Utopes

• RayNoor (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Simplicissimus (YouTube Channel) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I received feedback that the article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Simplicissimus_(YouTube_Channel) is not notable and cites Youtube as a source, however:

the article itself already exists on Wikipedia in German, meaning it has a precedent for being notable: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplicissimus_(YouTube-Kanal)

and the YouTube citation is not of any facts but rather to quote that channel's own biography. Note;

Wikipedia draft: "Simplicissimus was created on 12 April 2015 under the name Simplicissimus 2.0, after the German satirical magazine Simplicissimus which ran from 1896 to 1967"

Citation: https://www.youtube.com/@Simplicissimus

Content: "Wir machen Essays zu Fragen, die du dir noch nie, oder viel zu oft gestellt hast. Simplicissimus = Anlehnung an die Satirezeitschrift" (we make essays on questions that you've never asked yourself or have asked yourself too often. Simplicissimus = Reference to the satire magazine)

There is a precedent for this on the original German wikipedia article: citations 3, 4, 5, 6 and 9 are all of Youtube links for similar reasons; to provide proof of existence, etc.

Do you mind explaining what I can do to show evidence of notability, and how the citation of Youtube in this case differs with the original article?

RayNoor (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey @Utopes, thanks a lot for your feedback on this draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Belarusian_Sport_Solidarity_Foundation

You asked to "please remove external links from the body of the article". I checked all the ref links and they seem to be formatted correctly and in line with Wiki's policy, and work exactly the same as on other pages. Can you please provide more detail. Much appreciated.

Artrage (talk) 09:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Utopes, having read your feedback again (and again, and again), I realized you meant the actual section entitled External Links. I removed it. Please, let me know if anything else needs editing. Otherwise, I would be most grateful for approval. Thank you. Artrage (talk) 10:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Artrage. Thank you for the question, and apologies for the delay. I'll provide clarification here; hopefully it is sufficient.

When reading the contents of Wikipedia articles, we try to keep the encyclopedia integrated by including wikilinks to other articles within the article's body. Furthermore, any links that aren't wikilinks tend to get removed when spotted, as Wikipedia is not a primary-source portal. This discludes some extraordinary circumstances, like a "website" parameter in an infobox or etc. All articles have (or should have) references, which is the "main" location that external links will exist. An "External links" section also serves this purpose.

I didn't have any qualms with the External Links section. But Draft:Belarusian Sport Solidarity Foundation#Activities and Achievements still has three external links present. During my initial assessment I thought I saw more than just the three, but it turns out the external linkage was less egregious than I remembered. If the Masovian Football Association is notable for instance, it should be included as a red link to encourage article creation about the subject, rather than sending people to their website.

The main reason I declined the article was for reading like an advertisement. Also present in the draft, are phrases such as: "As a matter of regular practice, the BSSF actively engages in official dialogues", "The BSSF plays an integral role in global discourses and strategic consultations", "the BSSF has done everything possible to defend the athlete's rights", and many more examples. While some have citations, it's still quite peacock phrasing, and some promotional phrasings don't have citations. See: "The BSSF is involved in fundraising activities for charitable purposes." While it may indeed be true that BSSF does fundraising activities, a lot of organizations do. It should only be included in the article if the fundraising activities have been significantly and independently reported on by reliable sources, which typically might be rare, but perhaps it's true in this case.

Hopefully this sheds a bit more light on the declination at this time. The external linkage should still be removed, but it was one actionable aspect of the WP:ADV / WP:NPOV decline. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 11:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ps: Oh wait, I just realized I DIDN'T actually decline it, and only left a comment. Was reading the last declination and thought that was mine. I probably would have though, had I completed a full review of the draft (and still would at this time for WP:NPOV purposes), but only left a passerby comment in order to fix it for the next person to see it. Hopefully this helps regardless. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 11:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

(Also, I've gone ahead and removed the external links from the body of the article, and replaced them with redlinks.) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 12:36, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Utopes!

A massive thank you for the thorough and detailed feedback, as well as all the advice and external links removal. You have been truly helpful, and I really appreciate it.

I have carried out all the edits you suggested and then some.

Stylistically, the article has become neutral, and the missing links were added where necessary.

Some parts of the article have been removed as I couldn't find the links.

Hopefully, it is good to go now.

Once again, I am really grateful to you for all the answers and advice. Artrage (talk) 13:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello. You recently rejected a draft of "reanimal" for objective reasons, since I referred to YouTube and did not leave sources in some places , which you wrote in the comments. I fixed these problems and sent a request, another person rejected the application without comments referring to the topic is not suitable for a Wikipedia article although I have referred to many sources listed as reliable. Can you please look at the draft again and comment and tell me what to improve. I am writing to you because your comment really helped me understand my mistakes. I just don’t understand what else I need to improve and whether I should create another request for an article review. Redstone catman (talk) 10:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

i don't know what is wrong with you sir? in the topic (battle of balkh) that i have written it, has a historical aspect in other hand you said your topic doesn't have Reliable sources may i ask you (https://books.google.com/books?id=wOzeDwAAQBAJ&dq=qara%20khitai%20ghurid%20balkh&pg=PT3) so what is this source? if you don't know history so let others review or check my toipc you just wasted my effort, i had been writing this topic for almost 4 hours. طاها صایم (talk) 15:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

The fourth round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 29 August. Each of the 8 contestants who advanced to Round 4 scored at least 472 points, and the following contestants scored more than 700 points:

•   Generalissima (submissions) with 1,150 points, mostly from 3 featured articles, 2 featured lists, 7 good articles, and 13 did you know nominations;
•   Arconning (submissions) with 791 points, mostly from 2 featured lists, 8 good articles, 4 did you know nominations, and plenty of reviews;
•   AirshipJungleman29 (submissions) with 718 points, mostly from a high-multiplier featured article on Genghis Khan and 2 good articles; and
•   BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 714 points, mostly from 1 featured article on Susanna Hoffs, 2 featured lists, and 3 good articles.

Congratulations to our eight finalists and all who participated. Contestants put in extraordinary amounts of effort during this round, and their scores can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 36 featured articles, 55 featured lists, 15 good articles, 93 in the news credits, and at least 333 did you know credits. They have conducted 357 featured content reviews, as well as 553 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 30 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Any content promoted after 29 August but before the start of Round 5 can be claimed during Round 5, which starts on 1 September at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. 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 for a good article, featured content, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Remember to claim your points within 14 days of earning them, and importantly, before the deadline on 31 October.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:13, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2024).

  Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, there is a new criterion for speedy deletion: C4, which applies to unused maintenance categories, such as empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past.
• A request for comment is open to discuss whether Notability (species) should be adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.

  Arbitration

• Following a motion, remedies 5.1 and 5.2 of World War II and the history of Jews in Poland (the topic and interaction bans on My very best wishes, respectively) were repealed.
• Remedy 3C of the German war effort case ("Cinderella157 German history topic ban") was suspended for a period of six months.
• The arbitration case Historical Elections is currently open. Proposed decision is expected by 3 September 2024 for this case.

  Miscellaneous

• Editors can now enter into good article review circles, an alternative for informal quid pro quo arrangements, to have a GAN reviewed in return for reviewing a different editor's nomination.
• A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in September 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 13,900 articles and 26,200 redirects awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!

• Potassium borohydride, 13762-51-1,currently a redirect to borohydride, 8290 citations in ChemAbs (notable!)
• Tetrabutylammonium Borohydride, 33725-74-5, leading ref: doi: 10.1002/047084289X.rt010 (a review), you need to know some organic
• potassium bromate, 7758-01-2, >5200 refs (notable!) doi: 10.1002/047084289X.rp197.pub2 (a review), current article does not discuss application in organic chemistry

current article does not discuss Xray structure

Those are some gaps in chemistry articles if you are looking for projects.--Smokefoot (talk) 15:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Greetings, Today I de-orphaned this article by adding a link at List of biologists.

Cheers, JoeNMLC (talk) 19:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I just wanted to talk to you about my recent AfC submission, Draft:The Essential Donovan. If possible? Newtatoryd222 (talk) 19:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sure. While AllMusic reviews per WP:ALLMUSIC are seen as reliable, they are not an end-all-be-all for album notability. The reviews are certainly nice to have in an article for an album, and they are correctly attributed to AllMusic in-text, but this information plus its track listing would still be insufficient for a standalone article. Per WP:NALBUM, this information could probably be talked about in a general location for the singer Donovan. "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article". I'd consider the reviews of two AllMusic users, (+1 extra review), to be a "little more than a track listing" that can be discussed elsewhere, as the sourcing does not demonstrate standalone notability for the album by itself. Feel free to resubmit for a second opinion though; I see you've done so now. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Greetings Utopes,

thank you again for reviewing my Draft:Logic_7,

I have made changes according to the things you have pointed out, and was wondering if you could have a peek at it once again. I am in no rush, but recently I find myself extremely busy to the point I won't be able to update the article often, if at all.

I thank you in advance, and hope to hear from you. Andreas Jordanidis (talk) 17:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Article Draft:Thierry Rayer

Dear Moderators,

I am writing to seek your assistance regarding the feedback you provided on the article in question. First, I would like to thank you for your comments and for the work you do to maintain the platform’s quality standards.

However, I am somewhat surprised by some of your remarks, particularly those indicating that certain phrases appear too promotional. Our intention is simply to faithfully transcribe information from media outlets and official sources, such as ministries or museums. I would therefore like to raise a few points to clarify the situation.

Firstly, could you please identify the specific phrases or information that you find promotional? This would help us make the necessary adjustments while remaining faithful to the sources we have carefully selected. It is crucial not to alter the content of information from official or journalistic sources, as this might compromise its accuracy.

Secondly, I would like to emphasize that all references cited in the article come from reliable, recognized, and verifiable sources. The excerpts written are directly based on these sources to ensure accuracy and compliance. It would be helpful if you could review these references in detail, as they form the foundation of the article and ensure the reliability of the presented information.

I therefore wonder how these sources are being taken into account during the evaluation process. Have you had the opportunity to review them thoroughly? By doing so, you will see that the article is solely based on factual and verified information, drawn from credible and objective publications.

Our goal is to contribute in a neutral, objective, and well-documented manner. We would be very grateful if you could guide us on the necessary adjustments to meet your expectations while maintaining the integrity of the sources.

Thank you for your attention, and I remain at your disposal for any further clarification.

Sincerely, Inspiringflow (talk) 12:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Utopes Can you review my page please. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Massacre_of_Tlemcen_(1145) Diego.julius (talk) 17:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Utopes, I hope you're doing well. I've made updates to the draft for the article **Yucheng (Eric) Hu** based on the feedback you provided in your review. The draft now includes additional independent, reliable sources, as well as improvements to the notability section. There is now more published articles on multiple national news media as well as interview by Harvard College Summit for Young Leaders in Chinadedicated to the individual. You can find the updated draft here: [1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Yucheng_(Eric)_Hu). I would appreciate it if you could take another look when you have time. Please let me know if there are any further issues that need addressing. Thank you for your time and consideration! Best regards, Wikieduuser Wikieduuser (talk) 06:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Dear Utopes, thank you for your time reviewing my entry on Ana Mesquita digital artist. I might need some help, if you have the patience, in knowing a bit more about what you'd consider necessary for an approval, namely in terms of reliable sources (the sources I've encountered and used seemed reliable and independent, albeit written in Portuguese).

The re-writing of the article into a more formal "voice" is easy enough, but I'd love to address the issues together and then resubmit.

Thank you for your kindness and time - it is duly appreciated.

All the best

Port norw (talk) 15:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Jkurzner (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Grant Kurzner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thanks for your input. I am not sure why the actual websites from the schools where Grant Kurzner worked are not considered reliable? Is there a specific source that you have an issue with? I apologize but this is the first time I have created an entry and I was under the impression that the sources cited are reliable.

Jkurzner (talk) 15:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

1. The posting at the top of my article Kevin Trudeau's Global Information Network (GIN) keeps changing. First the link to the Teahouse was removed, then the link to tags were removed. If I'm not supposed to remove it, then please stop removing useful links. I have no idea how to add tags. When I Google how to add tags it takes me to tagging pages for problems, which is not what I'm trying to do. Am I supposed to add them to the talk page? What are the markings? Help. 2. Also, it was incorrectly marked as a promotion. No one in their right mind would promote a dangerous cult. Please explain to me how a cult would be marked as a promotion. It makes no logical sense. 3. One more thing, it has been marked as a potential copyright violation. I need to know what part is being flagged as such so that I can fix it. The lack of communication makes it difficult to address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grad0507 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please take some more time over your RfD nominations. You've nominated over 50 redirects just on the 19th, that's too many to have done a reasonable before (or apparently any at all in some cases) and far too many for other editors to reasonable review all of them. There is no deadline, it's much better to take your time and make more detailed, fully researched nominations over a longer period of time. Note also that even before your flooding there were WP:PEIS problems on the main RfD page due to the number of transclusions of the RfD templates. Thryduulf (talk) 01:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

• I've ceased noms well over an hour ago. There was a hefty ~125 redirect bundle included among these, but it's been many months since I've been able to investigate these, and this certainly isn't a daily occurrence this year. Steel and I have been relisting and closing as appropriate to keep things as under control, but plenty more can still be closed at this time. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
• @Thryduulf: in fact the only reason why Box-Office Entertainment Awards ended up there was because I was inquirying offwiki about the G5 potential of redirects created by suspected sockpuppets, doing so in an effort to not have to send a title to RfD that didn't need to be there. And I closed the discussion immediately upon discovering it didn't need to be there. But everything else to my understanding I stand by my decision to nominate. There's 84 nominations on the page (not just mine), but at times it's been well over the 100s (usually not even by me, I try and make sure the count never goes above 100 on a page). The main issue I feel is possibly due to a lack of participants and pages getting relisted multiple times with minimal participation to the point that they never get closed. But I'll certainly keep in mind the WP:PEIS point. Steel and I were just talking about it in their relist here: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 17#Well, excuse me!. This one could probably get closed immediately by an uninvolved editor. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
• I also find that quite disappointing because I spend quite a lot of time in my RfD pre-noms. It took me 7 hours of editing to put all of those together, 8 to 9 minutes on average, where each nomination had an individually applicable statement, although similar were in similar circumstances. I have no interest in adding a section of content to Meat chop to reference Barnsley, which is the only option without having to start an RfD to retarget it somewhere else. In the status quo, it's sat in a maintenance category for nearly a decade since 2014 where nobody's added content before I nommed it at RfD with other "B"-titles. It's otherwise been a visible and always-open task, if anyone was interested in adding mentions for unmentioned redirects, and even then I was quite selective with the ones I chose, often being unmentioned variants of the items they target. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi! @Utopes, you reviewed the page Draft: Domestic & General last year and I believe your comments have been actioned- please could you take another look when you get a chance :) Ecwdgbt (talk) 16:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi! @Utopes, after your review of Draft:Neshe I slightly changed the tone of the article in order to make it more neutral as requested. If you see any other word that should be changed, please let me know, as to me everything all looks pretty neutral today. --GlobalMusicFan (talk) 15:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you :D Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 15:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I reverted your move as this work has no official or common English title. We should not invent them (that's WP:OR). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:35, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Piotrus I clearly did not "invent" the titles, as they were listed immediately in the lead as the translation of the title. The moves are fine. Thanks for the adjustment. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 15:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Right, I did not mean you invented them, I meant we as Wikipedians. It is fine to list them in the titles as a literal translation, but we should not use them as titles unless they became WP:COMMONNAME which can happen sometimes, but not in those cases, I think (those works are next to unknown in English, referred to maybe only by few sources in passing at best). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:44, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Piotrus:. Yes, lesson learned. Thanks for the adjustment. Apologies for sounding defensive, it's a good change. Was initially trying to adhere to WP:ENGLISHTITLE but I now see the listed translations are supposedly unofficial and not the common name. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 15:58, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

70.163.95.26 (talk) 15:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you <3 Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 15:58, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

i got trouted back 70.163.95.26 (talk) 16:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Trout swim upstream :) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 16:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2024).

  Administrator changes

 

• Asilvering
• Significa liberdade

 

• Good Olfactory
• Hesperian
• I JethroBT
• TommyBoy
• Woody

  CheckUser changes

 

• Barkeep49
• Izno

 

• Doug Weller
• Spicy

  Guideline and policy news

• Administrator elections are a proposed new process for selecting administrators, offering an alternative to requests for adminship (RfA). The first trial election will take place in October 2024, with candidate sign-up from October 8 to 14, a discussion phase from October 22 to 24, and SecurePoll voting from October 25 to 31. For questions or to help out, please visit the talk page at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections.
• Following a discussion, the speedy deletion reason "File pages without a corresponding file" has been moved from criterion G8 to F2. This does not change what can be speedily deleted.
• A request for comment is open to discuss whether there is a consensus to have an administrator recall process.

  Arbitration

• The arbitration case Historical elections has been closed.
• An arbitration case regarding Backlash to diversity and inclusion has been opened.
• Editors are invited to nominate themselves to serve on the 2024 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission until 23:59 October 8, 2024 (UTC).

  Miscellaneous

• If you are interested in stopping spammers, please put MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist and MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist on your watchlist, and help out when you can.

Just a friendly heads-up: XFDcloser might have barfed or something, the tags didn't get rm'ed from the page when you closed the Rfd for this (as I just found out when going there). Figured you would want a note dropped. That's it, have a great wikiday!   --Slowking Man (talk) 04:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, Utopes. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Mexicans in Hawaii, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 17:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on Super Bowl LXIII requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_February_16#Super_Bowl_63. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Jay 💬 07:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The 2024 WikiCup has come to an end, with the final round being a very tight race. Our new champion is   AirshipJungleman29 (submissions), who scored 2,283 points mainly through 3 high-multiplier FAs and 3 GAs on military history topics. By a 1% margin, Airship beat out last year's champion,   BeanieFan11 (submissions), who scored second with 2,264 points, mainly from an impressive 58 GAs about athletes. In third place,   Generalissima (submissions) scored 1,528 points, primarily from two FAs on U.S. Librarians of Congress and 20 GAs about various historical topics. Our other finalists are:   Sammi Brie (submissions) with 879 points,   Hey man im josh (submissions) with 533 points,   BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 432 points,   Arconning (submissions) with 244 points, and   AryKun (submissions) with 15 points. Congratulations to our finalists and all who participated!

The final round was very productive, and contestants had 7 FAs, 9 FLs, 94 GAs, 73 FAC reviews, and 79 GAN reviews and peer reviews. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!

All those who reached the final will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field.

•   Generalissima (submissions) wins the featured article prize for 3 FAs in round 4, and 7 FAs overall.
•   Hey man im josh (submissions) wins the featured list prize for 23 FLs overall.
•   MaranoFan (submissions) wins the featured topic prize for 9 articles in featured topics in round 1.
•   Hey man im josh (submissions) wins the featured content reviewer prize for 110 FA/FL reviews overall.
•   BeanieFan11 (submissions) wins the good article prize for 58 GAs in round 5, and 70 GAs overall.
•   Fritzmann (submissions) wins the good topic prize for 6 articles in good topics in round 2.
•   Sammi Brie (submissions) wins the good article reviewer prize for 45 GA reviews in round 2, and 78 GA reviews overall.
•   BeanieFan11 (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 131 Did you know articles overall.
•   Muboshgu (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 15 In the news articles in round 1, and 36 overall.

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 2025 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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2024).

  Administrator changes

 

• Crisco 1492

 

• Babajobu
• Daniel
• Elf
• Jayron32
• Thue
• Wugapodes

  CheckUser changes

  Maxim

  Oversighter changes

  Maxim

  Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion, the discussion-only period proposal that went for a trial to refine the requests for adminship (RfA) process has been discontinued.
• Following a request for comment, Administrator recall is adopted as a policy.

  Technical news

• Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068

  Arbitration

• RoySmith, Barkeep49 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2024 Arbitration Committee Elections. ThadeusOfNazereth and Dr vulpes are reserve commissioners.
• Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate from 3 November 2024 until 12 November 2024 to stand in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections.
• The Arbitration Committee is seeking volunteers for roles such as clerks, access to the COI queue, checkuser, and oversight.

  Miscellaneous

• An unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in November 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!