Archives

1 (2006) 2 (2007) 3 (Jan-Mar 2008) 4 (Apr-Jun 2008) 5 (Jul-Sep 2008) 6 (Oct-Dec 2008) 7 (Jan-Mar 2009) 8 (Apr-Jun 2009) 9 (Jul-Sep 2009) 10 (Oct-Dec 2009) 11 (Jan-Mar 2010) 12 (Apr-Jun 2010) 13 (Jul-Sep 2010) 14 (Oct-Dec 2010) 15 (Jan-Mar 2011) 16 (Apr-Jun 2011) 17 (Jul-Sep 2011) 18 (Oct-Dec 2011) 19 (2012) 20 (2013) 21 (2014) 22 (2015) 23 (2016) 24 (2017) 25 (2018) 26 (2019) 27 (2020) 28 (2021) 29 (2022-23) 30 (2024)

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2025 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor, we hope the WikiCup will give you a chance to improve 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.

For the 2025 WikiCup, we've implemented several changes to the scoring system. The highest-ranking contestants will now receive tournament points at the end of each round, and final rankings are decided by the number of tournament points each contestant has. If you're busy and can't sign up in January, don't worry: Signups are now open throughout the year. To make things fairer for latecomers, the lowest-scoring contestants will no longer be eliminated at the end of each round.

The first round will end on 26 February. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), Epicgenius (talk · contribs · email), Frostly (talk · contribs · email), Guerillero (talk · contribs · email) and Lee Vilenski (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) 00:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• All articles whose topic is strictly within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area shall be extended confirmed protected by default, without requiring prior disruption on the article.
• AndreJustAndre, BilledMammal, Iskandar323, Levivich, Makeandtoss, Nableezy, Nishidani, and Selfstudier are indefinitely topic banned from the Palestine-Israel conflict, broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Zero0000 is warned for their behavior in the Palestine-Israel topic area, which falls short of the conduct expected of an administrator.
• Should the Arbitration Committee receive a complaint at WP:ARCA about AndreJustAndre, within 12 months of the conclusion of this case, AndreJustAndre may be banned from the English Wikipedia by motion.
• WP:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Word limits (discretionary) and WP:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Word limits (1,000 words) are both modified to add as a new second sentence to each: Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit.
• Any AE report is limited to a max of two parties: the party being reported, and the filer. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each. AE admins may waive this rule if the particular issue warrants doing so.
• The community is encouraged to run a Request for Comment aimed at better addressing or preventing POV forks, after appropriate workshopping.
• The Committee recognizes that working at AE can be a thankless and demanding task, especially in the busy PIA topic area. We thus extend our appreciation to the many administrators who have volunteered their time to help out at AE.
• Editors are reminded that outside actors have a vested interest in this topic area, and might engage in behaviors such as doxxing in an attempt to influence content and editors. The digital security resources page contains information that may help.
• Within this topic area, the balanced editing restriction is added as one of the sanctions that may be imposed by an individual administrator or rough consensus of admins at AE.

• If a sockpuppet investigations clerk or member of the CheckUser team feels that third-party input is not helpful at an investigation, they are encouraged to use their existing authority to ask users to stop posting to that investigation or to SPI as a whole. In addition to clerks and members of the CheckUser team, patrolling administrators may remove or collapse contributions that impede the efficient resolution of investigations without warning.

For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 23:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 closed

The redirect T:DYK/PE 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/2025 January 24 § T:DYK/PE until a consensus is reached. RoySmith (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saw you pulled the DYK nom in order to think about it more. That works for me. I am not in a rush. I'd rather get it right than rush it. I think the article itself is well-cited and is new so it should generally qualify for DYK but happy to make revisions to make it worthy of DYK status. Thank you for all your help! I really appreciate it! Cheers! Remember (talk) 14:06, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first round of the 2025 WikiCup ended on 26 February. As a reminder, we are no longer disqualifying the lowest-scoring contestants; everyone who competed in round 1 will advance to round 2 unless they have withdrawn or been banned from Wikipedia. Instead, the contestants with the highest round-point totals now receive tournament points at the end of each round. Unlike the round points in the main WikiCup table, which are reset at the end of each round, tournament points are carried over between rounds and can only be earned if a competitor is among the top 16 round-point scorers. This table shows all competitors who have received tournament points so far.

Round 1 was very competitive compared with previous years; two contestants scored more than 1,000 round points, and the top 16 contestants all scored more than 500 round points. The following competitors scored more than 800 round points:

• Gog the Mild (submissions) with 1,168 round points, mainly from 4 featured articles and 4 good articles on old military history, in addition to an assortment of GA and FA reviews.
• Generalissima (submissions) with 1,095 round points, mainly from 2 FAs, 2 featured lists, 8 GAs, and 16 Did You Know articles mainly on historical topics.
• BeanieFan11 (submissions), with 866 round points from 20 GAs, 23 DYKs, and 2 In the News articles primarily about athletes.
• Sammi Brie (submissions), with 846 round points from 16 GAs about radio and TV stations, 45 GA reviews, and 3 DYKs.
• Hey man im josh (submissions), with 816 round points from 5 FLs about sports and Olympic topics, 46 FL reviews, 3 ITN articles, and a large number of bonus points.
• MaranoFan (submissions), with 815 round points primarily from 3 FAs and 1 GA about music, in addition to 9 article reviews.

The full scores for round 1 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 18 featured articles, 26 featured lists, 1 featured-topic article, 197 good articles, 38 good-topic articles and more than 100 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 23 In the News articles, and they have conducted nearly 550 reviews.

Remember that any content promoted after 26 February but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2, which begins on 1 March. 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) 14:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Gatoclass. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 01:41, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Gatoclass. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Randompersonediting (✍️•📚) 03:29, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gatoclass. Noticed your edits of USS New London and wondered if you wanted to add the only image I could find that shows the New London. The image should be free to use as it is the Naval History and Heritage Command's photo # NH 59009. Here is the image: https://www.navsource.org/archives/09/86/098639001.jpg It is hard to read the inscription, but if used, the image description could note the New London is second from the left after the partially shown steamer (the ships from left to right are USS Winona, USS New London, USS Niagara, USS Sagamore, USS Wissahickon, and USS Massachusetts). Kind regards, Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 07:56, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that is a good find, Quaerens-veritatem! I did spend a couple of hours looking for an image of the ship yesterday, and did find an old 1870s stereogram of the ship from its postwar service, but it doesn't include the entire ship and there is a slight question mark over its copyright status, so I've been debating with myself over whether or not to upload it. But that engraving you found shows the entire ship, and during its naval service, so will be a very useful addition. Instead of using that particular reproduction though, which is very small, I think I will try to track down the original as one can usually find these engravings someplace once one knows they exist. Thanks once again! Gatoclass (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome Gatoclass. 😊 Good hunting. Best regards, Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You provided a great image – thank you! 😊 Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 06:22, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, thank you :) Gatoclass (talk) 06:25, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The second round of the 2025 WikiCup ended on 28 April at 23:59 UTC. To reiterate what we said in the previous newsletter, we are no longer disqualifying contestants based on how many points (now known as round points) they received. Instead, the contestants with the highest round-point totals now receive tournament points at the end of each round. These tournament points are carried over between rounds, and can only be earned if a competitor is among the top 16 round-point scorers at the end of each round. This table shows all competitors who have received tournament points so far. Everyone who competed in round 2 will advance to round 3 unless they have withdrawn or been banned.

Round 2 was quite competitive. Four contestants scored more than 1,000 round points, and eight scored more than 500 points (including one who has withdrawn). The following competitors scored at least 800 points:

• BeanieFan11 (submissions) with 1,233 round points from 24 good articles, 28 Did you know articles, and one In the news nomination, mainly about athletes and politicians
• Thebiguglyalien (submissions) with 1,127 round points, almost entirely from two high-multiplier featured articles on Black Widow (Natasha Romanova) and Grace Coolidge, in addition to two GAs and two reviews
• History6042 (submissions) with 1,088 round points from four featured lists about Michelin-starred restaurants, nine good articles and a good topic mostly on Olympic-related subjects, seven ITN articles, and dozens of reviews
• Gog the Mild (submissions) with 1,085 round points from three FAs, one GA, and four DYKs on military history, as well as 18 reviews
• Arconning (submissions) with 887 round points, mostly from four FLs, six GAs, and seven DYKs on Olympic topics, along with more than two dozen reviews

In addition, we would like to recognize Generalissima (submissions) for her efforts; she scored 801 round points but withdrew before the end of the round.

The full scores for round 2 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 13 featured articles, 20 featured lists, 4 featured-topic articles, 138 good articles, 7 good-topic articles, and more than 100 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 19 In the News articles, and they have conducted nearly 300 reviews.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 April but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed in Round 3. 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) 01:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the hook for Hannah Fry in Template:Did you know/Queue/5, I think it should be "compared (...) with" instead of "compared (...) to". I was the DYK reviewer. Could you look at this? – Editør (talk) 12:21, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. I'm not a grammarian, so hopefully you are right about this! Gatoclass (talk) 13:46, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! – Editør (talk) 14:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I happened to be looking at WP:DYKQ and noticed that the hook I nominated, which was previously there, was not there anymore. It took some digging, but I eventually found that you pulled the hook because the article needs to be copyedited. Please make sure to mark the DYK nomination page as no longer promoted when you do this, and ideally ping the nominator as well. jlwoodwa (talk) 03:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jlwoodwa, but I brought up the issue at WT:DYK instead, here, so your nom wasn't lost. It appears though that I inadvertently missed bumping you as I did for the other two nominators, my apologies for that. Gatoclass (talk) 03:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re this edit: What copyvio images are you talking about, please? I admit I don't know where to discuss this other than your talk page, if there is a better place, please say. --GRuban (talk) 04:26, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see further edits indicating lead image. You mean File:Joanna Schaffhausen publicity photo for All the Way Gone (cropped).jpg? You will notice it says right on it that was mailed to me by Garrett Rooney, the photographer, and the subject's husband, and has been reviewed by OTRS/VRT. Or do you mean something else? --GRuban (talk) 04:33, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the prompt response, GRuban. The file above was extracted from another one, that has been deleted on Commons for copyvio. There is at least one other image in the article that appears to be from the same source and may also be a copyvio. Gatoclass (talk) 04:40, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't, as the VRT reviewer clearly stated. "The source file was deleted for reasons that do not affect this image, like a derivative work which is not a part of this cropped image." That's literally what he put there, specifically to avoid this. The original had more books in it and more of the crocodile painting behind her, and he didn't accept they were De Minimis, so I cropped it until he was happy. He literally put that in his note accepting the image. --GRuban (talk) 11:00, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here, let me quote our email conversation, removing only his signature; you can see his user id from the file edit history.

Permissions - Wikimedia Commons <permissions-commons@wikimedia.org>
May 17, 2025, 3:25 AM
to me, Garrett

Dear George Ruban,

I thinks that's acceptable.

Your permission has been added to the file page. Please check that the file description contains the correct author attribution you desire. If you have any concerns, please respond to this email.

Thank you for your contribution to Wikimedia Commons.

Yours sincerely,
--------

--
Wikimedia Commons - https://commons.wikimedia.org/
---
Disclaimer: all mail to this address is answered by volunteers, and responses are not to be considered an official statement of the Wikimedia Foundation. For official correspondence, please contact the Wikimedia Foundation by certified mail at the address listed on https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/contact/

05/15/2025 19:21 - George Ruban wrote:

> Here, is File:Joanna Schaffhausen publicity photo for All the Way Gone
> (cropped).jpg - Wikimedia Commons
> <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Joanna_Schaffhausen_publicity_photo_for_All_the_Way_Gone_(cropped).jpg>
> acceptably
> cropped?
> The book covers are basically invisible, and the ichthyosaur (crocodile?)
> in the painting might as well be corn-on-the-cob.
>
> On Thu, May 15, 2025 at 3:08 PM George Ruban wrote:
>
> > -----, the images in the photo backgrounds are Commons:De minimis -
> > Wikimedia Commons <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:De_minimis>;
> > please compare the photo of the copyrighted movie poster in that first
> > example on that page.
> >
> > The book images in the first one,  File:Joanna Schaffhausen book signing
> > for Dead and Gone.jpg - Wikimedia Commons
> > <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Joanna_Schaffhausen_book_signing_for_Dead_and_Gone.jpg> are
> > small/low resolution/tilted, and otherwise not usable for any reasonable
> > copyright infringement, any photo taken in a library will have dozens of
> > images like that.
> >
> > I would argue the book and painting images in File:Joanna Schaffhausen
> > publicity photo for All the Way Gone.jpg - Wikimedia Commons
> > <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Joanna_Schaffhausen_publicity_photo_for_All_the_Way_Gone.jpg> are
> > too, but if you insist, can you VRT stamp the first one, and I can try to
> > crop out most of the second one and focus only on the subject herself?
> >
> > For what it's worth, the photographer and the person you're emailing with
> > here is the husband of the photo subject, Joanna Schaffhausen, the author
> > of the books, and whom I'm trying to write the article about.
> > Garrett Rooney 
> > Grammar Counts…or How I Met My Husband - Joanna Schaffhausen
> > <https://www.joannaschaffhausen.com/grammar-countsor-met-husband/>


> >
> > On Thu, May 15, 2025 at 10:53 AM Permissions - Wikimedia Commons <
> > permissions-commons@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Dear Garrett Rooney,
> >>
> >> the two photos besides the person depict the cover design of two books,
> >> and a painting in the background, which all are copyright protected
> >> themselves.
> >> Is permission from the respective copyright holders achievable?
> >>
> >> Yours sincerely,
> >> ------
> >>
> >> --
> >> Wikimedia Commons - https://commons.wikimedia.org/
> >> ---
> >> Disclaimer: all mail to this address is answered by volunteers, and
> >> responses are not to be considered an official statement of the Wikimedia
> >> Foundation. For official correspondence, please contact the Wikimedia
> >> Foundation by certified mail at the address listed on
> >> https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/contact/
> >>
> >> 05/14/2025 15:23 - Garrett Rooney wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hi ------,
> >> >
> >> > I am the creator, I took both of the photographs in question.
> >> >
> >> > -garrett
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 12:11 AM Permissions - Wikimedia Commons <
> >> > permissions-commons@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Dear Garrett Rooney,
> >> > >
> >> > > Please advise who is the creator (photographer) of the image(s), and
> >> by
> >> > > which reason you became holder of the full and exclusive copyright.
> >> > >
> >> > > Yours sincerely,
> >> > >
> >> > > --
> >> > > Wikimedia Commons - https://commons.wikimedia.org/
> >> > > ---
> >> > > Disclaimer: all mail to this address is answered by volunteers, and
> >> > > responses are not to be considered an official statement of the
> >> Wikimedia
> >> > > Foundation. For official correspondence, please contact the Wikimedia
> >> > > Foundation by certified mail at the address listed on
> >> > > https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/contact/
> >> > >
> >> > > 05/13/2025 12:59 - Garrett Rooney wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > I hereby affirm that I, Garrett Rooney, am the creator and/or sole
> >> owner
> >> > > of
> >> > > > the exclusive copyright of the following media work:
> >> > > > content attached to this email
> >> > > > I agree to publish the above-mentioned work under the Creative
> >> Commons
> >> > > > Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International.
> >> > > > I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the
> >> work,
> >> > > > even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it
> >> according to
> >> > > > their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license
> >> and any
> >> > > > other applicable laws.
> >> > > > I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or
> >> related
> >> > > sites.
> >> > > > I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the
> >> > > > copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with
> >> the
> >> > > > license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be
> >> claimed
> >> > > > to have been made by the copyright holder.
> >> > > > I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the
> >> content
> >> > > > may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Garrett Rooney
> >> > > > 2025-05-13
> >> > > >
> >> > > > [generated using relgen.js]
> >> > > >
> >> >
> >
> >
>

What could the VRT reviewer have put in his note to make this clear other than what he did put? --GRuban (talk) 11:25, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, looks like I missed the caveat in the "other versions" section GRuban, my apologies. I ran into a whole bunch of problematic noms this morning, which wasted a great deal of time and caused a lot of frustration, so by the time I got to yours I was losing focus. I will restore your article to the lead where it was originally - and apologies once again for causing you unnecessary anxiety. Gatoclass (talk) 12:15, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. S'arright. We all make mistakes. I certainly do. Thank you for what is often a thankless task. --GRuban (talk) 12:36, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, and the image slot, that's so nice! Could I ask - I've had a number of DYKs but still don't quite understand the queue number system - when it will appear on the main page? Is it "for 12 hours sometime in the next week" or is there a more definitive time estimate? I mean, I check the main page daily, but the photographer and article subject might be interested to know, and it would be neat if I could tell them. --GRuban (talk) 13:07, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GRuban, if you go to Template:Did you know/Queue you will find a table called "Local update times" near the top which lists the times all the sets are due for display on the main page. Your nom is currently in Queue 6, so if you find the "Queue 6" row in the table, you just need to look for the time it will appear in your part of the world - cheers. Gatoclass (talk) 13:16, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again. --GRuban (talk) 13:30, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you wrote this article? --GRuban (talk) 02:25, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, do you mind elaborating on the specific issue with Attempt (German penal code)? It has happened before, and I would really like to avoid running into this issue again. Could it be the citation format, or that the equivalent doesn’t really exist in English? FortunateSons (talk) 10:02, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to one or two of these earlier discussions? Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 10:10, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There really weren’t any; in this case, the first AfC-reviewer had an issue with it, and it got accepted by another reviewer after I wrote this, though without response by the original reviewer. Another mention (though uncorrected) was in the DYK. I have used legal commentary in a prior dyk, but also had news reporting and other literature, and therefore - maybe wrongly - assumed it wasn’t an issue then. Would it help if got some more eyes from WP:RSN? FortunateSons (talk) 10:19, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be very helpful! Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 10:41, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated Fn 7 as an example. It's not really optimal (for example, I have used the chapter author as the author), but are you fine with the type of citation? FortunateSons (talk) 08:53, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that looks fine. Gatoclass (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Are there any other issues, or are you willing to add it to a prep area once I'm done? :) FortunateSons (talk) 09:11, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really say until I've looked at the article, and I don't have time to do that right now. Gatoclass (talk) 09:15, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. I'm done now. I think this clearly passes the DYK criteria now, but am happy to add a few additional citations from other sources if you're concerned about that? FortunateSons (talk) 09:35, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, did you have the opportunity to take a look yet? FortunateSons (talk) 09:04, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

... that an iconic 1937 photograph taken in coverage of the Louisville flood identifiably depicts neither Louisville nor the flood?

Those changes are really odd and sound incredibly unusual to my ear. Please see the DYK discussion where it is explained by the reviewer that we are trying to preserve the title of the work in the hook. Also the wording of "identifiably depicts" is extremely weird and will turn people off more than just "in coverage of", which removes the title. I guess if you decide to keep that new wording, it's fine, but it's not something that I recognize. Perhaps others will make sense of it? Maybe this is a case of English usage differences, I don't know. I don't particularly object, but if you think that's best, I understand. I'm experiencing a bit of uncanny valley just looking at it so maybe it is best if I log out for now. Viriditas (talk) 04:40, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Viriditas, the issue I had with the phrase "at the time of the Louisville flood" is that a photograph fitting that description could have been taken anywhere, so why wouldn't such a photograph not feature either Louisville or the flood? The wording was, in short, ambiguous and confusing for readers not already familiar with the photograph.

As for the "identifiably", the previous hook said the photo does not "directly" depict Louisville, but that is plain incorrect, it is most definitely a direct photograph of Louisville, just not one that is identifiably of the city, so I think the word "identifiably" has to be there. Removing it could lead to the possibility of the hook being pulled from the main page for inaccuracy, which neither of us would want to happen. But quite frankly I'm a little confused about your objection now because you thanked me for adding the word only a day or two ago.

BTW, I did also add the word "iconic" as I think it's important to convey that this is a famous photograph, not just any old one. The original hook included the word "famous" which was removed by somebody else per PEACOCK and which surely would not have survived on the main page for five minutes anyhow. "Iconic", however, is a more neutral term that says the same thing in a way that should not raise the same objection as it is demonstrably true. So hopefully we can at least agree on that.

If you are still unhappy with the hook though, by all means take it up at WT:DYK as I am far from infallible and will always welcome further input. Cheers, Gatoclass (talk) 05:16, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I changed "in coverage" to "during coverage" as I agree that the former expression is a little unclear and could use the clarification. Hope that helps - Gatoclass (talk) 05:24, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But on reflection, if you want to retain the title of the photo in the hook, we could go with:

• ALT2: * ... that the iconic 1937 photograph "At the Time of the Louisville Flood" identifiably depicts neither Louisville nor the flood? Gatoclass (talk) 05:38, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's go with whatever you think is best. Viriditas (talk) 09:12, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I saw that you pulled the hook for MiLinguall Party from prep 3... was there a problem with it? Thanks. [​[User:CanonNi]​] (💬 • ✍️) 12:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks for reminding me. The article says the party urged voters to vote for other parties in certain constituencies, but the two sources both mention only one candidate who did that. So that would need to be fixed, along with the hook. Gatoclass (talk) 12:29, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for the explanation. What about the other approved hook then? It's mentioned in the article and supported by sources. [​[User:CanonNi]​] (💬 • ✍️) 12:49, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The error in the article has to be fixed first. The hook could then be refactored appropriately. Gatoclass (talk) 12:56, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the error here. [​[User:CanonNi]​] (💬 • ✍️) 13:02, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me with a DYK issue? Irve Tunick was supposed to run on June 27 and was in the holding area for that date? I'm not sure why it wasn't prepped. I had prepared for over a month to get it on the DYK for June 27. Remember (talk) 00:27, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. It’s been fixed! Remember (talk) 01:30, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The third round of the 2025 WikiCup ended on 28 June. This round was again competitive, with three contestants scoring more than 1,000 round points:

• BeanieFan11 (submissions) with 1,314 round points, mostly from articles about athletes and politicians, including 20 good articles and 48 did you know articles
• Gog the Mild (submissions) with 1,197 round points, mostly from military history articles, including 9 featured topic articles, two featured articles, and four good articles
• Sammi Brie (submissions) with 1,055 round points, mostly from television station articles, including 27 good articles and 9 good topic articles

Everyone who competed in round 3 will advance to round 4 unless they have withdrawn. This table shows all competitors who have received tournament points so far, while the full scores for round 3 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 4 featured articles, 16 featured lists, 1 featured picture, 9 featured-topic articles, 149 good articles, 27 good-topic articles, and more than 90 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 18 In the News articles, and they have conducted more than 200 reviews.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 June but before the start of Round 4 can be claimed in Round 4. 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) 14:49, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gatoclass. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Arthur Loveless.
Message added 23:09, 2 July 2025 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:09, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gatoclass. I noticed the hook was promoted on June 24 but hasn't appeared on the main page yet. I checked the prep areas and queues, but couldn't find it there either. I saw that you removed the hook with this edit but I'm not sure if it was reintroduced elsewhere — could it have gotten lost in the process? Would you mind taking a look? — Strange Orange 23:37, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strange Orange, I moved that nom back to Prep 2. It looks like another user may have inadvertently deleted it from that set.[1] So it looks like the nom may have to be re-queued. Gatoclass (talk) 11:20, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gatoclass, a week ago you pulled Template:Did you know nominations/Peace discourse in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict against the consensus of multiple other editors. The explanation given was your subjective and personal assessment that the scholarly-sourced word “oppressive” was inappropriate.

I have learned over time that the DYK process does not work on the basis of consensus – in practice it requires just one person, even if on the fringes, to take a different view.

Even though you can, as a lone voice, skewer the nomination, I would appreciate if out of courtesy you could respond to my comment from five days ago.

Whether not we proceed with the DYK, I am keen to be challenged. If there is an even better word to accurately and adequately communicate the point, that would be great.

Onceinawhile (talk) 08:36, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gatoclass. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Big Stone County Museum.
Message added 23:38, 9 July 2025 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:38, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the positive comment about the Jilly Cooper articles at DYK Lajmmoore (talk) 09:15, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The fourth round of the 2025 WikiCup ended on 29 August. The penultimate round saw three contestants score more than 800 points:

• BeanieFan11 (submissions) with 1,175 round points, mainly from sports-related articles, including 17 good articles, 27 did you know articles, and 9 in the news articles
• Arconning (submissions) with 1,090 round points, mainly from articles about athletes and politicians, including a featured article on Philippines at the 1924 Summer Olympics, 9 good articles, 28 did you know articles, and a wide assortment of featured and good article reviews
• AirshipJungleman29 (submissions) with 854 round points, mostly from a high-scoring featured article on the Indian leader Rani of Jhansi and two good articles, in addition to 13 featured and good article reviews

Everyone who competed in Round 4 will advance to Round 5 unless they have withdrawn. This table shows all competitors who have received tournament points so far, while the full scores for Round 4 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 9 featured articles, 12 featured lists, 98 good articles, 9 good topic articles, more than 150 reviews, nearly 100 did you know articles, and 18 in the news articles.

In advance of the fifth and final round, the judges would like to thank every contestant for their hard work. As a reminder, any content promoted after 29 August but before the start of Round 5 can be claimed in Round 5. In addition, note that Round 5 will end on 31 October at 23:59 UTC. Awards at the end of Round 5 will be distributed based on who has the most tournament points over all five rounds, and special awards will be distributed based on high performance in particular areas of content creation (e.g., most featured articles in a single round).

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 – Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), Frostly (talk · contribs), Guerillero (talk · contribs) and Lee Vilenski (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) 00:47, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

Thank you for your help to get the nom for Canto General back on track, my story! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:43, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoy a DYK that pictures a person together with achievements in art. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:13, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you will know, Arvo Pärt is 90 today. Did you know that it tool me some trouble to get him to the main page? Listen! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:47, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today is the birthday of the 16th Thomaskantor after Bach, remembered. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:51, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My 100th biography to the Main page in 2025 is Siegmund Nimsgern. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:02, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Rutter 80 today! I sang his major choral works with four choirs, and many of his uplifting anthems, 13 DYK? I watched him explain his Magnificat in person in 1998, and now see it on Youtube: he wore the same outfit. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:34, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today it's time for Tríptico elegíaco para un percusionista and its composer. Thank you for promoting the DYK set. I originally had nominated both separately, and probably missed moving the "make" credit to the final double nom. Any chance to get credit for the piece as well? No problem if that's difficult. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You're right about the wording being different in the article -- I have amended it to include "dying wish"; quote from the source, as rendered on the nom page: Se spune ca lăsă un testament, prin care recomanda tuturor ca urmaș pe fiul său mai mic, Scarlat, care fu recunoscut de boieri, și afurisia cu cele nai strașnice blesteme pe cine n'ar ținea samă de aceasta ultimă voință a lui ("Story goes that he left a last will, upholding as his successor his younger son, Scarlat, who came to be recognized as such by the boyars, and casting the most horrific curses on anyone who would have ignored this final wish of his"). If you agree, please change the hook back to "last wish", which is quite punchier; it's also okay if you disagree and leave it as "preference", but I have a slight preference for the original form. I'm absolutely fine with "ignoring" and "late". Dahn (talk) 04:53, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dahn, "last wish" sounds a bit melodramatic to me, as well as being a bit imprecise (it wasn't his last wish that Matei not be ruler, but rather that his brother should get the job). How about "last will"? Gatoclass (talk) 12:19, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That works. Sure. Dahn (talk) 13:58, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, the hook being promoted is

• ... that a lowly garrison soldier was responsible for relocating the capital of the Western Han dynasty?

which has nothing whatsoever to do with the sentence you took issue with. It's not part of Wiki generally (let alone DYK) to have cites after every single sentence of a new article, especially something clearly true from the immediately linked and sourced articles.

Now, I didn't write the promoted hook, don't especially like it, don't especially like the user who did write it, and find it much worse for our WP:READERs. Everyone who studies Chinese history knows the Western Han is called that because the capital moved to Luoyang. The surprising fact is that it moved from Luoyang first. Hell, that's the entire reason I wrote the article and adjusted the other Han articles to talk about it more prominently. The actual hook (with the pic tag removed) was

• ... that a lowly garrison soldier was responsible for relocating the Western Han capital from Luoyang to Chang'an?

That would involve Chang'an in the hook and, sure, I'd go fetch the necessary cite to make up for the thing you're right that the reviewer didn't catch, although they claimed to have approved this hook and the alt hooks as meeting DYK criteria.

Of course, you're an admin and can just pull rank (and the entire hook) for spite, but I think everyone—particularly the readers—would benefit from going back to the original ALT0 hook, the cite actually becoming necessary for DYK, and my getting it to finish the nom. — LlywelynII 01:07, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not part of Wiki generally (let alone DYK) to have cites after every single sentence of a new article

LlywelynII, you are correct that it isn't a DYK requirement that every sentence be cited, but the guideline states: All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph. So, leaving aside the clause could reasonably be challenged, every paragraph that isn't a plot summary or which summarizes other cited content must be fully cited. In short, a paragraph that ends with an uncited sentence is clearly not fully cited.

Now, with regard to the clause that could reasonably challenged, I see that that was added by theleekycauldron when she rewrote and moved the guidelines to a new page in July 2023; prior to that, there was no such caveat. Now, whether or not leeky discussed this change before making it I am not aware, so perhaps she could enlighten us on that question. Personally, I think it's a problematic inclusion, because queue promoters do not have time to debate whether or not this or that uncited fact in an article is one that "could reasonably be challenged" - as in this very exchange.

Regardless, I think the sentence at issue in your article could reasonably be challenged, because only people who have a lot of familiarity with Chinese history would know whether or not the statement is factual, while others will have to hunt around to verify it - as I had to do when verifying your article, which took a considerable amount of my time.

With regard to the hook, I am not going to unilaterally revert a change that some other user has seen fit to make unless I think it's obviously suboptimal, which is not the case here. If you feel strongly about it, you are free to bring it up at WT:DYK where you can get wider input. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 05:30, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixt. — LlywelynII 05:34, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - though I would have preferred that you added the cite rather than just delete the sentence - but it's your call - cheers. Gatoclass (talk) 05:44, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gatoclass: see wp:content that could reasonably be challenged; it's basically everything that's not SKYBLUE context in an otherwise-cited sentence, if memory serves. for what it's worth, GA uses the same standard. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:27, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

Thank you for what you do for DYK and take a good recovery break! - My story today is about a woman and her husband who played Bach's Sonatina for us (Rheingau Musik Festival, long ago) on an upright piano, and it made me cry, and I still remember. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:27, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Nielsen (FA by four colleagues, not me) is remembered on the main page! My story on the Germany National holiday is a song calling to trust the new ways, written shortly before the events leading to reunification. I saw a lovely Mozart opera production yesterday, in case of interest. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My latest: Roberta Alexander, - listen. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:40, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's a long shot since it's been 15 years, but do you happen to remember where the source for this edit was? I've removed the claim for now as the capture and albeit brief subsequent use of the tinclad USS Undine (1863) by Forrest's cavalry during the Battle of Johnsonville seems to be an exception to the statement. Is the idea that Forrest's use of the Undine before scuttling it was minimal compared to the Confederat reuse of Isaac Smith? If so, I wonder if the wording at the Isaac Smith article should be adjusted. Hog Farm _Talk 20:25, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No Hog Farm, I don't recall (was it really 15 years? sheesh), but I'm pretty sure it came from a solid source. I will have a look through my library to see if I can track it down - but it could be just plain wrong, as a lot of "only", "first" claims etc. turn out to be, even from supposed reliable sources. Gatoclass (talk) 03:03, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gatoclass. This message is being sent to remind you of significant upcoming changes regarding logged-out editing.

Starting 4 November, logged-out editors will no longer have their IP address publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account (TA) associated with their edits. Users with some extended rights like administrators and CheckUsers, as well as users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will still be able to reveal temporary users' IP addresses and all contributions made by temporary accounts from a specific IP address or range.

How do temporary accounts work?

• When a logged-out user completes an edit or a logged action for the first time, a cookie will be set in this user's browser and a temporary account tied with this cookie will be automatically created for them. This account's name will follow the pattern: ~2025-12345-67 (a tilde, year of creation, a number split into units of 5).
• All subsequent actions by the temporary account user will be attributed to this username. The cookie will expire 90 days after its creation. As long as it exists, all edits made from this device will be attributed to this temporary account. It will be the same account even if the IP address changes, unless the user clears their cookies or uses a different device or web browser.
• A record of the IP address used at the time of each edit will be stored for 90 days after the edit. Users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will be able to see the underlying IP addresses.
• As a measure against vandalism, there are two limitations on the creation of temporary accounts:
  • There has to be a minimum of 10 minutes between subsequent temporary account creations from the same IP (or /64 range in case of IPv6).
  • There can be a maximum of 6 temporary accounts created from an IP (or /64 range) within a period of 24 hours.

Temporary account IP viewer user right

• Administrators may grant the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right to non-administrators who meet the criteria for granting. Importantly, an editor must make an explicit request for the permission (e.g. at WP:PERM/TAIV)—administrators are not permitted to assign the right without a request.
• Administrators will automatically be able to see temporary account IP information once they have accepted the Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy via Special:Preferences or via the onboarding dialog which comes up after temporary accounts are deployed.

Impact for administrators

• It will be possible to block many abusers by just blocking their temporary accounts. A blocked person won't be able to create new temporary accounts quickly if the admin selects the autoblock option.
• It will still be possible to block an IP address or IP range.
• Temporary accounts will not be retroactively applied to contributions made before the deployment. On Special:Contributions, you will be able to see existing IP user contributions, but not new contributions made by temporary accounts on that IP address. Instead, you should use Special:IPContributions for this (see a video about IPContributions in a gallery below).

Rules about IP information disclosure

• Publicizing an IP address gained through TAIV access is generally not allowed (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 previously edited as 192.0.2.1 or ~2025-12345-67's IP address is 192.0.2.1).
• Publicly linking a TA to another TA is allowed if "reasonably believed to be necessary". (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 and ~2025-12345-68 are likely the same person, so I am counting their reverts together toward 3RR, but not Hey ~2025-12345-68, you did some good editing as ~2025-12345-67)
• See Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer § What can and can't be said for more detailed guidelines.

Useful tools for patrollers

• It is possible to view if a user has opted-in to view temporary account IPs via the User Info card, available in Preferences → Appearance → Advanced options → Enable the user info card
  • This feature also makes it possible for anyone to see the approximate count of temporary accounts active on the same IP address range.
• Special:IPContributions allows viewing all edits and temporary accounts connected to a specific IP address or IP range.
• Similarly, Special:GlobalContributions supports global search for a given temporary account's activity.
• The auto-reveal feature (see video below) allows users with the right permissions to automatically reveal all IP addresses for a limited time window.

Videos

• How to use Special:IPContributions
• How automatic IP reveal works
• How to use IP Info
• How to use User Info

Further information and discussion

• For more information and discussion regarding this change, please see the announcement from the Wikimedia Foundation at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF) § Temporary accounts rollout.

Most of this message was written by Mz7 (source). Thanks, 🎃 SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The 2025 WikiCup has come to an end. Our top scorers, based on the tournament point rankings (which can be seen here), are:

1. BeanieFan11 (submissions) with 1,604 tournament points, will receive the 1st place award.
2. Gog the Mild (submissions) with 1,075 tournament points, will receive the 2nd place award.
3. Arconning (submissions) with 860 tournament points, will receive the 3rd place award.
4. History6042 (submissions) with 804 tournament points
5. Sammi Brie (submissions) with 635 tournament points
6. TheDoctorWho (submissions) with 386 tournament points
7. AirshipJungleman29 (submissions) with 373 tournament points
8. Thebiguglyalien (submissions) with 362 tournament points

Our high scorers in the final round were:

• BeanieFan11 (submissions) with 1,035 round points, mostly from 19 good articles and 21 did you know articles about athletes
• vigilantcosmicpenguin (submissions) with 819 round points, mostly from 13 good articles and 11 did you know articles about a wide range of topics from abortion topics to African cities
• TheNuggeteer (submissions) with 508 round points from 9 good articles, 4 good topic articles and 6 did you know articles mainly about Philippines topics, along with 19 good article reviews

The final round was very productive, and contestants had 2 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 106 good articles, 5 good topic articles, 178 article reviews, 76 did you know articles, and 9 in the news articles. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!

The top eight scorers will receive awards shortly. The following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. These prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field during the competition.

• Gog the Mild (submissions) wins the featured article prize, with 12 featured articles total, and the featured topic prize, with 9 featured topic articles in total
• Hey man im josh (submissions) wins the featured list prize, with 10 featured lists total
• AirshipJungleman29 (submissions) wins the featured picture prize, submitting the only featured picture in the entire contest during round 3
• History6042 (submissions) wins the featured content reviewer prize, with 127 featured content reviews. He will also share the ITN prize, with 20 in the news articles in total.
• BeanieFan11 (submissions) wins the good article prize, with 100 good articles total, and the DYK prize, with 147 did you know articles in total. He will also share the ITN prize, with 20 in the news articles in total.
• TheDoctorWho (submissions) wins the good topic prize, with 16 good topic entries in total
• Arconning (submissions) wins the good article reviewer prize, with 68 good article reviews in total

A special mention also goes to these users who scored the highest in a particular category in a single round:

• Sammi Brie (submissions), with 27 good articles in round 3, and 45 good article reviews in round 1
• Tails Wx (submissions), with 10 in the news articles in round 3

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 2026 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement!

On behalf of the judges, Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), Epicgenius (talk · contribs · email), Frostly (talk · contribs · email), Guerillero (talk · contribs · email) and Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs · email):

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:24, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ships built by Donald McKay has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ^SMason_Garrison 13:41, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please populate the categories you make with multiple pages. Please also add all the relevant parent categories, instead of just one of them. It makes it really difficult to populate categories if people can't find them.^SMason_Garrison 14:14, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Gatoclass! just wanted to let you know that this edit broke transfem by setting the date header as "14 November" instead of "November 14"; the good news is that transfem also retranscludes pulled nominations automatically, so you don't have to bother with that anymore :) just reopen the nomination page and the bot will work out where it goes. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:44, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's very handy leeky! Thanks for letting me know.

You've done so much great work in improving the DYK infrastructure, I really appreciate that.

Speaking of which, one of these days I really must ask you how to install PSHAW as I could surely use more timesavers :) Gatoclass (talk) 00:48, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're too sweet, thanks! PSHAW's easy: go to your common.js page and drop in this text on a new line:

importScript('User:Theleekycauldron/Scripts/PSHAW/main.js'); // Backlink: [[User:Theleekycauldron/DYK promoter.js]]

And that's all you need! You can promote hooks by opening up nompages, and swap or pull them by opening up prep and queue pages. It'll be under the "More"/"Tools" menu in the top right. I notice you don't have any other userscripts, so let me know if you're interested in any others, there's a few that make life a lot easier! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:17, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will do :) Gatoclass (talk) 01:23, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Amakuru, and seasons greetings to you too :) Gatoclass (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas, Gatoclass! Wishing you Season's Greetings and a Happy Winter Solstice! As the year comes to a close, I want to express my appreciation for your dedicated efforts on Wikipedia and extend heartfelt thanks for your assistance throughout the years. May the holiday season bring you and your loved ones abundant joy, good health, and prosperity.

4meter4 (talk) 16:41, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you 4meter4, and a happy Christmas to you too :) Gatoclass (talk) 11:23, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	Infinite Possibilities
	Is this real life? Yes! Is this going to be forever? No! Elvis is getting ready to leave the building and 2026 is about to be born, kicking and screaming. They say nothing gold can stay, but I say, don't listen to them, stay golden all the same. Here's to a new year of infinite diversity and beautiful combinations! Viriditas (talk) 21:52, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Viriditas, and seasons greetings to you too :) Gatoclass (talk) 11:35, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2026!

Hello Gatoclass, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2026. Happy editing, Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:31, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:31, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2026!

Hello Gatoclass, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2026. Happy editing, Abishe (talk) 08:14, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 08:14, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2026 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor, we hope the WikiCup will give you a chance to improve 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 a bot will set up your submissions page within one day, 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.

For the 2026 WikiCup, the highest-ranking contestants will receive tournament points at the end of each round, and final rankings are decided by the number of tournament points each contestant has. This is the same scoring system that we had last year. If you're busy and can't sign up in January, don't worry: Signups are open throughout the year. To make things fairer for latecomers, the lowest-scoring contestants are no longer eliminated at the end of each round.

The first round will end on 26 February. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), Epicgenius (talk · contribs · email), Frostly (talk · contribs · email), Guerillero (talk · contribs · email) and Lee Vilenski (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) 00:38, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Volten001 ^☎ 11:00, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gatoclass, I am a relatively new editor here. A user reversed an edit on the ChatGPT page with a dismissive comment (stating non-substantial information). I reversed the edit but made some alterations that addressed the edits of both previous editors. I engaged in a discussion on their talk page, in which they brought up some valid points for consideration. However, the other editor was extremely hostile, condescending, and overall disrespectful. I know this violates the fourth (and possibly fifth) pillar of Wikipedia ethics. I think that this editor's behavior is toxic and non-welcoming to new editors such as myself. This editor is much more experienced than I, but I feel the hostile conversation is worth some sort of administrative action. I have read the incident pages and such, but I am a bit worried that my ordeal may not be substantial enough to be taken seriously. Any advice on the manner would be greatly appreciated! ROASTED SHARK (talk) 09:04, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Grayfell's responses were blunt but did not amount to personal attacks in my view. Characterizing an edit as "AI-like slop" is criticism of somebody's writing style but not a personal attack, though it might be characterized as uncivil. However, as Grayfell himself pointed out, the edit in question was not actually yours, you basically just restored somebody else's edit, with very minor changes.

In short, I think you are overreacting, especially with this. So if you are considering an WP:ANI report over this, I would counsel against it. ANI itself can get pretty hostile and you are unlikely to find any satisfaction there, so best if you just drop this IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 09:44, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 19:01, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The first round of the 2026 WikiCup ended on 26 February. As some of you may have noticed, good article nomination reviews now receive 10 points, an increase from 5 points in the previous year, as per a consensus at WT:CUP. This point increase has been retroactively applied to all good article reviews for which competitors have claimed points in this round. Peer reviews, which continue to be worth 5 points, are now listed in the same section as featured article candidate reviews, rather than with good article reviews. Everyone who competed in round 1 will advance to round 2 unless they have withdrawn or been banned. No other changes to the round-point system have been made for this year.

Round 1 was competitive. Three contestants scored more than 1,000 round points, and the top 16 contestants all scored more than 300 round points. The following competitors scored more than 800 round points:

• Bgsu98 (submissions) with 1,467 round points, largely gained from 1 featured article, 5 featured lists, 15 good articles, and 42 FAC and GAN reviews;
• Olliefant (submissions) with 1,246 round points, largely from 4 featured lists, 9 good articles, 2 featured topic articles, 4 did you know articles, and 75 FAC and GAN reviews;
• Generalissima (submissions) with 1,095 round points, largely from 3 featured articles, 6 good articles, and 5 did you know articles;
• MCE89 (submissions) with 848 round points, largely from 1 featured article, 8 good articles, 1 did you know article, and 32 FAC and GAN reviews; and
• Rollinginhisgrave (submissions) with 838 round points, largely from 1 featured article, 8 good articles, 1 did you know article, and 14 FAC, GAN, and peer reviews.

The full scores for round 1 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 7 featured articles, 16 featured lists, 2 featured-topic articles, 168 good articles, 13 good-topic articles and more than 50 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 14 In the News articles, and they have conducted nearly 700 reviews. The tournament points table will be updated within the next few days.

Remember that any content promoted after 26 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) 14:56, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]