Abductive

WikiCup 2023 September newsletter

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)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
3		Corby Business Academy (talk)	Add sources
310		Judgement (talk)	Add sources
868		Democratic Progressive Party (talk)	Add sources
499		Washington station (CTA Red Line) (talk)	Add sources
197		Nyssa sylvatica (talk)	Add sources
5		Balatun (talk)	Add sources
676		Mount Kinabalu (talk)	Cleanup
17		Binghamton High School (talk)	Cleanup
23		Arthur Max (talk)	Cleanup
2,342		Three Gorges Dam (talk)	Expand
132		Qinghai–Tibet railway (talk)	Expand
222		Gun violence (talk)	Expand
126		Reform school (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
6		James J. Lyons (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
32		Ugljevik (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
316		Cross-Strait relations (talk)	Merge
21		Tone number (talk)	Merge
4		Estadio Nacional (Metropolitano) (talk)	Merge
14		Pierre Renouvin (talk)	Wikify
8		Roger Seydoux (talk)	Wikify
152		Bhagwant Das (talk)	Wikify
4		François Laval (talk)	Orphan
3		Bahget Iskander (talk)	Orphan
2		Cryptantha crymophila (talk)	Orphan
7		Polk station (talk)	Stub
8		St Ivo Academy (talk)	Stub
13		54th/Cermak station (talk)	Stub
223		Cadillac CT4 (talk)	Stub
4		Corby Technical School (talk)	Stub
5		Nyssa sinensis (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Undisclosed payment template

Hello. I didn't receive any payment when I translated Kateryna Osadcha article few years ago, nor have I been asked by anyone to write it. I do not know the motivation of those who write and update the Ukrainian version of the article, and agree that some of the information that I translated, that since been deleted, might've been redundant but judging from a short revision history of this version of the article, I do not think that any actions that took place on English Wikipedia violated content policies. Tuirse (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

March 2024

Your recent editing history at Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Right now while the event is rapidly developing and you clearly lack consensus for this is not the time to be taking hasty actions like this. By the way I subscribe to the philosophy of do template the regulars. Jasper Deng (talk) 08:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, you were explicitly reverted the first time so, combined with your previous history of violations of this policy, yes this edit warring warning is justified.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Do not post any further on my talk page, or you risk a block for edit warring there, and do not attempt to use tu quoque arguments to sidestep your blatant policy violation here. That said, as long as you also don't do other edit warring and respect the consensus that is to be formed, I won't sweat it more.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 April newsletter

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) 15:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Candy Mountain editing question regarding date formats

I noted you changed the date format in numerous references. Doesn't the global "Use xxx dates" control date format for entire article regardless of the explicit format in the citations, thus rendering your changes redundant? Just asking.Fb2002 (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

• I don't think so. Those are instructions to editors and as far as I know do nothing to the display. See Template:Use dmy dates. Abductive (reasoning) 19:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)