Archives

Archives from 2009 - 2026 2026: January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December

User_talk:Guerillero/Newsletters has hit the maximum possible page size so new newsletters can't be posted to it. You should probably clean it out. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:59, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot that page existed and I can now not edit it from my current devices. I will see if I can in a little over a week when I have access to a device with more oomph -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 00:17, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bump. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:43, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Done and added {{nobots}} -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 08:31, 12 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 Everyone who competed in round 1 will advance to round 2 unless they have withdrawn or been banned.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) 14:57, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t want to use my word limit there. If you’d like, you can explain your thoughts. Ty 🐈Cinaroot   16:54, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page isn't a forum for circumventing the word count restriction at AE. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:16, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not circumventing— you’re free to present your case against me in AE, i will respond there. However, making a blanket statement that I should be topic-banned without providing a rationale doesn't help. 🐈Cinaroot   19:29, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like additional details, you may ask at AE. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:36, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No need, it doesn’t matter to me. I already gave you a chance. 🐈Cinaroot   19:39, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the above comment is that I find it inappropriate for a member of the ACM to call for my topic ban without explaining their rationale. When I politely asked for an explanation, I was told that I needed to raise the question at AE. I do not believe that is necessary. If someone is calling for a topic ban, it is reasonable to expect them to explain the basis for that request. 🐈Cinaroot   22:24, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]