User talk:Cloudz679

4 Be the fifth Wikipedian to like this!

I see you are a member of Czech Republic and interested in Czech Cup, can you please create the early 4 seasons from the competition ? Thank you !--64.140.157.28 (talk) 11:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is quite a lack of readily available sources about these iterations, but I will try to put a stub online for them, at least. Thanks for the encouragement! C679 12:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Here is a good source, with 4th Round, QF, SF and F. Same for the rest editions and maybe someone else will find later the rest of the rounds also.--64.140.157.28 (talk) 13:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have on Wikipedia a list with all cup finals in Czech Republic from whole history? (from 1906) - here is a good source [2] at least to have a table with all finals because we will not find more details about those old finals.--64.140.157.28 (talk) 13:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you create the seasons from Czech Supercup ? with line-ups and match details, take models other pages with cup finals around the world.

Czech Supercup 2015, Czech Supercup 2014, Czech Supercup 2013, Czech Supercup 2012, Czech Supercup 2011, Czech Supercup 2010

Thank you !--216.75.21.50 (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did add infobox and improved a bit the page, you can create also a template for the editions of Czech Supercup.--216.75.21.50 (talk) 20:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in making those articles, there is very little about them to note other than the scoreline. Even if you choose not to register for an account, you can still make the articles yourself by going to Wikipedia:Article wizard. Good luck! C679 20:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating in and supporting my RfA. It was very much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cloud, thank you for correcting the reference on my Tomáš Rosický edit. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 19:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	Peacemaker67 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please dont take me wrong for reverting you there, but that list is done in a way to include players without appearances as well. Reagrds, FkpCascais (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"This is a list of foreign football players that have played in the Yugoslav First League or play in any of its successor top leagues" - seems like clear scope for inclusion in the first line, wouldn't you agree? C679 21:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is all explained up there. Cheers. FkpCascais (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Such a deictic expression makes no sense here, but I see you are collecting cases like him (players left out) at the talk page of the mentioned article, so I guess you can put him there if that's how you do it. Thanks, C679 22:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was my mistake, I thought the lede from the List of foreign football players in Serbia was similar in that list as well, since I created both long time ago using the same criteriums. But I forgot the lede at the Yugoslav list is much more simplfied because the list is quite long and I wanted to spare bites. The intention of the Yugoslav list is to include all foreign players that were signed by any Yugoslav club. Also, there are some periods of some leagues we know players were part if certain club but we have difficulties finding the exact stats from that time. Since leagues from former Yugoslavia rely less on foreign players that most other European ones, it didnt looked dramatic to include the players without league apeearances as well. The list became popular ammong football statistics enthuiasts from the region cause one can see on spot which leagues brought most players from which countries and the general tendencies. Even if Yugoslavia broke away, there is still present major rivalry ammong the states that formed it and to see which league brought better players from what country.

Are you Czech? My grand-grand-father was Czech from Prague. He was a construction engeneer and he was in the team that projected and supervised the contruction of the Vienna-Istambul railroad, the Orient Exrpess. His company alocated him to their headquarters in Belgrade, and during the many years he worked there, he met a Serbian lady and married her (my grand-grand-ma). They stayed in Belgrade and had children and that is why I have a Czech surname and origins. Unfortunatelly, I am yet to visit Prague, but I found distant family there and in Switzerland. I love football history and statistics and I intend in some near future to create the list of foreigners in Czech Republic having as source synotliga.cz. FkpCascais (talk) 23:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cloudz679. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Huligan0/Cedric Itten, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion.

It's perfectly normal to draft an article in userspace, and since this footballer plays in the Swiss Superleague he passes WP:NFOOTY and it is a valid article as it stands. WP:FAKEARTICLE is only for things that are not valid articles being kept long-term in user space. JohnCD (talk) 10:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - I see now that there is a mainspace article, and that is why you tagged this. FAKEARTICLE is still not a valid speedy reason (check out WP:CSD), so deletion of a page like this would need to be proposed at WP:MFD. Where the page was a userspace draft from which the mainspace article was derived, the usual answer there is to redirect to the main article, thus preserving the history, so I have done that, and the same for User:Huligan0/Manuel Akanji. JohnCD (talk) 10:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He has 9 games played for Sageata Navodari in Liga 1. This information is on soccerway.com Rhinen (talk)

So he has. How confusing that Soccerway use the abbreviation LII for Liga I and Liga II as well. Thanks, C679 15:07, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's strange. But anyway, I don't understand why Liga II is not a fully pro league, because Liga II and Liga III are considered professional leagues and are administered by Romanian Football Federation, in Romania only from Liga IV down are considered amateur leagues. Rhinen (talk)

Hello Cloudz679. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Ådalen (Denmark), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: It passes the WP:A1 test: it obviously describes a place in Odense, Denmark. The problem here is that there doen't seem to be any verification that it is in fact a place in Odense. Thank you. Shirt58 (talk) 09:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest you list at separate AFDs, given they technically pass NFOOTBALL the debate will boil down to GNG and will be different for every one. GiantSnowman 20:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I already have put the references at Sebastián Díaz’s article as well as improved it, within the extent possible , What’s the problem now?, I wanna reach a consensus with you and I must to tell you that I don’t know much about Wikipedia’s bureaucracy in this kind of cases. I wait for your answer, greetings from Santiago de Chile. Ulof4 (talk) 21:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The main policy is WP:GNG, as stated in the deletion discussion. For players based in Chile, showing they have played in the Campeonato Nacional may also be sufficient. Has he played there? C679 06:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the list of Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues before nomination. Matthew_hk tc 22:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect UEFA mafia. Since you had some involvement with the UEFA mafia redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Laber□^T 13:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

		100000 Edits
		Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that only 366 editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

If you like you can add this template to your page.

 Buster Seven Talk 13:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply] 

Finding tons of these on the shortest articles, anyway these 2-Luis Fernando Télles and Mauricio Talancón, yeah might want to look for some refs! Wgolf (talk) 20:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Wgolf: sources added. Let me know if you need help with any others. Thanks, C679 05:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, looking at the shortest bios, it seems the guy who created those articles owns nearly half of the list! (last year there seem to be tons of Indian politicians mentioned, this year Mexican footballers!), just look at some of the entries on Wikipedia:Database reports/Shortest biographies of living people, quite a few are the Mexican soccer players and quite a few have the BLP sources tag. Wgolf (talk) 19:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just found another one-Carlos Calvo Beristain, ref has nothing to do with him. Wgolf (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G'Day Cloudz,

I'll need a bit of help from you around the whole deleting and GNG policies. I started doing a bit of research before I approached you and brought the text into my user space to continue working on it. I guess it's due to be deleted any minute now. I was keeping my random thoughts here for now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SeanMack/Rescue Hopefully I've tagged it correctly as a fake article so I can keep working on it as time goes on until it does pass notability or I just get bored and delete it.

The reason for contacting you is to see if you can help me understand the rules a bit better around notability and deleting. I was also hoping to understand the difference between when there is a vote for notability and when there is a simple tag and delete?

Doing my reading around it I get the reason for deletions of articles because there is a wish to not have cruft and one line articles about nobodys...

In this case I did think he passed notability guidelines as I understood them.

I can see the notability debate has been going for literally years - with a lot of people agreeing it's not right but unable to improve the guidelines. My thought was that Boyle has had coverage in national papers so I thought that was enough for normal notability outside the football notability rules - but I guess not?

I read the guideline about players need to be in a *fully* professional league. I read other people rant about that - much of it seems fair as it penalizes countries that have soccer followings but not the same level of money to make something fully professional. Especially the case with a few countries like Ireland.

Seems there is a breakdown between the need for articles that should be there because there would be an actual demand to read them as a lookup and trying to have a policy that will hold over every league in the world - seems that bias in this case has gone the wrong way as we are writing articles in English on people that are from English speaking countries and will want to be read by people from English speaking countries. Seems trying to stop articles on minor players in leagues all over the world is interfering with a genuine need for information propagation. Anyway not to start a debate - it's something you've heard a million times... "Ah but I put work into that. Why are you deleting it..blah blah".

My main request is to help me define to myself what the minimum level is for Irish footballers - I don't want to waste my limited time and energy writing an article that doesn't last; when I could be doing something more productive, in or out of wiki

I'm really struggling with what "significant coverage" means even though I feel I've read a fair bit now. So if you could help me out with that, that would be cool.

To use the Boyle article as an example - I do get that things like the club site and some of the general data gathering sites aren't enough. But for this guy there is coverage in the BBC, the biggest local paper, and a national paper - eg:

• http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/35834691
• http://www.derryjournal.com/sport/derry-city-news/derry-city-boyle-can-help-finn-harps-challenge-for-title-claims-hutton-1-6596320
• http://www.irishnews.com/sport/footballsoccer/2016/03/18/news/substitute-nathan-boyle-secures-win-for-derry-city-456297/

So - I don't want to be writing articles that get deleted on sight - I've only recently returned to wiki after getting a bit disillusioned. Bottom line I guess is that I want to understand when it's worth putting the time into writing an article. You'd probably see the article I mention isn't just a few lines and has plenty of inline refs, so it did take effort.

I thought I read somewhere that notability would pass if a player played for a professional team against another professional team - but I'm not sure if I misread that or imagined it?

I was thinking about writing something on Niclas Vemmelund. The way I see it now he would pass the footy notability requirement. A heads up on that one would be good too. What would be your call on Vemmelund passing?

Cheers. SeanMack (talk) 06:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SeanMack: Hi Sean. The passing for one pro team against another is in fact teams from fully-pro leagues, which may happen in competitive matches (Europa League for example). You are right in not wanting to write only to find out it has been deleted later, not a good use of time. Regarding Boyle, the Derry Journal article seems to be exactly the kind of material which can help towards GNG. However the other ones you pasted above may be insufficient in themselves per WP:ROUTINE. You are welcome to challenge the proposed deletion of the article if you feel GNG is met - although the article may still be listed for discussion if any editor believes notability is in question. In this case I would say if you can find another article from, for example the BBC or Irish News, which deals with the player "directly and in detail" per WP:SIGCOV, then GNG would likely be met. The same applies to Vemmelund or anybody else. In any case, sources first, article second. You are right there are (and have been) a lot of one-liners about Dan Smith is a footballer, etc. So if you are adding players from your favourite team, start with the ones which have had the longest (and probably most media-covered) careers. Players who have played matches in any leagues listed at WP:FPL are at this time considered notable even when the meeting of GNG is not clearly established. So just to summarise, there is no "minimum level for Irish footballers" per se, but rather a minimum for any footballer who hasn't played in a fully-professional league, which I have tried to set out above. Others may be able to give further info at WikiProject Football. Thanks, C679 06:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Thanks for the details. It does help clarify some of the stuff I've been trawling through. I can see some editors slapping on tags and then defending their position agressively - and you certainly haven't done that to your credit.

TBH, even though it sounds bad, it *was* a matter of finding out the bare minimum, because so many of the criteria for notability can be pretty arbitrarily applied - I wanted to know at what point would another editor be prepared to leave an article without deleting it because they aren't interested in smaller players.

I suppose looking at this conversation I'm an inclusionist I guess and believe in having articles when it seems to me a reader out there would be interested in this case in what WP is really good at - and that is a synopsis and jumping off point for other info. So, it's not so much that I'm creating pet pages for my favourite team - I'm trying to counter what I see as poor consideration (rightly or wrongly) of a league like Irelands (actually North and South). I certainly wouldn't be adding very junior players with fringe experience. To me the point is - will this be interesting to someone out there against is it so minor the article has no chance of growing. I think the notability criteria are a necessary evil to stop cruft.

If I take it as a rough guideline for myself that if I can't find 2 articles in reasonable news sources about the person themselves (not just mentioned in passing) - that's a sign for me to maybe wait till later until I invest energy. I realise there can be subjectivity on some of this stuff - but personally I now have a better guideline in my head.

Specifically back to Boyle again - to use him as a sounding board. When I read this:

“

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material.

”

I did think the articles would have fulfilled that, but it depends how someone subjectively defines "detail". I think my main problem is being able to boil that statement down, so that after a quick Google I can see whether the guidelines are met.

Do you think you would be happy to put this one to a vote so I can see how the process develops? Particularly as I found another article specifically about him:

• http://www.donegalsporthub.com/nathan-boyle-re-signs-for-derry-city-ahead-of-2016-season/

Regards SeanMack (talk) 07:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SeanMack: Hi Sean. Having looked through your points from both posts here at my talk page, I am not fully convinced he meets GNG, but there is a sufficiently strong argument to make me doubt whether he would be deleted after a discussion (WP:AFD) so I have removed the deletion tag. As mentioned before, this doesn't preclude a discussion being initiated by another user, but integrating the sources you mentioned here into the article (if you haven't done so already) would certainly strengthen the article and add weight to the potential keep argument, were it to come to that. You are of course correct in your observations of subjectivism, hence the discussions allowing different interpretations of what we like to consider to be objective criteria. You seem to be doing a great job in increasing the verifiability of the articles, so keep up the good work. Thanks, C679 09:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Thanks again for the info and guidance. Yep I appreciate Boyle might be borderline and the article isn't protected but, at least, it has a chance to grow for now.

By the way - on a completely separate issue - I just noticed something - do you think its a bit strange that the SoccerBase template links to a racing post wiki page - or is just me?

Cheers. SeanMack (talk) 11:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Intresting how I found Omar Israel Mendoza and Omar Mendoza, both Mexican footballers whose DOB are the same date. Not sure is this the same person or 2 different people right now though. As they both have 2 separate Spanish wiki pages. Not sure what to say. Wgolf (talk) 03:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Wgolf: different dates of birth, one of them had been noted incorrectly. And finally they play for different clubs. Thanks, C679 04:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay was making sure-the guy made a duplicate article earlier that was caught a few days ago! Wgolf (talk) 05:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed they are both on the template for Cruz Azul Hidalgo squad. (The person the guy created twice was Oscar Villia, which one of the 2 was deleted) Wgolf (talk) 02:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The squad template is hopelessly out of date. If you want to update it, the info is at Soccerway, but with 42 players, I am not going to update that myself. C679 06:33, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

... for assessing and improving so many articles related to the Czech Republic. I am currently visiting CR (and having a great time!) so I am trying to create and make small improvements to articles when I can. Keep up the great work! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cloud, thank you for assessing Kermit Erasmus' page. I was wondering if you wouldn't be willing to do the same for the pages of Stephane Sparagna and Mahmoud Dahoud. I would do it myself but I've made a lot of contributions to those two pages and would prefer to avoid allegations of bias. It would be much appreciated. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 21:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. C679 04:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Round 2 is over and 35 competitors have moved on to Round 3.

Round 2 saw three FAs (two by Cas Liber (submissions) and one by Montanabw (submissions)), four Featured Lists (with three by Calvin999 (submissions)), and 53 Good Articles (six by Worm That Turned (submissions) and five each by Hurricanehink (submissions), Cwmhiraeth (submissions), and MPJ-DK (submissions)). Eleven Featured Pictures were promoted (six by Adam Cuerden (submissions) and five by Godot13 (submissions)). One Featured Portal, Featured Topic and Good Topic were also promoted. The DYK base point total was 1,135. Cwmhiraeth (submissions) scored 265 base points, while The C of E (submissions) and MPJ-DK (submissions) each scored 150 base points. Eleven ITN were promoted and 131 Good Article Reviews were conducted with MPJ-DK (submissions) completing a staggering 61 reviews. Two contestants, Cwmhiraeth (submissions) and Cas Liber (submissions), broke the 700 point mark for Round 2.

If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. 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 yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Thanks to everyone for participating, and good luck to those moving into round 2. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudz679, you took over this GA review from the original reviewer. As far as I can tell, the issues you raised have been addressed in some fashion—can you please return to continue the review process? Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another ping: the review continuation has been responded to. Please stop by as soon as you can. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 21:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NK Zagreb squad has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Kq-hit (talk) 20:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You may be interested in participating in the African Destubathon which starts on October 15. Africa currently has over 37,000 stubs and badly needs a quality improvement editathon/contest to flesh out basic stubs. There are proposed substantial prizes to give to editors who do the most articles, and planned smaller prizes for doing to most destubs for each of the 53 African countries, so should be enjoyable! So it would be a good chance to win something for improving stubs on African sportspeople, including footballers, athletes, Olympians and Paralympians etc, particularly female ones, but also male. Even if contests aren't your thing we would be grateful if you could consider destubbing a few African articles during the drive to help the cause and help reduce the massive 37,000 + stub count, of which many are rated high importance (think Regions of countries etc). If you're interested in competing or just loosely contributing a few expanded articles on African Paralympians, Olympians and committees etc, please add your name to the Contestants/participants section. Diversity of work from a lot of people will make this that bit more special. Thanks. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you reviewed this; did you have a look at the Czech language online sources to verify I understood them correctly? Me no speak the language. Ribbet32 (talk) 21:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ribbet32:I did, and there are no mistakes whatsoever. And the article you created is much better than the equivalent on Czech Wikipedia! Almost as if you had some kind of extra assistance? Working out the nominative noun forms from various other cases can take some doing! Thanks, C679 22:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! No real "extra assistance" other than HAL 9000. The German Wikipedia version looked a bit better than the Czech version as well- this I put down to Czech Wikipedia being a smaller project. Ribbet32 (talk) 02:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The final round of the 2016 WikiCup is over. Congratulations to the 2016 WikiCup top three finalists:

• First Place - Cas Liber (submissions)
• Second Place - MPJ-DK (submissions)
• Third Place - Adam Cuerden (submissions)

In addition to recognizing the achievements of the top finishers and everyone who worked hard to make it to the final round, we also want to recognize those participants who were most productive in each of the WikiCup scoring categories:

• Featured Article – Cas Liber (actually a three-way tie with themselves for two FAs in each of R2, R3, and R5).
• Good Article – MPJ-DK had 14 GAs promoted in R3.
• Featured List – Calvin999 (submissions) produced 2 FLs in R2
• Featured Pictures – Adam Cuerden restored 18 images to FP status in R4.
• Featured Portal – SSTflyer (submissions) produced the only FPO of the Cup in R2.
• Featured Topic – Cyclonebiskit (submissions) and Calvin were each responsible for one FT in R3 and R2, respectively.
• Good Topic – MPJ-DK created a GT with 9 GAs in R5.
• Did You Know – MPJ-DK put 53 DYKs on the main page in R4.
• In The News – Dharmadhyaksha (submissions) and Muboshgu (submissions), each with 5 ITN, both in R4.
• Good Article Review – MPJ-DK completed 61 GARs in R2.

Over the course of the 2016 WikiCup the following content was added to Wikipedia (only reporting on fixed value categories): 17 Featured Articles, 183 Good Articles, 8 Featured Lists, 87 Featured Pictures, 40 In The News, and 321 Good Article Reviews. Thank you to all the competitors for your hard work and what you have done to improve Wikipedia.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We will open up a discussion for comments on process and scoring in a few days. The 2017 WikiCup is just around the corner! Many thanks from all the judges. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup Greetings, all! We would like to announce the start of the 4th GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Thus far, there have been three GA Cups, which were successful in reaching our goals of significantly reducing the traditionally long queue at GAN, so we're doing it again. Currently, there are over 400 nominations listed. We hope that we can again make an impact this time. The 4th GA Cup will begin on November 1, 2016. Four rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on February 28, 2017), but this may change based on participant numbers. We may take a break in December for the holidays, depending on the results of a poll of our participants taken shortly after the competition begins. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same, as will the scoring. Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on November 14, 2016. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now! If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the judges. Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. We apologize for the delay in sending out this message until after the competition has started. Thank you to Krishna Chaitanya Velaga for aiding in getting this message out. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:49, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Challenge Series is a current drive on English Wikipedia to encourage article improvements and creations globally through a series of 50,000/10,000/1000 Challenges for different regions, countries and topics. All Wikipedia editors in good standing are invited to participate.

• Use {{subst:The Challenge series invitation}} to invite others using this template.
• Sent to users at Northamerica1000/Mailing list using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:15, 19 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

On 1 January 2017, WikiCup 2017 (the 10th Annual WikiCup) will begin. This year we are trying something a little different – monetary prizes.

For the WC2017 the prizes will be as follows (amounts are based in US$ and will be awarded in the form of an online Amazon gift certificate):

• First place – $200
• Second & Third place – $50 each
• Category prizes – $25 per category (which will be limited to FA, FL, FP, GA, and DYK for 2017). Winning a category prize does not require making it to the final round.

Note: Monetary prizes are a one-year experiment for 2017 and may or may not be continued in the future. In order to be eligible to receive any of the prizes above, the competing Wikipedia account must have a valid/active email address.

After two years as a WikiCup judge, Figureskatingfan is stepping down. We thank her for her contributions as a WikiCup judge. We are pleased to announce that our newest judge is two-time WikiCup champion Cwmhiraeth.

The judges for the 2017 WikiCup are Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email).

Signups are open now and will remain open until 5 February 2017. You can sign up here.

If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Chris Troutman (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. It would have been 5 points, but when a late entrant was permitted to join the contest in February, a promise was made that his inclusion would not result in the exclusion of any other competitor. To achieve this, the six entrants that had the lowest positive score of 4 points have been added to the 64 people who otherwise would have qualified. As a result, some of the groups have nine contestants rather than eight. Our top four scorers in round 1 were:

• Cas Liber, last year's winner, led the field with two featured articles on birds and a total score of 674.
• Iry-Hor, a WikiCup newcomer, came next with a featured article, a good article and a tally of 282 bonus points for a score of 517. All these points came from the article Nyuserre Ini, an Ancient Egyptian pharaoh,
• 1989, another WikiCup newcomer, was in joint third place at 240. 1989 has claimed points for two featured lists and one good article relating to anime and comedy series, all of which were awarded bonus points.
• Peacemaker67 shared third place with five good articles and thirteen good article reviews, mostly on naval vessels. He is also new to the competition.

The largest number of DYKs have been submitted by Vivvt and The C of E, who each claimed for seven, and MBlaze Lightning achieved eight articles at ITN. Carbrera and Peacemaker67 each claimed for five GAs and Krishna Chaitanya Velaga was well out in front for GARs, having reviewed 32. No featured pictures, featured topics or good topics yet, but we have achieved three featured articles and a splendid total of fifty good articles.

So, on to the second round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 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 equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! 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 yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were recipient no. 1632 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly, Gerda Arendt! C679 14:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:30, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: I appreciate the recognition. Thank you! C679 09:44, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You appear on my watchlist often, and always good things! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:03, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Three years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: always appreciated! C679 07:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The second round of the competition has now closed, with just under 100 points being required to qualify for round 3. YellowEvan just scraped into the next round with 98 points but we have to say goodbye to the thirty or so competitors who didn't achieve this threshold; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Our top scorers in round 2 were:

• Cas Liber, led the field with five featured articles, four on birds and one on astronomy, and a total score of 2049, half of which came from bonus points.
• 1989 was in second place with 826 points, 466 of which were bonus points. 1989 has claimed points mostly relating to anime and Japanese-related articles.
• Peacemaker67 took third place with two FAs, one GA and seven GARs, mostly on naval vessels or military personnel, scoring 543 points.
• Other contestants who scored over 400 points were Freikorp, Carbrera, and Czar. Of course all these points are now wiped out and the 32 remaining contestants start again from zero in round 3.

Vivvt submitted the largest number of DYKs (30), and MBlaze Lightning achieved 13 articles at ITN. Carbrera claimed for 11 GAs and Argento Surfer performed the most GARs, having reviewed 11. So far we have achieved 38 featured articles and a splendid 132 good articles. Commendably, 279 GARs have been achieved so far, more than double the number of GAs.

So, on to the third round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. 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 equally.

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. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! 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 yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The third round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 288 points being required to qualify for round 4. It was a hotly competitive round with all but four of the contestants exceeding the 106 points that was necessary to proceed to round 4 last year. Coemgenus and Freikorp tied on 288, and both have been allowed to proceed, so round 4 now has one pool of eight competitors and one of nine.

Round 3 saw the achievement of a 26-topic Featured topic by MPJ-DK as well as 5 featured lists and 13 featured articles. PanagiotisZois and SounderBruce achieved their first ever featured articles. Carbrera led the GA score with 10, Tachs achieved 17 DYKs and MBlaze Lightning 10 In the news items. There were 167 DYKs, 93 GARs and 82 GAs overall, this last figure being higher than the number of GAs in round 2, when twice as many people were taking part. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.

As we start round 4, we say goodbye to the fifteen or so competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, 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. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 05:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 102#When does a player gets rated Top - importance? that there should only be 30 or so Top-importance articles (per WikiProject presumably) according to guidelines. Could you point me at those guidelines? Many thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 01:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually reviewing it now, and taking a look around, the guidelines to which I was referring were project-specific for another project. In fact, "the priority scale varies based on the project scope." per WP:ASSESS and any prescribed maximum is WikiProject-specific. C679 14:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Round 4 of the WikiCup has ended and we move forward into the final round. In round 4, a total of 12 FAs, 3 FLs, 44 GAs, 3 FLs, 79 DYKs, 1 ITN and 42 GARs was achieved, with no FPs or FTs this time. Congratulations to Peacemaker67 on the Royal Yugoslav Navy Good Topic of 36 items, and the 12 featured articles achieved by Cas Liber (5), Vanamonde93 (3), Peacemaker67 (2), Adityavagarwal (1) and 12george1 (1). With a FA scoring 200 points, and bonus points available on top of this, FAs are likely to feature heavily in the final round. Meanwhile Yellow Evan, a typhoon specialist, was contributing 12 DYKs and 10 GAs, while Adityavagarwal and Freikorp topped the GAR list with 8 reviews each. As we enter the final round, we are down to eight contestants, and we would like to thank those of you who have been eliminated for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. The lowest score needed to reach round 5 was 305, and I think we can expect a highly competitive final round.

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. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. 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 reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck, and let the best man (or woman) win! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 06:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		Thank you for creating several articles on women and their works over the past couple of months. We have become aware of your contributions thanks to research undertaken by Bobo.03 at the University of Minnesota. You might be interested in becoming a member of our WikiProject Women in Red where we are actively trying to reduce Wikipedia's content gender gap. If you would like to receive news of our activities without becoming a member, you can simply add your name to our mailing list. In any case, thank you for actively contributing to the coverage of women (currently, 17.11% of English Wikipedia's biographies). Our priorities for October: Women and disability Healthcare Geofocus: Nordic countries Continuing from month to month: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 10:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thankyou for your participation in the challenge series or/and contests. In November The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There will be over $4000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers and paid subscriptions. If this would appeal to you and you think you'd be interested in contributing new articles on women during this month for your region or wherever please sign up in the participants section. The articles done may also count towards the ongoing challenge. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate and raise money to buy books about women for others to use, this is also fine. Help would also be appreciated in drawing up the lists of missing articles. If you think of any missing articles please add them to the sub lists by continent at Missing articles. Thankyou, and if taking part, good luck!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I have started writting/documenting the 2018 FIFA World Cup Final article now I just have the draft I need help your to move it in its right full place from the draft. I checked the history and i have see that you locked it. Chabota Kanguya (talk) 22:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not locked, you can edit the page, which I created as a redirect in 2014, to turn it into a full article if you have sufficient sources. C679 18:40, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

C679 No its fine i have been already been attended to. I just have to do something else thanks. Chabota Kanguya (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	Hello Cloudz679: You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. North America1000 15:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The final round of the 2017 WikiCup is over. Congratulations to the 2017 WikiCup top three finalists:

• First Place - Adityavagarwal (submissions)
• Second Place - Vanamonde (submissions)
• Third Place - Cas Liber (submissions)

In addition to recognizing the achievements of the top finishers and everyone who worked hard to make it to the final round, we also want to recognize those participants who were most productive in each of the WikiCup scoring categories:

• Featured Article – Cas Liber (actually a two-way tie with themselves for an astonishing five FAs in R2 and R4).
• Good Article – Adityavagarwal had 14 GAs promoted in R5.
• Featured List – Bloom6132 (submissions) and 1989 (submissions) both produced 2 FLs in R2
• Featured Pictures – SounderBruce (submissions) improved an image to FP status in R5, the only FP this year.
• Featured Topic – MPJ-DK (submissions) has the only FT of the Cup in R3.
• Good Topic – Four different editors created a GT in R2, R3 and R4.
• Did You Know – Adityavagarwal had 22 DYKs on the main page in R5.
• In The News – MBlaze Lightning (submissions) had 14 ITN on the main page in R2.
• Good Article Review – Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (submissions) completed 31 GARs in R1.

Over the course of the 2017 WikiCup the following content was added or improved on Wikipedia: 51 Featured Articles, 292 Good Articles, 18 Featured Lists, 1 Featured Picture, 1 Featured Topics, 4 Good Topics, around 400 Did You Knows, 75 In The News, and 442 Good Article Reviews. Thank you to all the competitors for your hard work and what you have done to improve Wikipedia.

Regarding the prize vouchers - @Adityavagarwal, Vanamonde93, Casliber, Bloom6132, 1989, and SounderBruce: please send Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) an email from the email address to which you would like your Amazon voucher sent. Please include your preference of global Amazon marketplace as well. We hope to have the electronic gift cards processed and sent within a week.

We will open up a discussion for comments on process and scoring in a few days. The 2018 WikiCup is just around the corner! Many thanks from all the judges. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So the 2017 WikiCup has come to an end. Congratulations to the winner, to the other finalists and to all those who took part. 177 contestants signed up, more than usual, but not all of them submitted entries in the first round. Were editors attracted by the cash prizes offered for the first time this year, or were these irrelevant? Do the rules and scoring need changing for the 2018 WikiCup? If you have a view on these or other matters, why not join in the WikiCup discussion about next year's contest? Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of European Merit
		I, Vami_IV, award the Barnstar of European Merit to Cloudz679 aka C679 for their participation in the European 10,000 Challenge, no matter how minor. Even if your contribution was small, I appreciate your work in the Czech Republic. –Vami_IV✠ 02:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
		this WikiAward was given to Cloudz679 by Vami_IV✠ on 02:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

<font face="Century Gothic">[[User:Cloudz679|C]][[:User talk:Cloudz679|<span style="color: #6A5ACD; text-decoration: inherit; -moz-text-decoration-color: #6A5ACD; text-decoration-color: #6A5ACD;">679</span>]]</font> → C679

to

<span style="font-family: Century Gothic;">[[User:Cloudz679|C]][[:User talk:Cloudz679|<span style="color: #6A5ACD; text-decoration: inherit; -moz-text-decoration-color: #6A5ACD; text-decoration-color: #6A5ACD;">679</span>]]</span> → C679

Respectfully, Anomalocaris (talk) 00:07, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for updating your signature! —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Hello, Cloudz679. As one of Wikipedia's most experienced Wikipedia editors, Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 17:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for alerting me to the creation of this article. The name has been on my list for a long time, but I probably would never have got round to creating it myself. I do very little on WP these days. LynwoodF (talk) 10:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cloudz679. AfC submissions Random submission ~7 weeks 1,220 pending submissions Purge to update v t e I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged. Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Cloudz, I hope all is well. I just had a question about your assessment of the 2017–18 Indian Super League season page. I was just wondering, why the start assessment and what do you believe could be done to improve the article? Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is very little text, related to the article as a whole. Text (prose) is the only thing which should count towards the assessment. Compare with 2017–18 NK Maribor season, which has C-class. C679 00:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cloudz. I totally agree that the actress is a primary topic. Besides, Nečas's former advisor, now wife, already changed her surname anyway. I have moved the article you have created, and included a link on the top, that refers to the 2013 political crisis. Let me know if that works for you. - Darwinek (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Cloudz679. Are we not allowed {{ill|}} templates on our Talk pages? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Martinevans123:. There are instructions to remove instances of the template where the redlinks no longer exist. C679 17:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Well, thanks for telling me. Obviously your edit was too subtle for me! Martinevans123 (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I got an automated email notification about this edit of yours. First off, thank you for helping clean up my mess: I threw out a whole bunch of imperfect-at-best articles last November and when the month was out I went back to other projects.

But I did find your edit summary a bit confusing, since the use of the word "already" implies either that one would expect us not to or that the illm template was unnecessary as we "already" had an article on en.wiki, but I actually wrote the linked article myself several days after adding the link. Of course I'm not implying bad faith on your part or anything like that; just that rather than using that edit summary again something like "English Wikipedia has an article of that title." would probably be better.

This would also solve problems like with this edit, for example, where the edit summary was factually inaccurate: English Wikipedia already had an article on an unrelated topic that happened to have the same name, not the article that was meant to be linked. Checking the interwiki links would prevent errors like that from happening, but honestly that's more work than I expect from most Wikipedians and not worth the effort to prevent an ultimately minor error.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hijiri88:Thanks for your message. Semantically it may not be the best choice of word, but it relates to the time of the edit, not the time when the link was inserted. Regarding the temple, yes I do occasionally get these 'wrong' but without my edit they still link to that same page. I check IW links although I do struggle with non-Latin scripts. Luckily there are diligent editors like you out there who can pick up these imperfections. Perhaps if I pick up any more with a Japanese page I could refer them to you to avoid mistakes? Thanks, C679 11:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! Although I should say that I don't trust interwiki links as guides to the "facts"; the Hosshō-ji thing was obvious to me not because of the different orthography but because of the dates, which I wouldn't trust if it wasn't a topic area I was familiar with. Here, for example, I know that Japanese Wikipedia has confused several separate topics that will in the long run need to be split and wikidata cleared up, and clearing up wikidata is something I am very, very bad at.[3] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hijiri88: Hello, found one for you. There's a link on Sharaku to almost certainly the 'wrong' Kazuo Inoue... could you take a look, please? Thanks, C679 16:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. With 53 contestants qualifying, the groups for round 2 are slightly smaller than usual, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining users.

Our top scorers in round 1 were:

• Aoba47 led the field with a featured article, 8 good articles and 42 GARs, giving a total of 666 points.
• FrB.TG , a WikiCup newcomer, came next with 600 points, gained from a featured article and masses of bonus points.
• Ssven2, another WikiCup newcomer, was in third place with 403 points, garnered from a featured article, a featured list, a good article and twelve GARs.
• Ceranthor, Numerounovedant, Carbrera, Farang Rak Tham and Cartoon network freak all had over 200 points, but like all the other contestants, now have to start again from scratch. A good achievement was the 193 GARs performed by WikiCup contestants, comparing very favourably with the 54 GAs they achieved.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 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.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! 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 yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) and Vanamonde (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the link to Reset style sheet on CSS framework! I meant to add it after I created the page, but I guess I forgot. —AnAwesomeArticleEditor (^talk
_contribs) 19:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The second round of the 2018 WikiCup has now finished. Most contestants who advanced to the next round scored upwards of 100 points, but two with just 10 points managed to scrape through into round 3. Our top scorers in the last round were:

• Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with three featured articles
• Iazyges, with nine good articles and lots of bonus points
• Yashthepunisher, a first time contestant, with two featured lists
• SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with seventeen good topic articles
• Usernameunique, a first time contestant, with fourteen DYKs
• Muboshgu, a seasoned competitor, with three ITNs and
• Courcelles, another first time contestant, with twenty-seven GARs

So far contestants have achieved twelve featured articles between them and a splendid 124 good articles. Commendably, 326 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2018 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too 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; most of the GARs are fine, but a few have been a bit skimpy.

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. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The third round of the 2018 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round had at least 227 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

• Courcelles, a first time contestant, with 1756 points, a tally built largely on 27 GAs related to the Olympics
• Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three GAs on natural history and astronomy topics
• SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with a variety of submissions related to transport in the state of Washington

Contestants managed 7 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 120 good articles, 1 good topic, 124 DYK entries, 15 ITN entries, and 132 good article reviews. Over the course of the competition, contestants have completed 458 GA reviews, in comparison to 244 good articles submitted for review and promoted. As we enter the fourth round, remember that 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; several submissions, particularly in abstruse or technical areas, have needed additional work to make them completely verifiable.

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. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk), Vanamonde (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning from Coreca, I write to greet you and know how are you, I'm pretty good for now, working for my cultural tourism association. I am writing to ask you a favor, that is to dedicate a little of your precious time to reassume the history of my little village (based from French translation). I ask you to give a shot and refreshed article that is about to improve hour by hour, day after day. Thank you once again for what you did, do and do for me. a greeting from Calabria and see you soon!--Luigi Salvatore Vadacchino (talk) 11:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fourth round of the 2018 WikiCup has now come to an end. The eight users who made it to the final round had to score a minimum of 422 points to qualify, with the top score in the round being 4869 points. The leaders in round 4 were:

• Courcelles scored a magnificent 4869 points, with 92 good articles on Olympics-related themes. Courcelles' bonus points alone exceeded the total score of any of the other contestants!
• Kees08 was second with 1155 points, including a high-scoring featured article for Neil Armstrong, two good topics and some Olympics-related good articles.
• Cas Liber, with 1066 points, was in third place this round, with two featured articles and a good article, all on natural history topics.
• Other contestants who qualified for the final round were Nova Crystallis, Iazyges, SounderBruce, Kosack and Ceranthor.

During round four, 6 featured articles and 164 good articles were promoted by WikiCup contestants, 13 articles were included in good topics and 143 good article reviews were performed. There were also 10 "in the news" contributions on the main page and 53 "did you knows". Congratulations to 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. 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. Good luck, and let the best editor win! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:SK Senco Doubravka logo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is Courcelles (submissions), who over the course of the competition has amassed 147 GAs, 111 GARs, 9 DYKs, 4 FLs and 1 ITN. Our finalists were as follows:

1. Courcelles (submissions)
2. Kosack (submissions)
3. Kees08 (submissions)
4. SounderBruce (submissions)
5. Cas Liber (submissions)
6. Nova Crystallis (submissions)
7. Iazyges (submissions)
8. Ceranthor (submissions)

All those who reached the final win awards, and awards will also be going to the following participants:

• Cas Liber (submissions) wins the FA prize, for three featured articles in round 2.
• Courcelles (submissions) wins the GA prize, for 92 good articles in round 3.
• Kosack (submissions) wins the FL prize, for five featured lists overall.
• Cartoon network freak (submissions) wins the topic prize, for 30 articles in good topics overall.
• Usernameunique (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 24 did you know articles in round 3.
• Zanhe (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 17 in the news articles overall.
• Aoba47 (submissions) wins the GAR prize, for 43 good article reviews in round 1.

Awards will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved much this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition.

Next year's competition begins on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; it is open to all Wikipedians, new and old. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2019 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from