Archive of my Did You Knows

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disqualifying the lowest-scoring contestants; everyone who competed in round 1 will advance to round 2 unless they have withdrawn or been banned from Wikipedia.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) 14:13, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is the story behind that? Polygnotus (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since Fram, I limit my editing and the only way I can square it with my conscience that I continue to edit at all is to have that disclaimer (when I remember). There are half a dozen previous inquiries in the archives of this page, including one person taking me to AN/I over it. It's a personal thing between me and my honour: I am in no way advocating others do likewise, and I no longer hold out the remotest expectation that the WMF will apologise to Fram and the community, which would be my condition for going back to full contributions, including writing articles. But I would be disgusted with myself if I didn't continue to object. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would Jimbo apologising be enough? I mean, asking each individual that works there is a bit much, but maybe Jimbo could speak for the group? Polygnotus (talk) 05:55, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't run anything for a very long time :-) No, they have spokespeople, but nobody in that org cares what they did, and most editors have either left or moved on. I'm responsible to my own conscience and not making any demands of others. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:29, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

True, but if I asked Jimbo would probably apologize. Polygnotus (talk) 06:32, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is unlikely that a WMF spokesperson one day just happens to stumble on one of your editsummaries and reaches out to you to apologize, and over time that becomes less and less likely. 2019 was a while ago, you know? Polygnotus (talk) 06:37, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not adding the disclaimer to the edit summaries for WMF staffers' information; it creeps me out a bit to think of them reading our edit summaries :-) The summaries are for me; the WMF has nothing to do with our work, in actuality. I would be very surprised indeed if Jimbo apologized; Fram might welcome an apology from Jimbo, I don't know, I'm not Fram. But it has indeed been a long time, and it speaks volumes that no one—not T&S, not some "community liaison", no one—ever apologised to Fram for yanking their adminship and blocking them, on grounds that were found by ArbCom to be wholly inadequate. Or to the en.wiki community for the contempt shown by that action. A clear demonstration that the WMF are not worthy of respect. Thanks for caring, but how much I edit doesn't matter very much. What the WMF's rottenness does to the volunteers and the projects they work on matters a good deal more. Yngvadottir (talk) 07:07, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you. It would not suprise me at all if Jimbo apologized upon request. Polygnotus (talk) 07:12, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]