User talk:Skarmory

This is Skarmory'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

Index

Hey! I'm Skarmory, if you have anything to say just leave me a message. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, YellowSkarmory, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Longhair\^talk 07:54, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What you saw in the Tornadoes of 1961 article is the product of me trying to fix and expand an entire article by myself when I was very much a newbie. It did hurt my pride a little bit to see what you put in the edit summary, but I'm glad you fixed it. I would give you a barnstar, but I'm typing this on my flip phone and can't find how to do it. LOL! Could you do of a favor and fix the links in the the other articles too? I'm very busy right now and can't do it myself.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 01:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can give the other articles a shot. Knowing how it works, find and replace should make the uncapitalizing a lot easier. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 03:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!ChessEric (talk · contribs) 03:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Skarmory, I removed the statement about Mr Chapman's case in the personal section as the case was thrown out for lack of evidence. It falls under defamatory statements as it implies he was convicted of the accusation. I know that this for a fact and have removed the statement again. Cheers Dahlia2022 (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dahlia2022: Best course of action there is to add the case being thrown out for a lack of evidence and provide a source for that as well. Also, the edit summary "removal of section" is not particularly descriptive – it's better to add an explanation of why you removed the section, e.g. "Removed section because the case was thrown out due to lack of evidence" or something along those lines. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 21:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you also may want to read the essay on verifiability, not truth. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 21:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I would be grateful if you would leave my edit in and not re-add that personal section text. I'll have a read of the essay. Cheers Dahlia2022 (talk) 21:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dahlia2022: I left it there for a while, while I tried to find anything online, and couldn't. If you have any sources for it being dismissed, I'm happy to add it along with the arrest; if not, discussion should be taken to Talk:Mark Lindsay Chapman, where someone can hopefully find a source. For now, all that's mentioned is he was arrested, and no status of him being convicted or anything is marked there, so I wouldn't say it's defamatory. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 18:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello you recently left me some messages on a talk page. I appreciate them but don't understand the complete revoke of the article, which held more then enough notable info on his career.

I've now sent this off to review and hopefully I get a positive response from this. LaylaDakota (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LaylaDakota: Hey! For example, the bing video links are not reliable, and very subject to change, as they're a search. You should replace them with an actual video, if applicable, but if the videos are on YouTube it would be better to find something that's not on YouTube, as that's a user generated source. IMDb and Online world of Wrestling are more user-generated sources, and are also not considered reliable. Profiles do not contribute to notability as well – anything connected with the subject does not contribute to notability.

Sadly, just having references to verify all the information isn't good enough. Guidelines such as notability for entertainers (which includes wrestlers) exist, but they do not supersede the general notability guideline as a whole. If you can find significant coverage of him (not passing mentions, like in the hollywoodwrestling source) in sources which are not self published, databases and/or interviews, that'll be good – the general standard for that is three sources. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Skamory. I am Itcouldbepossible, whom you have met earlier. Last time I told you about moving articles to drafts like Draft:xxx(2). But today I saw one problem, and wanted to let you know about it. For example, if you can move Testing article to draftspace easily. But next time when you move you might get an API error. The userscript automatically adds "Draft:" before the page name in the Move to Draft: field box. so on moving it will be like Draft:Draft:xxx(2) . That is not allowed. So while entering the name of the new draft that you want the article to be moved to, then you have to remove the Draft: from the Move to Draft: field. I hope you understand what I am trying to say. So when the script automatically appends Draft: to the page name, just manually remove it. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 11:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay – I'll keep that in mind. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 15:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing Talk:Sool... not sure why that didn't move too.. -- TNT (talk • she/her) 05:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

This is for all of the idiotic things you've done over the past year, Skarmory. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 06:43, 1 April 2022 (UTC)^{[April Fools!]}[reply]

Hi Skarmory, we were in contact at the start of the year - I have just noticed that the following message still shows on the page 'Islamic Reporting Initiative'. A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Is there anything I can do to speed up the process of resolving this? Is there anything I can do myself? Thank you so much in advance! Julianross CSR (talk) 03:51, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Julianross CSR: I don't think you personally can do much, unfortunately. The article isn't in awful shape, and I may take a look at it later to clean it up more (been going through a lot health-wise as of late, so it may take a while), but considering you do have a COI there's not much you can directly do. Edit requests on the talk page would work from your end (see Talk:Geoff Morrell (spokesperson) for an example of some of these in action), and once the article is eventually cleaned up, the tag can go. (Sorry if this is vague and/or confusing – I'm tired and I'm also not exactly sure when the tag should ultimately be removed, but I'll make that call later on.) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 23:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am Itcouldbepossible, whom you might remember. Earlier, I had given you a small tip while draftifying articles. Don't know if you remember it or not. Today I have come here to enquire about your user rights. I have seen that you have many user rights. But what I want to know is, from where did you get some of them from. For example, I don't find any request made by your to become a page mover or file mover at the file mover request page or at the page mover request page. Using the 'edits made by a particular user' tool, I can see that you had not made any edits to the page, which means you had not requested it there, but you still have the right, that too granted by good administrators. Same applies for your file mover rights. There is nothing that worries me, for you are a good editor and I am really fine with you having these rights. But, what I want to know is that, from where are you getting these permission requests accepted, I mean where are you actually requesting for these right? How are the administrators seeing your request? Is there a separate place other than the generalized permission granting page? Itcouldbepossible^Talk 09:18, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It came from an off-wiki discussion; not really sure how much I should share here, so I'll leave it at that (not well-versed in wikiquette in this area).

I can tell you that the way I got it would not exactly be possible to replicate. I've still always gone through those venues outside of this one time, and when my page mover runs out, I plan to request the extension there. (I haven't used file mover, and I'll let it run out; maybe one day I can use it before it runs out, but I doubt I'll use it much and I don't need it necessarily) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 23:13, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Skarmory -- I've deprodded this and intend to do further work on it. I can see why you thought the article needed deletion, the creator is clearly promotional in intent and the modern house is unlikely to be notable. However, the lodge is clearly notable as being grade II* listed, the surviving park also appears significant,[1] and the former hall has some book coverage. Got to go offline now but I'll see else what I can dig up tomorrow. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 03:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Serves me right for pretty much blindly following a flowchart's instructions. I would've been much more hesitant if there wasn't a duplicate draft out there already – I'm also not used to the terminology and notability guidelines around buildings, so I'm not particularly surprised I missed something. Thanks for improving the article though – it's looking much better now! Skarmory (talk • contribs) 06:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to get into NPP after the not-so-subtle appeal to lazy admins to help out with the backlog, but that flowchart just makes my head spin! I used to live in Cheshire and so have a print copy of de Figueredo & Treuherz, which is the best source on country houses in Cheshire, as well as the Cheshire edition of the Pevsner Architectural Guides. I don't think either are up on Google Books.

Sadly the editor who created it is busy trying to wreck it again; if you could keep an eye out that would be appreciated! Their talk page message made me smile. Actually I realised after I deprodded it there's actually an existing article on Astle Park, so the two probably need to be merged, but there's no point in doing that until the other editor decides to desist, or that will just get trashed too. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Espresso Addict: I thought I responded to this, huh. Anyway, the flowchart for me was the easiest way to keep track of what exactly I should be doing and checking in particular. I figure that's less necessary with more experience on Wikipedia as a whole, but I don't have that yet. It wasn't too hard for me to track by just following the exact path I needed.

I'll pay attention to make sure nothing goes horribly wrong, thanks once again for putting in the effort to save Astle Hall! Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! Thanks for reminding me about adding a source on my edit! I believe this is the correct source. https://modestoarchsightings.blogspot.com/2022/07/slenderman-spotted-near-modesto-arch.html ModestoArchFan (talk) 01:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• User:ModestoArchFan, stop it. Do not add that source or that "information". Drmies (talk) 01:50, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry ModestoArchFan (talk) 01:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	Modesto Defender
	This is an award for defending Modesto. Thank you. ModestoArchFan (talk) 01:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I read you want to make a next request. Do you have any page were you prepare this? Here are a few worth checking. Jessica Biel-Timberlake, Leigh Allyn Baker-Kauffman,

Avril Lavigne-Kroeger, Madge D. Walters-Sinclair, George A. Ruthenberg, Rhea Seehorn-Larson, Deborah Larson, Deborah Seehorn-Larson. You'll likely find more. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:01, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at most of these already (I'm working systematically through all married name redirects created by this user, gotten through a decent portion so far, hoping to bulk nom the ones which don't really pull results once I'm done), but there are a few new ones I need to check there. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, anyways! Skarmory (talk • contribs) 08:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, just a friendly request to archive your talk page. Your talk page is quite long (161kB where the maximum recommended in 75kB), and this can be an issue for mobile editors and editors with lower-powered machines if they try to load your talk page, as it can buffer and crash their search engines. You can get assistance at Help:Archiving a talk page. Thank you! JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 11:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was running into slowdowns editing the full page, probably a good idea. I like leaving as much out in the open as possible, but collapsing newsletters isn't going to be much different from archiving them. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 18:56, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your question! Unfortunately I can't help you. Ten years ago I was working with a Liberia-focused archive, but that job ended in 2014; I don't even live in the same country anymore. Since then they've moved the collection physically and administratively (it was part of a different entity at the time, and I think it's been moved to a different building), and the current website says that the whole collection is closed at the moment. Nyttend (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note — since you thanked me really quickly after I left this note, you may not have seen that I expanded it. Nyttend (talk) 21:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		This award is given to Skarmory for collecting more than 200 points doing redirect reviews, in the May 2023 NPP backlog reduction drive. Thank you for your contributions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 01:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		Worm Gear Award
		This award is given to Skarmory for collecting more than 28 points per week doing reviews, in the May 2023 NPP backlog reduction drive. Thank you for your contributions -MPGuy2824 (talk) 01:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit, Chahak was not done; it still had 3 incoming links. You need to check Special:WhatLinksHere to confirm. (It's done now, so you won't find any incoming links any more.) --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@R'n'B: Oh wow, that's embarrassing. I just autopiloted to hiding transclusions and links because I only really use what links here to check for redirects to a title. I had already used DisamAssist to see if there was anything I could fix, and saw nothing, but still... woops. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 18:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for rating my article! Do you have any advice for how I can improve it and raise the class rating? Evansknight (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Evansknight: I'd have to take a closer look, but my immediate impression is that the lede is really short (there's gotta be some more biographical information you can put in there), and the article itself feels a bit short (though there may just not be much more information out there on Wigand than what's already in the article). It'd probably be worth it to look at the B-class criteria and to try and meet them where you immediately notice things that don't reach the criteria. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 22:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please move this page as it was previously. Proposed in talk page. 2023 Social Democracy leadership election. Thank you. ThecentreCZ (talk) 08:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ThecentreCZ: You opened an official requested move on the talk page before coming to me. Given there's an official RM discussion open, and the main article for the party was also recently moved to Social Democracy (Czech Republic), I don't see any harm in waiting the 7 days right now for the discussion to officially end.

FYI, you may want to create a request to revert an undiscussed move or a normal requested move for the main article on the party if you want it to be moved, since it looks like that was an undiscussed move. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 21:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I saw that you are active in reviewing redirects on AFCR, and I would like to contribute in this area as well. DreamRimmer (talk) 06:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's how to start reviewing at AFC/R: install User:Eejit43/scripts/AFCRHS. Congratulations, you now have an interface to accept, decline and comment on requests.

Some things to keep an eye on:

• The script asks you to append a redirect category template when accepting. They aren't necessary, but I'd strongly encourage adding them. If you're not sure which one(s) to add just by the name, the best place to look is the template index for redirects. Just ctrl/cmd+f for the template you're looking for and look at its description.
• The script by default only allows one redirect category template to be added with the accepted request. If you want to add multiple redirect category templates, you can get around this by selecting "Custom – prompt me" and inserting multiple templates in the format 1}}{{2 or 1}}{{2}}{{3 (if you add the surrounding brackets, you end up with the result I just got at Cyberpunk 2077: Phantom Liberty).
• The script also includes category requests, as they're made at the same venue, though quite a bit less frequently (there were only 9 requests in May, and 5 were a connected group). These are a bit more complicated than redirect requests, and often take some more manual or semi-automated work, as you usually have to manually add the categories to the supplied pages. The script does take care of parent categories, though.
• Commenting on requests feels a bit funky, because it prefixes your comment with the redirect you're commenting on (even if there's only one in the request), and it autofills a trailing period (so if you automatically type a sentence with proper grammar and a period at the end, it duplicates). Could just be my opinion, though.
• If you're not sure on whether a redirect or category should be created, either leave a comment or leave it for another reviewer. (Pretty similar to other areas, and probably fairly common sense.)

Feel free to ask any more questions – I tried to cover the stuff that seemed like it would be generally useful to know and potentially confusing. While WP:RFD experience would probably help with some of the more complicated cases, it's definitely not necessary, and I'd say this is a relatively easy area to just hop into and start helping out. You don't even really need prior qualifications.

If you're still interested, welcome aboard, DreamRimmer! Skarmory (talk • contribs) 07:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, thanks. I will try to help in this area on a regular basis. DreamRimmer (talk) 07:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you read my !vote correctly - it was in opposition to the proposed action, with a detailed rationale. Just because I didn't state the term "Oppose" in bold that doesn't make what I said any different :) Please reconsider. --Joy (talk) 13:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Joy: I probably shouldn't have gone with the "no stated opposition" statement in the close, but knowing that was 100% meant to be an oppose doesn't change my close. I did clarify that the wikinav discussion gave me hesitance but wasn't enough to stop me from closing it as moved, and now knowing your comment was 100% equivalent to an !oppose !vote doesn't change anything. I will try to improve on potentially ambiguous closing statements in the future, though – I thought this one didn't feel great. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 18:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon (talk) 06:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to drop by and thank you for signing my guestbook! I really appreciate it. Also, you have technically interacted with me before, just not under this IP address. Thanks again! 47.227.95.73 (talk) 12:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Therese Patricia Okoumou, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages The Cut and CBS Austin. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

for such a well explained close at Talk:Ptolemaic Kingdom#Requested move 30 May 2023. I get sick of the one sentence close rationales "Closed with (no) consensus to move". – Aza24 (talk) 23:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, a lot of closes could use more explanation, especially with long and complicated discussions like this. Glad I can help out some with that. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 23:36, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a Move review of Operation Gideon (2020). Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. WMrapids (talk) 02:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hurricane Heather you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ganesha811 -- Ganesha811 (talk) 13:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Llapi is the definitive form of Llap in Albanian. They are the same name. Since the other Kosovo geographic articles use definitive forms, Llapi as proposed by the OP is the one in line with Kosovo naming conventions. I used Llap instead of Llapi in my comments just for ease of writing, not that it is different from Llapi. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:36, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you see consensus to move, IMO the discussion should be closed because it has been open for almost a month with only 2 !votes apart from the OP. The OP proposed Llapi, I supported Llapi (I used Llap instead of indefinite Llapi in my comments just for ease of writing) and the other !vote (KleovoulosT) supports the proposal without mentioning the form Llap. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:59, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ktrimi991: Sounds good. I agree this discussion warrants a close sooner rather than later, I just didn't see a consensus between Llap and Llapi (due to the somewhat interchangeable nature, as I'm not familiar with definitive forms of Albanian, and per the comments). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 00:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review of the discussion and the close. Albanian grammar is difficult; even among Albanian editors many can't tell the difference between definite and indefinite forms. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Hurricane Heather you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hurricane Heather for comments about the article, and Talk:Hurricane Heather/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ganesha811 -- Ganesha811 (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to get my table of herbs (and spices) out of draft limbo for *years*. Thank you. Tamtrible (talk) 06:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... draftspace can be rough, and so can weird policy loops, especially when you don't have the technical ability to perform the correct action and not many people are going to do it for you. I think the best solution in this case, if you couldn't get someone to move the page over the redirect, would be to move it to a different but still acceptable title and then propose a move at WP:RM/TR; still, I wouldn't do that unless you're sure the page is ready for mainspace (it feels like barely skirting around guidelines, though I can't think of any it would directly violate, and this would be a good case of WP:IAR anyway). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 18:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery at 06:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Can you please review this page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Still..._At_Their_Very_Best It has been up for a while and still remains unreviewed. Thank you so much. Maxen Embry (talk) 05:46, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to edit as instructed, only that a HUGE WARNING template appeared and can't edit my old page to state what happened.Nuclear Sergeant (talk) 09:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC) 😭[reply]

@Nuclear Sergeant: Ah, there's an edit filter against non-autoconfirmed users editing other users' user pages... I think the best way to proceed is just placing a notice on your current account's user page, wait until you gain autoconfirmed, and leave the note on your previous account's user page then. Skipping the latter step is probably fine (if for some reason anyone was concerned, they'd see the declaration on your current account's user page), but WP:COMPSOCK does recommend it (which I actually didn't know existed until this reply, though I'm not surprised). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 10:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Skarmory,

I did the page move you requested. It was an odd one but I gather you wanted to retain a page history from a page move to a bad title. But now the page redirects to itself. Can you fix this to what you envisioned you wanted with this page? I know it shouldn't be a self-redirect but I don't know how you were trying to fix this. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed; this was the end of a process of cleaning up an improvised round-robin move by a non-page mover that didn't really know what a round-robin move was, which is why the page history was at the bad title. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 06:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Skarmory,

I'm not sure why you moved this article to this page title. I'm sure there are LDS members in the country of Georgia and this might be confusing to readers. We have always distinguished Georgia (state) from Georgia (country) in our categories and articles but recently an editor has been undoing what has been years of consistent practice.

One of my first mistakes when I began regularly editing in 2013 was changing all of these "Georgia (state)" pages to plain old "Georgia" and, boy, did I hear about it from veteran editors! Please consider reverting this move or at least opening up the page move for discussion. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see that there WAS a discussion at Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Georgia#Requested move 6 July 2023 but I'll leave my comment here any way in case the issue comes up again in the future. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Yeah, moves like that will attract attention... no way I make a move like that unless there's consensus for it, or there's no article that covers any of a topic on the country/state (depending on which way the move goes). I was still a bit hesitant, but the consensus there was clear and based on naming conventions, so there was no real reason to not close the discussion as moved unless I felt strongly about the title either way (in which case I would have !voted instead). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think I made a lot of progress on writing things so they are clear. Can I ask you to take a look at it and see if it something that would make sense to be posted to the talk page for discussion? Saikyoryu (talk) 17:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's very long for a talk page message; walls of text/long lists can often get ignored or glossed over (you'll notice pretty much every comment on that talk page, aside from a couple edit requests, isn't much longer than two paragraphs). If you plan to post a large portion or all of that at once, I'd collapse it using {{collapse}}. Can't say much about the content itself – I try to stay out of these controversial political discussions (not my thing, they tend to get pretty heated), and I haven't really looked at much of anything here. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 21:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I am seeing is that sources are posted and then there are a few editors who reply things like "How is it related to the film," or "There is no evidence that the film is in anyway connected to QAnon" so I wanted to put the quotes together to show the important parts. How they relate to the film, that the comments are made in the context of scheduled appearances promoting the film. Saikyoryu (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it would be better in a table? I saw links to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Would that be a good way to present the list of sources for a point? Saikyoryu (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think a table would be better here, if you want to post the whole thing. I'd personally just comment with the most relevant quotes in context, as that's more likely to be read than a full table (doing both is also fine). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 22:56, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tried making tables. How do they look? Saikyoryu (talk) 23:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That increased the readability a lot more than I thought it would! The one thing I'd note is whether these are all direct pulls from the source or not, as the use of quotation marks within some of these quotes could make that distinction confusing. Just putting a sentence along the lines of "All quotes are directly pulled from the source." above everything should be good enough. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 00:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are one or two where I summarized because the full quote would be half or more of the article. Is there a good way to make those obvious if I put what you suggested at the top? Saikyoryu (talk) 01:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably put it in the site & source cell? Either that or above the quote itself inside its cell. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try later today. Thanks for your reply. Seeing Wolfquack's difference in behavior below is just wow, makes me mad. Saikyoryu (talk) 14:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I thought the RfC wasn’t active, as the last post being four days ago. Is there a certain time frame for that? thanks Wolfquack (talk) 13:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed) Saikyoryu (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PA Wolfquack (talk) 23:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also I have no reason to apologize to someone whom I asked to get off my talk page. You will not make it very far here if you expect everyone to apologize to you. Again if you want to do something do it yourself. Wolfquack (talk) 23:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Ok I was taking you seriously until" - rude and uncivil is all you have been. You have every reason to apologize and you never did. Saikyoryu (talk) 23:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This isn’t apologizing? Wolfquack (talk) 01:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"I will apologize if my wording offended you." And you never actually apologized after I told you your words were completely offensive. Instead you got worse. Saikyoryu (talk) 01:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also calling someone a dick is nothing compared to I said. Wolfquack (talk) 01:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending RFCs has it pretty much covered. In this case, someone uninvolved should determine the consensus from the RFC and close it, because it's a fairly big and contentious debate; it should also have a specific close of some sort (include the content, don't, or no consensus; one of those three), because of the participation and contention, it's not a good one to just let go without having a statement on wht the discussion brought. (FYI, the last comment at the time of the section being collapsed was Red-tailed Hawk's, which was around 24 hours old.) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 21:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, that makes a little more sense. I closed some discussions before in separate articles but that was in previous months, and I genuinely forgot the “when”. I think next week however I will close it if it doesn’t get’s a discussion for at least another five days. Or maybe even archive some of the discussions. Wolfquack (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Skarmory. If you have the time, could you please have a glance at these lists by User:Fryn and review them?

• List of longest smartphone telephoto lenses
• List of large sensor camera phones
• List of vlogging cameras
• List_of_large_sensor_fixed-lens_cameras

Elominius (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Elominius: I usually don't do much with lists in NPP that aren't splits from large pages, as I tend to find them hard to review, but I might as well learn if I'm going to review. Here, I'd wonder if there's a good place to put them, potentially in a parent article, though I'm not immediately finding a good parent article for any of these. (Maybe they could be converted into a broader scope? I'd accept them as lists in that case, though.)

The one I'm most concerned about is List of vlogging cameras, as the topic doesn't feel particularly encyclopedic to me, the grouping feels a bit loose, and the sourcing isn't independent/reliable enough for me to feel like it supports the article... but that happens to have been reviewed by another NPP reviewer. I'll figure out what to do later with that one. (The other three remain unreviewed – I'll take a closer look at them tomorrow if life permits and if they're not reviewed by then, but they seem to at least have more solid groupings.) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 07:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Doing the needful has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 7 § Doing the needful until a consensus is reached. Fram (talk) 12:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect To do the needful has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 7 § To do the needful until a consensus is reached. Fram (talk) 12:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Redirect Barnstar
		Thank-you for your diligent work creating, reviewing, and discussing redirects! Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 15:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, thanks! :) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 18:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Skarmory,

I don't understand why this page is tagged as part of a deletion discussion. You might want to remove this tagging. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:16, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Still trying to figure out exactly what to do with the history here – it was deleted at RFD, but I think the history needs to be attributed somehow. I'll blank the page for now. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:47, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		I was thinking about giving you a Barnstar for all your efforts at RfD and around the Wiki eventually, as I've been seeing you do good work! (Although it just so happened that I checked your userpage and found out that somehow, against all odds, we have the exact same number of edits which I've never seen happen before.) So, I thought I'd send it to you earlier than planned to commemorate that and also say thank you for all you do! Cheers, Utopes (talk / cont) 19:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, quite a coincidence! Or fate... 👀 either way, thanks for the barnstar! An occurrence like this probably deserves one :) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 22:42, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Skarmory,

I’m reaching out as part of a Cornell University academic study investigating the potential for user-facing tools to help improve discussion quality within Wikipedia discussion spaces (such as talk pages, noticeboards, etc.). We chose to reach out to you because you have been highly active on various discussion pages .

The study centers around a prototype tool, ConvoWizard, which is designed to warn Wikipedia editors when a discussion they are replying to is getting tense and at risk of derailing into personal attacks or incivility. More information about ConvoWizard and the study can be found at our research project page on meta-wiki.

If this sounds like it might be interesting to you, you can use this link to sign up and install ConvoWizard. Of course, if you are not interested, feel free to ignore this message.

If you have any questions or thoughts about the study, our team is happy to discuss! You may direct such comments to me or to my collaborator, Cristian_at_CornellNLP.

Thank you for your consideration.

-- Jonathan at CornellNLP (talk) 17:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day! Hi Skarmory! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! ✠ Robertus Pius ✠ (Talk • Contribs) 22:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dang, I've been here five years now! Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:53, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Lightyear character redirects to lists indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 14:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Lightyear character redirects to lists indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		This award is given to Skarmory for collecting more than 25 points during the October 2023 NPP backlog drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to the drive! Hey man im josh (talk) 01:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The WikiCup has run every year since 2007. With the 2023 contest now concluded, I will be standing down as a judge due to real life commitments, so I hope that another editor will take over running the competition. Please get in touch if you are interested. Next year's competition will hopefully begin on 1 January 2024. You are invited to sign up to participate in the contest; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors. It only remains to congratulate our worthy winners once again and thank all participants for their involvement! (If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.) Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Skarmory :) I'm looking to interview people here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:48, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

A tag has been placed on Category:Mr. Robot character redirects to lists indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Skarmory. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:The Mountain People, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Mazur's theorem has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 29 § Mazur's theorem until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 21:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

As a reminder, competitors may submit work for the first round until 23:59 (UTC) on 27 February, and the second round starts 1 March. Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round; currently, competitors need at least 15 points to progress. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Skarmory. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "The Mountain People".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Remember that any content promoted after 27 February but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are approaching the end of the 2024 WikiCup's second round, with a little over two weeks remaining. Currently, contestants must score at least 105 points to progress to the third round.

Our current top scorers are as follows:

• Sammi Brie (submissions) with 642 points, mostly from 11 GAs about radio and television;
• voorts (submissions) with 530 points, mostly from two FAs (Well he would, wouldn't he? and Cora Agnes Benneson) and three GAs;
• Generalissima (submissions) with 523 points, mostly from 11 GAs about coinage and history;
• SounderBruce (submissions) with 497 points, mostly from a FA about the 2020 season of the soccer club Seattle Sounders FC and two GAs;
• Tamzin (submissions) with 410 points, mostly from a FA about the drink Capri-Sun and three GAs;
• Kusma (submissions) with 330 points, mostly from a FA about the English botanist Anna Blackburne and a GA.

Competitors may submit work for the second round until the end of 28 April, and the third round starts 1 May. Remember that only competitors with the top 32 scores will make it through to the third round. 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. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs. As a reminder, competitors are strictly prohibited from gaming Wikipedia policies or processes to receive more points.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please read Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The second round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 28 April. This round was particularly competitive: each of the 32 contestants who advanced to Round 3 scored at least 141 points. This is the highest number of points required to advance to Round 3 since 2014.

The following scorers in Round 2 all scored more than 500 points:

• Sammi Brie (submissions) with 707 points, mostly from 45 good article nomination reviews and 12 good articless about radio and television;
• Generalissima (submissions) with 600 points, mostly from 12 good articles and 12 did you know nominations about coinage and history;
• SounderBruce (submissions) with 552 points, mostly from a featured article about the 2020 Seattle Sounders FC season, three featured lists, and two good articles;
• BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 548 points, mostly from a featured article about the snooker player John Pulman, two featured lists, and one good article;
• voorts (submissions) with 530 points, mostly from two featured articles (Well he would, wouldn't he? and Cora Agnes Benneson) and three good articles.

The full scores for Round 2 can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 18 featured articles, 22 featured lists, and 186 good articles, 76 in the news credits and at least 200 did you know credits. They have conducted 165 featured article reviews, as well as 399 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 21 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 April but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed during Round 3, which starts on 1 May at 00:00 (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. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The third round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 28 June. As with Round 2, this round was competitive: each of the 16 contestants who advanced to Round 4 scored at least 256 points.

The following editors all scored more than 400 points in Round 3:

• Generalissima (submissions) with 1,059 points, mostly from 1 featured article on DeLancey W. Gill, 11 good articles, 18 did you know nominations, and dozens of reviews;
• Skyshifter (submissions) with 673 points, mostly from 2 featured articles on Worlds (Porter Robinson album) and I'm God, 5 good articles, and 2 did you know nominations;
• Sammi Brie (submissions) with 557 points, mostly from 1 featured article on KNXV-TV, 5 good articles, and 8 did you know nominations; and
• AryKun (submissions) with 415 points, mostly from 1 featured article on Great cuckoo-dove, with a high number of bonus points from that article.

The full scores for round 3 can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 28 featured articles, 38 featured lists, 240 good articles, 92 in the news credits, and at least 285 did you know credits. They have conducted 279 featured article reviews, as well as 492 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 22 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 June but before the start of Round 4 can be claimed during Round 4, which starts on 1 July at 00:00 (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. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether for a good article, featured content, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]