the FL prize, for five featured lists overall.
• Cartoon network freak ( submissions) wins the topic prize, for 30 articles in good topics overall.
• Usernameunique ( submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 24 did you know articles in round 3.
• Zanhe ( submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 17 in the news articles overall.
• Aoba47 ( submissions) wins the GAR prize, for 43 good article reviews in round 1.

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

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

Next year's competition begins on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; it is open to all Wikipedians, new and old. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2019 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 ( talk · contribs · email), Godot13 ( talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth ( talk · contribs · email) and Vanamonde93 ( talk · contribs · email).

Hello and Happy New Year!

Welcome to the 2019 WikiCup, the competition begins today. If you have already joined, your submission page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and we will set up your submissions page. One important rule to remember is that only content on which you have completed significant work during 2019, and which you have nominated this year, is eligible for points in the competition, the judges will be checking! Any questions should be directed to one of the judges, or left on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will make it to round 2. Good luck! The judges for the WikiCup are Sturmvogel 66 ( talk · contribs · email), Godot13 ( talk · contribs · email), Vanamonde93 ( talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth ( talk · contribs · email). MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 11:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC) reply

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

Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 ( talk), Sturmvogel 66 ( talk), Vanamonde ( talk) and Cwmhiraeth ( talk) MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 17:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 ( talk), Sturmvogel 66 ( talk), Vanamonde ( talk) and Cwmhiraeth ( talk). MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 20:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply

The article Korea Studies in Media Arts has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced since 2006 with no indication of notability and no sources found.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mccapra ( talk) 21:05, 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

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

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

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

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 ( talk), Sturmvogel 66 ( talk), Vanamonde ( talk) and Cwmhiraeth ( talk). MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

Our top scorers in round 2 were:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 ( talk), Sturmvogel 66 ( talk), Vanamonde ( talk), Cwmhiraeth ( talk) MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 19:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Awesome

Ten years!

-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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) 20:26, 1 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

Hi KimChee! You're receiving this notification because you were previously listed at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over 2 years.

Because of your inactivity, you have been removed from the list. If you would like to resubscribe, you can do so at any time by visiting Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.

Thank you! Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC) reply

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Gee Jon NSP mug shot.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 10:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply