User talk:The C of E

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. We thank Vanamonde93 and Godot13, who have retired as judges, and we thank them for their past dedication. The judges for the WikiCup this year are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The 2020 totals are now complete, and your hook for Deutsches Reichsbräu ranked as the No. 3 hook of the year with 3,166 DYK views per hour and No. 6 based on total DYK views (37,990). A list of the 25 most viewed hooks of 2020 can be viewed at "Top hooks of 2020". Congratulations on your hook's remarkable showing, and keep up the good work! Cbl62 (talk) 09:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The 2020 totals are now complete, and your hook for race-reversed casting ranked as the No. 3 hook of the year with 73,086 total DYK views and No. 5 based on DYK views per hour (3,045). A list of the 25 most viewed hooks of 2020 can be viewed at "Top hooks of 2020". Congratulations on your hook's remarkable showing, and keep up the great work! Cbl62 (talk) 09:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, three of the top ten! Your hook for the 2020 FA Cup Final ranked as the No. 9 hook of 2020 with 2,554 DYK views per hour. Quite a showing! Cbl62 (talk) 09:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have enough hooks for 1 April. What we need is a consensus for what image we should use. I suggest that we use this image and caption it as "Reconnaisance Aircraft", referencing Hitler Nababan.

@Jeromi Mikhael: There's already the George Bush one already in there. But it is not my decision, I am not the King of April Fools Day DYKs (Clown-Prince maybe) it is up to the hook builders and admins to decide on that. Plus we still have 3 months to go, many other people could come up with their own ones in the meantime so we could get enough for 2 or more sets. Patience is needed here. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The C of E: Erm...unrelated but try to archive your talkpage. My potato computer almost BSODd when loading your talkpage.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for good wishes! - Happy Wikipedia 20, - proud of a little bit on the Main page today, and 5 years ago, and 10 years ago, look: create a new style - revive - complete! I sang in the revival mentioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

... and today Jerome Kohl, remembered in friendship --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 00:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 14,180 views (1,181.7 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of February 2021 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The text of A Reading from Homer says that it is unknown whether the poet reading from a scroll is intended to be Homer. Not much is certain about Homer, of course, but the tradition is that he was blind. Scutigera (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, feel free to edit it @Scutigera:. Of course, great writer and I do enjoy the Odyssey but I can never shake that response I once heard where someone was asked if they knew who Homer was and they responded "Isn't he that funny father in that cartoon show?" The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not happy about this article. Discussion in the usual place. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your DYK hook about the The Troopie and its surreptitious removal to South Africa drew 14,180 page views (1,182 per hour) while on the Main Page. It is the one of most viewed hooks so far during the month of February and has thus earned a place near the top of the February stats list. Keep up the great work! Cbl62 (talk) 16:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your hook about F. W. de Klerk's Speech at the Opening of the Parliament of South Africa, 1990, announcing the end of apartheid, also made the grade with 8,549 page views. Very impressive. Cbl62 (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that your signature contains the obsolete html <font> tag. This has been targeted for removal from Wikipedia as explained in WP:HTML5. In Special:LintErrors/obsolete-tag, many DYK templates have been listed as containing font tag. Several of them are because they have your signature in them. I urge you to replace your signature by removing the font tags so that it is not used any further. It will become a bit easier for those cleaning Lint errors. The following code leaves the same signature that you currently use-

<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> '''[[User:The C of E|<span style="color:red;">The C of E </span><span style="color:blue;"> God Save the Queen!</span>]]''' ([[User talk:The C of E|<span style="color:darkblue;">talk</span>]])</span>

Thanks. AVSmalnad77 ^talk 06:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Round 1 of the competition has finished; it was a high-scoring round with 21 contestants scoring more than 100 points. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 55 contestants qualifying. You will need to finish among the top thirty-two contestants in Round 2 if you are to qualify for Round 3. Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

• Epicgenius led the field with a featured article, nine good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 945 points.
• Bloom6132 was close behind with 896 points, largely gained from 71 "In the news" items, mostly recent deaths.
• ImaginesTigers, who has been editing Wikipedia for less than a year, was in third place with 711 points, much helped by bringing League of Legends to featured article status, exemplifying how bonus points can boost a contestant's score.
• Amakuru came next with 708 points, Kigali being another featured article that scored maximum bonus points.
• Ktin, new to the WikiCup, was in fifth place with 523 points, garnered from 15 DYKs and 34 "In the news" items.
• The Rambling Man scored 511 points, many from featured article candidate reviews and from football related DYKs.
• Gog the Mild, last year's runner-up, came next with 498 points, from a featured article and numerous featured article candidate reviews.
• Hog Farm, at 452, scored for a featured article, four good articles and a number of reviews.
• Le Panini, another newcomer to the WikiCup, scored 438 for a featured article and three good articles.
• Lee Vilenski, last year's champion, scored 332 points, from a featured article and various other sport-related topics.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start again from scratch. In Round 1, contestants achieved eight featured articles, three featured lists and one featured picture, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. They completed 97 good article reviews, nearly double the 52 good articles they claimed. Contestants also claimed for 135 featured article and featured list candidate reviews. There is no longer a requirement to mention your WikiCup participation when undertaking these reviews.

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 a good article candidate, a featured process, or something 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 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. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because Cuba and the Dominican Republic are Latin American countries, as they speak Spanish and were colonised by Spain. But the rest of the Caribbean was not. Richard3120 (talk) 14:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120: Then you might want to reword the page then because the description and map clearly says Caribbean. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it's difficult to do without making the description a little unwieldy, because South America, Central America and the Caribbean all have countries which are Latin American and countries which are not Latin American. Perhaps the only thing to do is change it to "Latin American countries in South America, Central America and the Caribbean", but that might well confuse people who don't know the difference between South America and Latin America. Richard3120 (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are right though, it does include articles that shouldn't be there because they are not Latin American countries. I'm going to talk to the author of most of them, SusanW. Richard3120 (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've talked to the editor who set up the challenge, and apparently non-Latin American countries are to be included as well (although I still think this is not clear in the title and lead section of the challenge). Anyway, my apologies for removing your addition – the entries are meant to be listed alphabetically by country, so I'll move it there. Richard3120 (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your DYK hook about the houses that the Rhodesian President may access, and the Mugabe statue, drew a combined 35,903 page views (2,992 per hour) while on the Main Page. It is the second most viewed hook for the month of March and ranks as the fourth most viewed hook (so far) of 2021, as shown at Top hooks of 2021. Keep up the great work! Cbl62 (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your DYK hook about Green Leader drew 7,908 page views (659 per hour) while on the Main Page. It is one of the most viewed hooks for the month of March as shown at March 2021 DYK STATS. Keep up the great work! Cbl62 (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for what you said on Yoninah's talk, - see also Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-03-28/Obituary! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mule ducks (apparently the synonym of Mulard) are known locally as TikTok in Indonesia. Perhaps give it a try for next year AFD? --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 08:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass (talk) 00:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For United States v. One Solid Gold Object in Form of a Rooster, cocking brilliant. Don't know if you've seen Gold toilet. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded! Tyrone Madera (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You cockadoodledid a great job! Given the object no longer exists, do you think an image of it would pass fair-use rules? Or is a text description "sold gold rooster" enough and also the concern of the article being about the case rather than the rooster itself? DMacks (talk) 15:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DMacks: I think it was just sold at auction, it wasn't destroyed. I think it will be tough to get a fair use of it but I'm not an expert on copyright law, probably best to ask at WP:MCQ. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I'll ask there. Turns out there's no FoP for sculpture in US, so we're still in fairuse-or-nothing. DMacks (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

wild garlic

You may be interested in the TFA on Easter Sunday that played a role in my life! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On this day in 1742, He was despised was performed for the first time, and when I wrote it in 2012, I didn't only think of Jesus. Andreas Scholl sang that for us, - you are invited to a Baroque stroll. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: It is an important piece, its a shame that most of the Messiah pieces don't have their own pages. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would have liked the Hallelujah Chorus separate, but other than that, they are performed together, so I think context makes sense. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How is this former flag of South Africa hate speech? this is doesn't make sense because this flag was adopted in 1928 and apartheid started in 1948, and there's nothing offensive about this flag. ColorfulSmoke (talk) 07:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ColorfulSmoke: I don't see how either but it became associated with the regime so, rightly or wrongly, it became associated with it even though it was intended as a symbol of unity. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was the user who requested the creation of this file, and added this file to Flag of South Africa and Flag of South Africa (1928–1994), because i thought it would be interesting to see the orange-white-blue South African flag without the three-miniature flags. ColorfulSmoke (talk) 06:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 

@The C of E: Is this edit really neccessary? ColorfulSmoke (talk) 07:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine to me @ColorfulSmoke: The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The C of E: I created this section Flag of Rhodesia (1965–1968) on Flag of Rhodesia and it says "The flag from 1964–1968 was the flag of Southern Rhodesia (1964–1965) and Rhodesia (1965–1968)" it's not good enough, could you please help by expanding and improving it? This flag File:Flag of Southern Rhodesia (1964–1965); Flag of Rhodesia (1965–1968).svg is apparently a sky blue version of the all-dark blue File:Flag of Southern Rhodesia (1924–1964).svg used during the British colonial period. ColorfulSmoke (talk) 14:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The C of E: nevermind that, @Great Brightstar: has merged the flag, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flag_of_Rhodesia&diff=next&oldid=1018389713 ColorfulSmoke (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Nine years!

Did you read about the song of God's presence? Author's name translates to Easter house ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would you prefer Template:Did you know nominations/SS Birma to be in the image slot of prep 3 or 4 for the sinking of the Titanic anniversary? I did notice that your nomination stated April 14, but it looks like it should be April 15 based on the Titanic article. SL93 (talk) 02:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I promoted it to prep 4, but I can switch it out if needed. SL93 (talk) 04:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SL93: I thought I had changed the request to 15 April? It was in that holding area I thought? Yes I would like it changed to the 15th please. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are two prep slots for each day with 12 hour hooks. I was asking what what one you preferred. SL93 (talk) 06:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The 15th, preferably the 2nd set @SL93: The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Sorry if I was hard to understand. I can see that I phrased it strangely. SL93 (talk) 06:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass (talk) 12:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article you are searching for is located at Dial Square Football Club and is currently nominated for deletion... GiantSnowman 17:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, we do not have two articles about the same topic. Please improve the pre-existing article, and then seek to move the article using WP:RM. GiantSnowman 18:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure why you have again restored the article. If you do it again I'll raise at ANI. GiantSnowman 09:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: LEt us discuss it on the talk page. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, 1. I would prefer if you are in the future do not revert Notability Tags of mine w/o a sufficient explanation, right now I do not think that the Singer passes WP:GNG. 2. Rating own articles - which are merely Stubs - as Class C Wikiproject Articles is somewhat strange and I would ask you to stop this in the future, also. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CommanderWaterford: There are sufficient 3rd party sources that cover notability for GNG. I also would say he meets Points 1, 8 and 11 of WP:NSINGER. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do not totally agree, further the article still lacks focusing which I would not expect from a NPP here but we are free to ask for a third opinion, so I will ping another NPP @Novem Linguae: for opinion. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello friends. In 2017, their album Kiff was nominated at the 21st South African Music Awards in 2015 and again in 2017 does seem to meet WP:NBAND #8, as it appears to be South Africa's big music awards show. However, I guess there's a question of whether the lead singer of a band inherits that notability from the band? I agree that part is confusing. Perhaps the lead of the article should be rewritten to focus mostly on the band, and just mention David Scott in a section? I think this article is around start class (my personal threshold for start class is around 5-15 paragraphs). Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Novem Linguae: Thank you for your view on this. The title is a little tricky because the band is "The Kiffness" however, several newspaper sources do refer to Scott alone as "The Kiffness". So you could reasonably say that paradoxically it's the band name and his stage name. Plus he appears to be doing a lot of the music that sources recently cover as a solo. Do you think it's best to move the article title then? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Novem Linguae: Would you think it better if the article was moved to something like David Scott (musician)? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. The Kiffness appears to be the WP:COMMONNAME, so I wouldn't personally recommend a rename. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for reviewing the DYK for article George H. W. Bush 1992 presidential campaign. If possible, kindly let me know that does that article complies with the criteria of a good article, or it needs more information to be added. I have requested it to be copy-edited. Hoping it to be a GA soon. Thank-you! Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The second round of the 2021 WikiCup has now finished; it was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 61 points to advance to Round 3. There were some impressive efforts in the round, with the top eight contestants all scoring more than 400 points. A large number of the points came from the 12 featured articles and the 110 good articles achieved in total by contestants, as well as the 216 good article reviews they performed; the GAN backlog drive and the stay-at-home imperative during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been partially responsible for these impressive figures.

Our top scorers in Round 2 were:

• The Rambling Man, with 2963 points from three featured articles, 20 featured article reviews, 37 good articles, 73 good article reviews, as well as 22 DYKs.
• Epicgenius, with 1718 points from one featured article, 29 good articles, 16 DYKs and plenty of bonus points.
• Bloom6132, with 990 points from 13 DYKs and 64 "In the news" items, mostly recent deaths.
• Hog Farm, with 834 points from two featured articles, five good articles, 14 featured article reviews and 15 good article reviews.
• Gog the Mild, with 524 points from two featured articles and four featured article reviews.
• Lee Vilenski, with 501 points from one featured article, three good articles, six featured article reviews and 25 good article reviews.
• Sammi Brie, with 485 points from four good articles, eight good article reviews and 27 DYKs, on US radio and television stations.
• Ktin, with 436 points from four good articles, seven DYKs and 11 "In the news" items.

Please remember that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of Round 2 but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in Round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (except for at the end of each round, when you must claim them before the cut-off date/time). When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything 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. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 8,878 views (739.8 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of May 2021 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 13,153 views (548.0 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of May 2021 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ONUnicorn (talk) 00:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 34,766.5 views (1,448.6 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of May 2021 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2021 FA Cup Final you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anarchyte -- Anarchyte (talk) 11:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Billionaire Ted you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 12:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for the things I said to you in the heat of the moment that did not assume good faith, both here (which I have struck out) and in the past. Thanks for reaching out! I greatly appreciate it and accept your olive branch. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bloom6132: Thank you I do appreciate it. May I explain what happened? I know that the Watermelon song does have a provocative title but I was not doing it for the purposes of putting the N-word on the main page for the sake of it, I was attempting to use to show how far we have come from 100 years ago. The old me would have done it for laughs but that's not who I am any more (which I have tried to prove by avoiding using the full title in the article). But I think it was the fact that all of a sudden my restrictions were being used against me to block hooks and then the merge discussion which I felt was a little unfair. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:14, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that the restrictions feel heavy-handed. And yes, I do see improvement in your behaviour given that you piped the article title in ALT1. There is a silver lining to this – you may be allowed to reuse the QPQ from that rejected nom (not sure about the current consensus though). —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:46, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Montserrat's flag, no objection on my part to you nominating that. I already gathered sources and was going to start expanding that in my sandbox, but held off out of courtesy seeing that you already began in User:The C of E/montserrat (presumably saving it for March 17). I would, however, caution against using ref 7 (CRW Flags) because it doesn't seem reliable. I've never used it as a ref in any of the flag articles I expanded/took to GA (might have kept it as an external link in some). —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand if you want to work on the article by yourself. But do let me know if you want to collab. to reach 3,765 characters (or 5,120 to get the 5 extra base points). I've got the article on my watchlist and am willing to help out once you transfer from sandbox to mainspace. I'd also caution against using Montserrat in England (ref 13), since it's from the self-publishing company iUniverse. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Billionaire Ted you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Billionaire Ted for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article 2021 FA Cup Final you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:2021 FA Cup Final for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anarchyte -- Anarchyte (talk) 10:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article 2021 FA Cup Final you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:2021 FA Cup Final for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anarchyte -- Anarchyte (talk) 11:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— Maile (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 5,908 views (492.3 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of May 2021 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Can you please adjust your signature as shown here? We are trying to keep obsolete tags, including <font>...</font> tags, out of Template space, and unfortunately, DYK pages live in Template space, even though they are not templates.

To fix your signature, click on Preferences at the top of your window and scroll down to the Signature section. Simply copy and paste the following text into the box:

<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> '''[[User:The C of E|<span style="color:red;">The C of E  </span><span style="color:blue;"> God Save the Queen!</span>]]''' ([[User talk:The C of E|<span style="color:darkblue;">talk</span>]])</span>

The appearance of your signature should be preserved. Thanks! – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This problem is still occurring in template space. Can you please take a moment to update your signature? Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do take a minute to fix your signature. Here's a diff showing an updated way to format your signature; please simply copy and paste the revised text into the Signature box at Special:Preferences, then scroll down and click Save. It should take you all of ten seconds, and it will save us gnomes a significant amount of work. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for updating your signature. It will help reduce the amount of cleanup work that gnomes and bots may need to do in the future. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi C of E. I notice you've written a few DYK / GA-class articles and was wondering if you had time to take a look at a few I submitted to WP:AFC last year?

• Big Time Wrestling (Boston)
• Draft:International Championship Wrestling (Mississippi)
• Draft:National Wrestling Conference

I'm fairly new to editing Wikipedia and am curious how much work it would take to sumbit either of these as DYK/GA articles. I'd think BTW alone has quite a few interesting hooks.

Thanks for your time. 173.162.220.17 (talk) 21:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • @173.162.220.17: I do think they look good. For DYK, they would be very good with the right hook you select. I do think they seem ready for DYK as long as you nominate within 7 days of it going into the mainspace. And the good thing is that as you're only starting out, you can just nominate without reviewing another. As for GA, i'm not much of an expert on but again, they do seem to be of a reasonable standard but I'd ask for a WP:PR or request WP:GOCE to have a look. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I really appreciate the help. 173.162.220.17 (talk) 15:15, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 7,465 views (622.1 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of June 2021 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:04, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The C of E, I removed the hook about the British armed forces rugby league teams before it hit the main page, for reasons I outlined at ERRORS. I pinged you there, but you weren't around and time was short before it rotated onto the main page. I just now removed the DYK credits the bot mistakenly left you on your talk page; I'm not clear on DYK etiquette, so if for some reason you want those back, feel free, I won't argue, and if removing them was rude, I apologize. I'm waiting on advice on how to reopen the DYK nom page, I'll do that when I hear back, and ping you again when it's open again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:04, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass (talk) 00:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:04, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	I really appreciate the large numbers of articles you write and expand - I particularly enjoyed reading about The Song of Iowa - quite a funny history there (I also reviewed that article's DYK nom, not sure if you saw). Elli (talk | contribs) 16:05, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, The C of E. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for EliteXC: Heat at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:05, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion I created, I had mishandled my watchlist. But now at least his name is spelled correctly. ;-) --Syzygy (talk) 08:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi
I have looked through the only source provided, the Independent obituary for Big Daddy, and there is no mention of it being called a Splashdown, only a Splash. If you are referring to another source, please input a source citation close to the mention of it being a Splashdown.
I don't want this to become a revert war, so I shall let you have a couple of days to cite the source where it actually says Splashdown (cos it ain't the Independent.) If you haven't added any citation, I shall assume that you are unable to find any mention of it being called a Splashdown and have given way on the issue, in which case I shall revert.
(For what it's worth I do recall it being called a Splashdown in the Daily Star's front page article in 1987. Even at age 13 on holiday with my mum and dad on the Greek island of Kos, I thought that was sloppy research on the Star's part. No wonder it is banned as a source on Wikipedia.) Romomusicfan (talk) 11:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Romomusicfan:, It's already referenced there in references 24 and 25. Plus this news report too (though I know we can't use it). The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:01, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've put in the citations myself and I'll let this one go under the terms of WP:VNT although I still maintain that "Splashdown" is incorrect.Romomusicfan (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | July 2021 Backlog Drive
July 2021 Backlog Drive: This Thursday, July 1, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number, length, and age, of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive. Click here to opt out of any future messages. --Usernameunique

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article United States v. McMahon you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mikehawk10 -- Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article United States v. McMahon you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:United States v. McMahon for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mikehawk10 -- Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The third round of the 2021 WikiCup has now come to an end. Each of the sixteen contestants who made it into the fourth round had at least 294 points, and our top six scorers all had over 600 points. They were:

• The Rambling Man, with 1825 points from 3 featured articles, 44 featured article reviews, 14 good articles, 30 good article reviews and 10 DYKs. In addition, he completed a 34-article good topic on the EFL Championship play-offs.
• Epicgenius, a New York specialist, with 1083 points from 2 featured article reviews, 18 good articles, 30 DYKs and plenty of bonus points.
• Bloom6132, with 869 points from 11 DYKs, all with bonus points, and 54 "In the news" items, mostly covering people who had recently died.
• Gog the Mild, with 817 points from 3 featured articles on historic battles in Europe, 5 featured article reviews and 3 good articles.
• Hog Farm, with 659 points from 2 featured articles and 2 good articles on American Civil War battles, 18 featured article reviews, 2 good articles, 6 good article reviews and 4 DYKs.
• BennyOnTheLoose, a snooker specialist and new to the Cup, with 647 points from a featured article, 2 featured article reviews, 6 good articles, 6 good article reviews and 3 DYKs.

In round three, contestants achieved 19 featured articles, 7 featured lists, 106 featured article reviews, 72 good articles, 1 good topic, 62 good article reviews, 165 DYKs and 96 ITN items. We enter the fourth round with scores reset to zero; 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 (one contestant in round 3 lost out because of this). When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything 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. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @The C of E: I have nominated "Harry S. Truman 1948 presidential campaign" for DYK here as a special date request. If possible, kindly review it. I have informed the same on DYK talk page. Thanks! Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:19, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Monarchy of Rhodesia you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Goldsztajn -- Goldsztajn (talk) 22:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	A Crown for you!
	For the creation of the article Monarchy of Rhodesia. God Save The Queen! Peter Ormond 💬 05:12, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good moaning. I am ploosed to soo that you have the seem sense of homer as moo, though your pins are butter than mean. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:11, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: Good moaning. I was pissing by DYK, when I saw that shat at a nomination. I thought I'd be a helpful potty and do my dirty and piss it through. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was god of you to piss that. We do have a bat of a bucklog. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:02, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure we shall bum our way throo the priblom with leetle hard wok against the poops of bucklog @Ritchie333:. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:14, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for getting back to me and providing the feedback. Forgive my ignorance but I am not certain as to what specifically you are referring with regards to QPQ. If there is perhaps an example among the DYK nominations that you can refer to, it would be a huge help. With thanks for your time. Mark Staffieri (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Symbol possible vote.svg Date of nomination is in time and length fine. I have taken the liberty of correctly formatting the hook which is cited inline to an offline source that I accept AGF. However @Mark Staffieri: that tag at the top will need removing before this can proceed and as she is representing NZ, the dates should be in dmy format. You'll also need to do a QPQ as I see you have more than 5 credits. Please ping me once those are sorted and I will have another look. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 05:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@Mark Staffieri: It means Quid Pro Quo. Basically it just means you need to review another nomination. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Des van Jaarsveldt.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I sw the edit notice you've added to your talk page editing window about being templated. I'm not trying to be disrespectful by adding the above; it's just easier to do so since it bascially states the reason why this file has been tagged for speedy deletion and what you can do to contest the deletion. For reference, non-free images of still living persons are pretty much never allowed per WP:NFCC#1 (see also WP:FREER and item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI) and non-free images are not simply considered "historical" because they're old or because they show someone as they appeared as some point in their life as explained in WP:ITSHISTORIC. If you feel that this image is somehow an exception to relevant Wikipedia policy, please follow the instructions given above or on the file's page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Smoking in association football you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tayi Arajakate -- Tayi Arajakate (talk) 06:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Smoking in association football you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Smoking in association football for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tayi Arajakate -- Tayi Arajakate (talk) 07:21, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Smoking in association football you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Smoking in association football for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tayi Arajakate -- Tayi Arajakate (talk) 14:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— Maile (talk) 12:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— Maile (talk) 12:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will deal with the special occasion request you made for the flag of Sark. There is a bit of a crisis at DYK at the moment in that, with two sets a day, there are not enough editors/admins to keep up the demand for promotion and moving sets into the queue. Yoninah would have filled the gap and ensured that all special occasion hooks got promoted on time, but sadly Yoninah is no longer with us.

I have just built prep 3, but when I build sets, I am unable to move them into the queue. As a DYK regular, you could be useful in promoting hooks - I think you did a set a while ago? I think it is quite an interesting job, trying to make a balanced set. We certainly need set-builders at the moment, perhaps there are many people on holiday. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cwmhiraeth: I did build a set that ran yesterday. But I will try to build some more, I agree it certainly is rather interesting to do. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 20,075 views (1,672.9 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of August 2021 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:56, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

—valereee (talk) 12:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Queen of Rhodesia you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Queen of Rhodesia for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Goldsztajn -- Goldsztajn (talk) 13:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Schwede66 12:04, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— Maile (talk) 00:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde (Talk) 00:03, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating this article. I've been inspired by it to create the Rhodesian Information Centre article, and would be grateful for any edits or comments you might have on it. I found a book published by this operation at a second hand bookfair in Canberra a few years ago, and was surprised that it both existed and that anyone had kept any of its works for so long. It's been interesting to learn about its history. Nick-D (talk) 04:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: Thank you for this. I think it does look good but you might want to be mindful that it doesn't appear like a spin-off (as I know some users can get quite funny about that) because a lot of the content mirrors what was in the court case article. Otherwise very well written and I'd be happy to assist with a DYK for this if you would like? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 04:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - I'll have a think about a DYK hook tomorrow. I think that I've been able to extent the article well beyond the scope of the High Court case article, but will tweak the text I've re-used a bit to avoid that sensitivity which you rightly note. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:17, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Des van Jaarsveldt you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The fourth round of the competition has finished with over 500 points being required to qualify for the final round. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants, The Rambling Man and Epicgenius, each scoring over 3000 points, and six contestants scoring over 1000. All but one of the finalists achieved one or more FAs during the round, the exception being Bloom6132 who demonstrated that 61 "in the news" items produces an impressive number of points. Other contestants who made it to the final are Gog the Mild, Lee Vilenski, BennyOnTheLoose, Amakuru and Hog Farm. However, all their points are now swept away and everyone starts afresh in the final round.

Round 4 saw the achievement of 18 featured articles and 157 good articles. Bilorv scored for a 25-article good topic on Black Mirror but narrowly missed out on qualifying for the final round. There was enthusiasm for FARs, with 89 being performed, and there were 63 GARs and around 100 DYKs during the round. As we start round 5, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it to the final round; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. For other contestants, 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 14 days of "earning" them.

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 Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). 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. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Des van Jaarsveldt you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Des van Jaarsveldt for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 13:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article United States v. McMahon you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:United States v. McMahon for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mikehawk10 -- Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive
On November 1, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. (t · c) buidhe 01:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 October 26#Charlie Aust as I do not believe that these images are actually public domain. -- Whpq (talk) 17:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiCup is over for another year and the finalists can relax! Our Champion this year is The Rambling Man (submissions), who amassed over 5000 points in the final round, achieving 8 featured articles and almost 500 reviews. It was a very competitive round; seven of the finalists achieved over 1000 points in the round (enough to win the 2019 contest), and three scored over 3000 (enough to win the 2020 event). Our 2021 finalists and their scores were:

1. The Rambling Man (submissions) with 5072 points
2. Lee Vilenski (submissions) with 3276 points
3. Amakuru (submissions) with 3197 points
4. Epicgenius (submissions) with 1611 points
5. Gog the Mild (submissions) with 1571 points
6. BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 1420 points
7. Hog Farm (submissions) with 1043 points
8. Bloom6132 (submissions) with 528 points

All those who reached the final round will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. Awards will be handed out in the next few days.

• The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the featured article prize, for 8 FAs in round 5.
• Lee Vilenski (submissions) wins the featured list prize, for 3 FLs in round 5.
• Gog the Mild (submissions) wins the featured topic prize, for 13 articles in a featured topic in round 5.
• Epicgenius (submissions) wins the good article prize, for 63 GAs in round 4.
• The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the good topic prize, for 86 articles in good topics in round 5.
• The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the reviewer prize, for 68 FAC reviews and 213 GAN reviews, both in round 5.
• Epicgenius (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 30 did you know articles in round 3 and 105 overall.
• Bloom6132 (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 71 in the news articles in round 1 and 284 overall.

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether they made it to the final round or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup, some of whom did very well. Wikipedia has benefitted greatly from the quality creations, expansions and improvements made, and the numerous reviews performed. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition, not forgetting User:Jarry1250, who runs the scoring bot.

If you have views on whether the rules or scoring need adjustment for next year's contest, please comment on the WikiCup talk page. 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 2022 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. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my apologies for the AfD nomination template. I saw your edit notice, but I didn't realize that it also applied to courtesy notifications for XfD discussions. I did not mean to cause offense, and I am sorry if I did. AlexEng^(TALK) 01:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2022 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand, "regardless" is slang? Esszet (talk) 02:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion about you recent DYK contributions, with a proposal to broaden your topic ban, at WP:ANI#The C of E and DYK. Fram (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Fram: I am prepared to submit to a no-swear/innuendo restriction. Please allow that to be given to me and I promise I will comply with it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User fic theory, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User fic theory and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Template:User fic theory during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest that you archive the contents of this talk page, so that people coming here don't have to scroll past nearly 800 entries to get to the latest? I can help you set up an automatic archive if you like. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The C of E, based on the clear consensus at ANI, I've topic banned you indefinitely from DYK. The closing statement is reproduced here:

"I would have preferred to impose the proposed expanded topic ban against "sexual double-entendre, racist, or other provocative DYK content". But consensus is crystal clear here, there's simply no way to discount the community's opinion as fundamentally flawed, it's been open 48 hours, and consensus is not going to swing the other way. So, User:The C of E is now subject to an indefinite topic ban from WP:DYK, broadly construed. A couple of people also proposed a specific ban from rude/racist/provocative wording in non-DKY editing, but that didn't get consensus. However, my educated guess, based on years of observation, is that any pattern at all of trying to use rude/racist/provocative wording in articles is going to result in a trip back here with a possible site ban, so if I were The C of E, I would act as if such a topic ban exists."

"There is no official limit on how soon these things can be appealed, but (again, based on years of observation) I'd guess any appeal of a consensus this clear is unlikely to be accepted earlier than 6 months of problem-free editing of articles."

"Finally, this last bit is a judgement call, since it wasn't really discussed, but just to prevent another discussion: Any of The C of E's already-approved DYKs can proceed thru the pipeline (thanks for the prompt about this, User:28bytes). We're preventing future disruption, not punishing anyone. And, I haven't checked to see if this applies, but: any already-made but not-yet-approved DYK's can proceed, but if the QPQ hasn't been done, or any uninvolved reviewer rejects the DYK for cause, that can't be fixed or appealed. Hopefully that seems fair enough that I don't get claims of deciding this part unilaterally."

I want to emphasize that the notes about rude/racist/provocative wording in articles, and the timeline for an appeal aren't based on consensus, so I'm not telling you what to do. But I have a gut feeling if you disregard the advice, you'll end up site banned, or end up with a denied appeal. Re-reading the ANI thread, there's a really strong community anger with your past edits in this area; don't treat that lightly. Ask if you have any questions. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: I feel extremely disappointed here in that people seemed to have put so much focus on a handful of issues and ignored all the larger parts of work I have done. I genuinely don't understand how I can have made people so angry when I followed my restrictions to the letter. I presume then that I can still edit and comment on my remaining DYKs that are currently running through the pipeline and add them to WP:STATS if they make it? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your disappointment. It seems like they were angry not so much at clear violations of the previous topic ban, but what they perceive to be frequent attempts to "see what you could get away with". As for remaining DYK's, no, I think the best thing is a clean break, otherwise people will start reporting "violations of topic ban". As I've said at WT:DYK, your remaining nominations can continue, but without your participation. Let others deal with the final stuff. From the WT:DYK thread, it sounds like there are DYK people who will do that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: But that is the thing, I didn't violate the topic ban. I even went out of my way to check with admins to ensure I did not even accidentally do so. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. It doesn't contradict anything I said, though. It is still possible to exhaust the community's patience without violating your previous topic ban. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very well @Floquenbeam:. Though I do notice on that WT:DYK page, there seem to be what I perceive as WP:GRAVEDANCING comments on there. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the thread 3 times, and don't see any gravedancing; in fact, several people are trying to ensure the DYK noms make it through in your absence. Might be best to take it off your watchlist, it feels to me like you're looking at this through a "disappointed and hurt" filter. Understandable, but it's not going to help get through this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I may interject here, having stumbled across the thread on ANI: does the topic ban also mean that others can't nominate content created/expanded by C on DYK (without his input on the hook, obviously)? It's a shame if so, since he appears to be a very prolific contributor and this cuts off a vast source of potential DYK material. In any case, time will clean up this mess, so thanks for giving us at least 6 months to catch up with you in terms of DYK stats. I know you'll be back! Kingoflettuce (talk) 00:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingoflettuce: as far as I read it, you can as long as I don't have any input in the hook (I was going to put forth 2022 EFL Cup Final before this) but check with @Floquenbeam: if this is true. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Others are allowed to nominate articles that C of E has created, but those others will then be responsible that (a) the hook they choose won't be unnecessarily sexual, double-entendre, racist, or otherwise provocative, and (b) that the article content itself won't be unnecessarily likewise. There is an excellent chance these nominations will be thoroughly scrutinized for this, and if it seems the nominators aren't taking care, I would not be surprised should the nominators join The C of E in the stocks. (Disclaimer: out of my 25 or DYKs, the last one could well have met with similar opprobium!) So it's where wise men would fear to tread. However, as I wrote on the ban discussion, I, for one, am willing to risk it in order to keep a good editor. So CoE, if you write an article worthy of a DYK that you believe won't lead to more heads in the bucket, drop me and his majesty of the verdant leaves a ping here and we'll consider it. --GRuban (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dropping a ping or hint here or anywhere else would surely be a violation of The C of E's DYK topic ban, broadly construed. The ban doesn't merely cover hooks, it covers everything to do with DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• We're not a bureaucracy,
• blocks are preventative, not punitive,
• and if a rule prevents us from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, we should ignore it.

The spirit of the ban is to stop him from disrupting DYK, not from writing good articles that would improve the encyclopedia with a mention there. True, if the result of him pinging here becomes a disruption to DYK, that will be an issue, but that will be up to the person interacting with DYK. A ping to me here will disrupt no one but me, and I am specifically volunteering for this deep, deep, soul-wrenching, disruption. We can ask User:Kingoflettuce if he feels likewise.--GRuban (talk) 15:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GRuban: I didn't !vote in the ANI in big part because I didn't really care that much. I can say if C of E uses their talk page to violate their topic ban, I'll report that or if someone else does so, I'll fully support escalating blocks leading to indef or frankly just a straight out site ban. Editors who don't respect their topic bans don't belong on Wikipedia, no matter if some editors think they do. This is something I care about. Editors should respect the community here, and their decisions or get the fuck out. Nil Einne (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It's not enough for a topic-banned editor to adhere to the "spirit" of it. Encouraging C of E to ping people to his page and say "hey I've written this, want to maybe do something with it, wink wink" would be a really bad idea and I don't see how that's a valid interpretation of IAR. No-one is stopping C of E from writing good articles, but if you want to feature one of them at DYK you would have to go through his contributions and pick one out completely independently.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hrr. You have a point, but I still don't like the idea that I can't ask to be notified when he writes an article that would improve the encyclopedia should it be featured on DYK. That does seem like IAR. Let's contemplate. --GRuban (talk) 15:39, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's let @Floquenbeam: make that decision on if that would be permitted. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GRuban: Nil Einne and Pawnkingthree offer sound advice against any "wink wink" notifications by C of E. However, if you want to follow C of E's new article creations, you could do so with this link. Cbl62 (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK. C of E old man (old edifice? old religion?) - do you have a page listing all your articles? You should, lots of people do. I do. I list mine on my user page, but that's because I only made 80 or so - eventually when it hits triple digits, I'll probably split it off. Make one. Then someone who wants to, can put it on their watchlist, and when a new article gets added, will note, and should they want to nominate it for DYK, will be able to, completely without being prompted. Or not. (For example, 2022 EFL Cup Final is really not my cup of tea, I am not into footy, so don't see hypothetical sporting events as being all that interesting, but that's just me; I'm much more into different games. But the article about the rooster lawsuit was wonderful, I'd have been honored to nominate that.) --GRuban (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cbl62: Ooh, neat, thank you! Forgot that tool exists. A couple of those articles do look interesting - I think I'll look at nominating O'Halloran and Francis v. United Kingdom. If my head is found at the bottom of the guillotine at the morrow, well, then, we'll know IAR doesn't say what I think it does! --GRuban (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GRuban: No need to risk that one, It's already been nominated before the ban. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Multiple EC) For clarity, the one who will be affected here is going to be The C of E. Encouraging someone to violate their topic ban is incredibly poor behaviour by my book but probably not clearly a violation unless it crosses into proxying territory, so GRuban is unlikely to be affected IMO. I could be wrong an no admin will block and consensus at ANI will be against any further action, but I doubt it. Ultimately The C of E you need to take responsibility for what you do so so I'd suggest you seek clarity if you did want to go down that route, since if you don't you will need to accept any possible consequences. As for KingofLettuce's question, IMO anyone is free to independently nominate The C of E's stuff, taking fully responsibility for it and without talking to The C of E about it on wiki. If people want to talk to The C of E about it privately (i.e. not on wiki), that seems a very bad idea to me, but we don't control editors private lives so until it causes problems here, it's not something we're going to do anything about. I'd note that in the topic ban discussion, some editors expressed concern that The C of E was writing poor articles to try and generate edgy hooks. Just a note to The C of E, from the above discussion I'm not sure if you understand this but if you continue with behaviour that editors regard as disrupting or damaging Wikipedia, even if you don't violate your topic ban, there's a good chance further action will result which is seems to be why this extended topic ban happened. IMO you should consider yourself on notice about writing articles targeted at generating edgy hooks. As for editors who may choose to nominate The C of E's stuff, I'd suggest they be on the lookout for anything like this and if they see it talk to the C of E about their concerns and ensure they don't do anything which may encourage it. This is IMO the best way they can help the C of E if they do want to nominate their articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nil Einne (talk • contribs) 16:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been pinged several times, and there are a lot of suggestions flying back and forth, I've already had several ec's just adding this placeholder, etc. So in the interim, while I type up a reply, just want to say: CoE, do not follow GRuban's suggestion above. I'm fairly confident it will get you site banned. Like, really and truly community banned. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  While Floquenbeam types, C of E, any chance you could archive your talk page? At least the first years? You've got 6 years worth of content on it, and it takes noticeable time to load for me at least. --GRuban (talk) 16:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  First, since this was not "my" topic ban, but me intpreting the community's topic ban, I can't give black and white answers, I can only give my educated guess what the community would say. If i see a clear topic ban violation, I'll block CoE myself. But if there are less clear violations, someone in the community could take it to ANI, and that's always a bit of a dice roll.

  There are several over-lapping issues here. But they share a common aspect, which is: don't try to see what you can get away with.

  1. CoE himself: Part of the apparent community anger with CoE is the widespread sentiment that, when told not to do something (via warning or topic ban), he would immediately start seeing what he could get away with, either at the boundaries of his topic ban, or a new area. It would be an extraordinarily bad idea for CoE to start doing anything that could even remotely be considered trying to get around the topic ban. I'm fairly confident, reading the room at the ANI thread, that it will get him site banned. The only smart way to navigate this is that as far as CoE is concerned, DYK doesn't exist. Don't mention it. Don't comment on it. Don't refer to it. Don't quietly keep an eye on any of your articles there. Don't do anything that looks like you're making it easier for other editors to nominate your articles for DYK. Instead, do other completely unrelated stuff that you can point to in 6 months and say "see, I complied with the topic ban 100% in letter, and 100% in spirit." Otherwise, I can't imagine it will be lifted. Unless it already exists, I really recommend against GRuban's suggestion of making a page with new articles as they're created, so others can watchlist it and create a DYK, because the purpose of doing so is DYK-related. If you already have such a page, there's no reason not to keep doing it, but don't do anything new (for example, quietly flagging 5x expansions with an asterisk, just as an example I thought of off the top of my head; this is not a comprehensive list of bad ideas). Suggesting CoE consider doing anything besides this is really doing him a disservice.
  2. Other people. There is no ban on other people nominating an article he created for DYK. But, as someone said in the increasingly long discussion somewhere above, this is an area where wise men should fear to tread. If the whole community, or the DYK sub-community, start thinking this is proxying, or proxying-adjacent, this could easily turn into a topic ban on people nominating too many articles of CoE's for DYK. In particular, anyone nominating one of his new articles with a provacative/rude/racist/disruptive hook will probably have a banhammer dropped on their heads really quickly. Also in particular, I would imagine the community will think that nominating most of CoE's articles for DYK is proxying, even if there are no questionable hooks. I cannot give you a specific number of articles that can be nominated before it starts pissing people off. Tread carefully. Other people seeing what they can get away with is likely to backfire on CoE.

  In short, for those thinking this is "unfair", protesting it by trying to see what you can get away with in order to get CoE some DYK-adjacent satisfaction is unwise, and likely to harm him. This is not a clear-cut issue; it is not a case where 3 articles per month is OK, 4 is too much. It's a community interpretation of disruption. That interpretation likely depends on whether people feel the topic ban is being gamed. I'd really suggest re-reading the ANI thread, and read the room. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Floquenbeam. Your call, C of E. My motivation here is to show you that your work is appreciated and valuable, because I think good editors matter, and I don't want to lose you. I hope that goes for most people participating here. Whatever the best way to do that is - Floq suggests one - let's do that. --GRuban (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, pretty much what GRuban said. I'm not actually intending to independently nominate any of C's new stuff but I think to lose him would be a net loss to the project (if not the "community"). Kingoflettuce (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CofE, I was one of the few people who wanted to give you a less-total ban, so take this advice as coming from someone who is sympathetic: do not under any circumstances try to figure out a way to circumvent this. If you do not already have a list of articles, do not start one. Completely forget DYK even exists. Take it off your watch for the next six months. Don't discuss it with anyone. Anyone who nominates one of your articles is probably doing you a disservice if they name you as creator, as that means the DYK credit popping up here.

The problem is exactly that you did, as you said, follow the letter of the earlier restrictions. When what you should have been doing was trying to figure out the spirit: what the real problem was. The real problem was that hooks you were writing caused drama at talk and ERRORS. When DYK folks gave you a narrow restriction against the areas that caused drama, you just found some other way to write drama-causing hooks. Finally people got tired of coming up with yet another rule for CofE. I think at the heart of it, you can't resist a hook that would get a lot of clicks, and you apparently don't have whatever filter says, "That could cause drama. Maybe there's a hook that won't." For you the drama is a feature, not a bug. N-word on the MP? That'll get a ton of clicks! Well, yeah, and there's a reason for that: it's offensive to literally millions of people.

A tban doesn't necessarily mean a permanent tban: after six months or a year of sincere adherence to the tban, you could reasonably appeal. But especially in this case -- because so many at ANI specifically mentioned feeling that you'd tried to probe the exact limits of your previous restrictions -- you absolutely will need to prove you can comply not only with the letter but with the spirit of this tban. And you'll have to be able to convince people that you really do understand what we're telling you here: sticking to the letter of any restriction isn't good enough and never will be. You'll need to convince people you really do understand that hooks that cause drama at talk or ERRORS are a bad idea and that you will be able to avoid that in the future. And you will have absolutely zero chance of convincing people of that if you seem to be trying to circumvent this tban even slightly. valereee (talk) 14:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: I had no intention of that. But as for this whole "spirit not letter" thing, how on earth was I supposed to know that? The restrictions I had was clear black and white to me and I obeyed to the letter. There was no direct instruction that I had to avoid other things. I do not pick up on subtle hints or implications because of my autism. That's why I asked for direct, clear clarification on what I could do. The thing that gets me is they weren't specific when the vast majority nominated had no objections or comment, everyone seems to have latched onto that n-word one (which I admitted was a mistake and I apologised for it) and all of a sudden they are controversial and I am to be condemned because of it. Sometimes I feel is is my duty to be the whipping boy because I feel like an easy target for it. I don't ever intend to cause drama but sometimes I feel that no matter what I say or do, people on here just will not listen to me. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, here's my take on this. Firstly, while I have already concurred with another user's characterization of the AN/I thread as a "knee-jerk disproportionate pile-on", what's done is done and could not be reversed at this stage, if at all, without a great deal of wikidrama which would not be at all helpful in the long run. So the important thing at this stage, I think, is that the situation is not further exacerbated by rash action. So my first advice to you The C of E, contrary to what some users have suggested above, is that you NOT engage in any off-wiki collaboration with allies to try and get your articles promoted at DYK. That would I think be very likely to be seen as gaming by the wider community and be dealt with accordingly. So, for the next six months my advice would be to just contribute your content and let others, if they are so inclined, nominate your articles, with absolutely NO input from you.

The second and more important question I think, is how your eventual return to DYK, if any, should be handled. Given your penchant for provocative hooks, one would think it only a matter of time before you slip up again and find yourself on the end of another AN/I "pile-on", justified or otherwise. So I would suggest that what you do before you request a lifting of your ban is find one or more administrators or other users in very good standing with the community who are willing to act as mentors, to whom you would submit any hooks likely to be at all provocative for approval prior to nomination. I'm suggesting this firstly because it should help with the ban removal request, but mainly because it's difficult to see how you will not end up eventually being dragged to AN/I again otherwise. If you can find somebody in good standing to give prior approval to your hooks however, then the burden of responsibility falls on them rather than you. That seems to me to be probably the only way you are going to have a successful return to DYK at this point. Gatoclass (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict)Hi The C of E, I hope you don't mind a few words from me. I thought about adding a few things after seeing Valereee's comments above (which, I think, are pretty much spot on), and especially now I've seen your response. This is the first time I've heard autism mentioned (and I apologise if it's come up before and I missed it), but I really did wonder if it might be involved here (I know a number of people on the "spectrum", and I was beginning to think I was seeing something familiar). I can better understand now why you were not able to pick up on the spirit of your restrictions and see the bigger picture, and find it difficult to work things out for yourself. So, if I may, I'd like to cover two things - something that I think added to the community's anger, and a possible way forward...

1. OK, firstly, it's writing articles to fit a DYK hook rather than the other way round. In that golden rooster article, the reliable sources referred to it as a rooster, and it was intended to promote the Golden Rooster restaurant. But your approach was to try to shove as much "cock" in it as you could - solely to fit the smutty hook. Without the "cock" DYK hook, the article would simply never have been written like that. It would have been written solely to provide a high quality encyclopedia article, and that is exactly how you should write articles that you have DYK ambitions for. You should never pervert the aim of creating articles written to encyclopedia standard, in order to satisfy some other desire. Now the article has been reworded, if someone came along and replaced every occurrence of "rooster" with "cock", they would very possibly be blocked as a vandal - which, in my view, puts your "cock" version close to being a vandalised version. Seeing the "cock" version angered me, and it clearly angered a number of others too.
2. So what's the solution now? I suggest you spend the next six months creating your usual high quality content, with no thoughts of DYK at all. After that, if you make an appeal to have your DYK ban lifted, I suggest it should contain two things. One is a commitment to adhere to a ban from anything smutty, risqué, or provocative in DYK hooks (pretty much like your suggested alternative restriction in the recent discussion). Secondly, I think you should also commit to never wording anything in an article in order to fit a DYK hook. If you can make a convincing promise to only ever write content *solely* with a view to encyclopedic quality, and then only think about DYK after you have achieved that, I think you would have a good chance of having the ban lifted.

If you can understand and rectify these two problems, I would look forward to supporting a ban appeal in six months. And if there's anything else I can explain and try to help with, just ask... I'm here a lot less than in the past, though, so you might have to wait for a reply. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)CofE, I do understand that you believed you were following the restrictions as placed. When the Dick Graves reviewer refused to okay either of your hooks saying they were offensive and unnecessary, you pushed back on that "from a policy standpoint". Instead you should have been saying to yourself, "Hey, here's yet another occasion when other DYK regulars are telling me my hooks are offensive; that has happened before, and every time I've pushed back and kept on the same track, I've ended up with an editing restriction. Maybe I should come up with something that doesn't mention dicks or cocks." Instead you suggested another dick hook.

The reason you've had a good many rules made for you at DYK is not because you're a whipping boy, it's because you were repeatedly doing things people didn't want you to do. Finally they got tired of making new rules. If you've had multiple rules made about your behavior, there's a problem.

On a slight tangent, when multiple people ask you to archive your talk page because it's causing them inconvenience, or offer to set them up for you, what they are saying is there is a problem we want you to fix. You should take this seriously, and you should set up archiving immediately. valereee (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam:, one more question. Am I able to place the remaining DYKs on my WikiCup submissions page if they appear on the Main Page or tot up with my archive of past DYK credits at User:The C of E/DYK? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose, as long as you're not interacting with the DYK process itself, and not encouraging others to proxy in that process for you. This would only apply to DYK's you started before the topic ban, which are, hopefully, soon going to be accepted or rejected and the topic ban will become simpler. Counting articles you've expanded that are nominated by others, if those exist, seems too close to encouraging others to proxy in that process for you. I'm only commenting on the topic ban, I don't speak for the Wikicup people, I have no idea if they accept DYK nominations started by one person and then "taken over" by others post ban. You'll have to ask them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you ignoring my recent post here saying On a slight tangent, when multiple people ask you to archive your talk page because it's causing them inconvenience, or offer to set them up for you, what they are saying is there is a problem we want you to fix. You should take this seriously, and you should set up archiving immediately.? valereee (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. I had other things to do. If you could assist, please. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks! valereee (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's likely to cause more confusion than it solves, @Valereee:, so I've temporarily removed the archivebot setup. Prior to about 2016, The C of E apparently didn't archive at all, they just deleted old conversations. In 2019, User:Rob3512 seems to have archived about half the current talk page to Archives 2-9, starting with Northamerica1000's happy new year message, but appears to have left all the threads on this page. You've now created the previously non-existent Archive 1 with a copy of that first thread in Archive 2. I think the bot was going to re-archive all the stuff that's already been archived once, starting in Archive 1, then likely skipping and filling Archives 2-9 until their max size is reached, before eventually starting to archive in Archive 10 and beyond, and finally archiving the previously-unarchived stuff starting at some as-yet unknown Archive number. I'd suggest waiting to set up archiving until you better understand what has been archived so far, and what The C of E wants. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think archiving everything except the last year is sufficient. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So it sounds like what you want is:

• Everything pre-2016 or so, leave unarchived.
• For the already-done archiving to around 2019, remove those threads from this talk page (already archived in Archives 2-9)
• for the rest of 2019 thru Dec 2020, archive starting in Archive 10, and remove from this talk page after archiving.
• Leave 2021 and 2022 threads on this page, and don't archive them or set up archiving for them.

My only suggested change from this plan (but obviously up to you) would be to set up bot archiving for the stuff starting in Jan 2021, but keeping it on the page for a year. So a thread that was last edited in March 2021 would archive in March 2022. Please let me know if (a) the bulleted points are what you intended, and (b) whether you want the bot set up to start archiving year-old threads as I suggested, or just do the bulleted tasks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just the bullets will be fine @Floquenbeam: thank you. I already did have an archive for pre-2016 at User talk:The C of E/archive1. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! It was the capitalization and lack of a space that threw me. I'll either change User talk:The C of E/Archive 1 to a redirect to User talk:The C of E/archive1, or just move the page to consistent capitalization, depending on the answer to the next question. Indeed, the last question, and then I'll leave you alone. Do you want the archive box at the top of this page, linking to all the archives? Also makes it easier to search for things in the archives? Or are you mostly trying to get people off your back, and don't need/want links to the archives? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: I think after what I have been through, it would be best for the latter. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. You'll get a few more talk page notices and then I'll be done. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The chances I'll understand anytime soon are minimal. Pinging Boing! said Zebedee, is this something you can figure out? valereee (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ping didn't work, but it looks like it's all sorted now. (As for "The chances I'll understand anytime soon are minimal"... I increasingly think that about life ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Resilient Barnstar
	I wish you well! Your contributions have been appreciated. May the coming year be improved for us all. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if my edit summary wasn't clear enough. The table syntax I removed in this edit was broken, it didn't actually do anything. But because it was broken it was triggering lint errors, as well as preventing people from using the new reply tool. So I removed it given that it had no effect on the visual appearance of this page, but was causing problems in other areas. So if you could remove it again I'd appreciate that. Thanks! Legoktm (talk) 20:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 7668 views (639 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of January 2022 – nice work!

Bruxton (talk) 04:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And so ends the first round of the WikiCup. Last year anyone who scored more than zero points moved on to Round 2, but this was not the case this year, and a score of 13 or more was required to proceed. The top scorers in Round 1 were:

• Epicgenius, a finalist last year, who led the field with 1906 points, gained from 32 GAs and 19 DYKs, all on the topic of New York buildings.
• AryKun, new to the contest, was second with 1588 points, having achieved 2 FAs, 11 GAs and various other submissions, mostly on the subject of birds.
• Bloom6132, a WikiCup veteran, was in third place with 682 points, garnered from 51 In the news items and several DYKs.
• GhostRiver was close behind with 679 points, gained from achieving 12 GAs, mostly on ice hockey players, and 35 GARs.
• Kavyansh.Singh was in fifth place with 551 points, with an FA, a FL, and many reviews.
• SounderBruce was next with 454 points, gained from an FA and various other submissions, mostly on United States highways.
• Ktin, another WikiCup veteran, was in seventh place with 412 points, mostly gained from In the news items.

These contestants, like all the others who qualified for Round 2, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews of a large number of good articles as the contest ran concurrently with a GAN backlog drive. Well done all! To qualify for Round 3, contestants will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two participants.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Anything that should have been claimed for in Round 1 is no longer eligible for points. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

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. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And so ends the first round of the WikiCup. Last year anyone who scored more than zero points moved on to Round 2, but this was not the case this year, and a score of 13 or more was required to proceed. The top scorers in Round 1 were:

• Epicgenius, a finalist last year, who led the field with 1906 points, gained from 32 GAs and 19 DYKs, all on the topic of New York buildings.
• AryKun, new to the contest, was second with 1588 points, having achieved 2 FAs, 11 GAs and various other submissions, mostly on the subject of birds.
• Bloom6132, a WikiCup veteran, was in third place with 682 points, garnered from 51 In the news items and several DYKs.
• GhostRiver was close behind with 679 points, gained from achieving 12 GAs, mostly on ice hockey players, and 35 GARs.
• Kavyansh.Singh was in fifth place with 551 points, with an FA, a FL, and many reviews.
• SounderBruce was next with 454 points, gained from an FA and various other submissions, mostly on United States highways.
• Ktin, another WikiCup veteran, was in seventh place with 412 points, mostly gained from In the news items.

These contestants, like all the others who qualified for Round 2, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews of a large number of good articles as the contest ran concurrently with a GAN backlog drive. Well done all! To qualify for Round 3, contestants will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two participants.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Anything that should have been claimed for in Round 1 is no longer eligible for points. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

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. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:31, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. I picked this up and have been through that process. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was recently going through the page history of ANI, and I saw that you made some edits that were redacted. I can only guess what it was based on the above post. Feel free to email me if you ever need someone to talk to. I have been through a lot myself this past year. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Scorpions13256:. It is appreciated. Thankfully it wasn't me making those sort of comments, it was someone else. They just redacted it because I reported it on ANI rather than the official route. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:45, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 00:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. Nominating it was one thing. Rewriting the article and getting it through the beleaguered and unduly contentious approval process was another story.

FWIW, your article and the original hook we're all fine, IMO. Sorry that we both had to do this as an over long journey.

I do think it has become a reasonably developed article, even though my choice of verbiage is subject to criticism. Can't please everybody all the time. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:50, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 25,000 page views 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 24,754 views (1,031.4 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of April 2022 – nice work!

the automation of this function is in beta testing mode—please let me know if I've screwed up! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:24, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	You are one of my favorite editors to review at DYK. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you User:7&6=thirteen. It's very kind of you to say. Even though I am currently serving a TBAN from that, I'm glad that what I did prior to it was appreciated. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. Thank you for enlightening the world. We'll sing - first time after 2019 - God So Loved The World for Good Friday, and Hallelujah for Easter. Do you have suggestions for DYK to cover together (until I also get a topic ban)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Thank you for this. The choirs always do perform some of the marvellous music at the time. I'd love to help with that but I am afraid the TBAN (As you see from the discussion above) makes it very clear, I am not to engage with or encourage that project in any way during this time. So as I am keeping to what was asked of me, I am afraid I cannot help you with one for Easter, but I am sure you have something that will be good. 22:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think you are banned from creating articles, and you could tell me what to check for nomination. If I approve and do that that's my risk, not yours. I planned, but now we'll probably have two sets, so one set would be without anything related to the holidays as until yesterday, we had only one, and I can't work miracles in article creation. - The choirs always ... - no, we haven't sung for the last two years, and this is a great come-back of the music! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: I can create articles but if I do anything that encourgages DYK in anyway, its a violation. So I cannot risk doing it sadly. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Understand, just create articles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April songs

today: pics of Easter - opera - spring - resilience. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, The C of E!

I see that a new svg file of the Duke's 1951 standard has been uploaded. This source says "The shade of blue was uniform throughout, being that used in the third quarter of the Royal Standard".

The blue used in the Royal Standard is darker than it is in the svg file. So, all of the blue in the Duke's flag needs to be of that colour. I hope used will ask the editor to make the necessary amends to the svg file. Thanks. Peter Ormond 💬 07:07, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter Ormond: I have said on the request I think the darker colour on the svg would be better. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:11, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I also have posted there now. Peter Ormond 💬 07:19, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The second round of the 2022 WikiCup has now finished. It was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 115 points to advance to round 3. There were some very impressive efforts in round 2, with the top seven contestants all scoring more than 500 points. A large number of the points came from the 11 featured articles and the 79 good articles achieved in total by contestants.

Our top scorers in round 2 were:

1. Epicgenius, with 1264 points from 2 featured article, 4 good articles and 18 DYKs. Epicgenius was a finalist last year but has now withdrawn from the contest as he pursues a new career path.
2. AryKun, with 1172 points from two featured articles, one good article and a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews.
3. Bloom6132, with 605 points from 44 in the news items and 4 DYKs.
4. Sammi Brie, with 573 points from 8 GAs and 21 DYKs.
5. Ealdgyth, with 567 points from 11 GAs and 34 good and featured article reviews.
6. Panini!, with 549 points from 1 FA, 4 GAs and several other sources.
7. Lee Vilenski, with 545 points from 1 FA, 4 GAs and a number of reviews.

The rules for featured and good article reviews require the review to be of sufficient length; brief quick fails and very short reviews will generally not be awarded points. Remember also that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in round 2 cannot! 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.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything 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. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The C of E. I noticed that you recently used thefamouspeople.com as a source for biographical information in Dennis Waterman. Please note that the general consensus as expressed at WP:RSN is that it does not meet the reliable sourcing criteria for the inclusion of personal information in such articles. I've gone ahead and removed it. If you disagree, let's discuss it. You may want to check WP:RSP and WP:RSN to help determine if a source is reliable. Thanks.--Hipal (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive

On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? Sign up here!

You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. (t · c) buidhe 04:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May songs

Thank you for having created Roger McMurrin and the DYK for him, back in 2014. I linked the orchestra because it has the same name. However, the year of founding doesn't match. Do you know more. I have no access to the Pratta source, - can you update that, or tell me what it says about tours in the U.S.? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:23, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: It does need to be updated as it seems he retired in 2015. I can't seem to access the Pratta source either (And wayback machine doesn't work due to my firewall settings) but I have found some info about the tours here and here. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not sure it's the same orchestra, - it's a very general name, and the year of foundation doesn't match. - I like my talk today (actually mostly from 29 May - I took the title pic), enjoy the music, two related videos worth watching! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol | July 2022 Backlog Drive
On 1 July, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 20:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The third round of the 2022 WikiCup has now come to an end. Each of the sixteen contestants who made it into the fourth round had at least 180 points, which is a lower figure than last year when 294 points were needed to progress to round 4. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

• BennyOnTheLoose, with 746 points, a tally built both on snooker and other sports topics, and on more general subjects.
• Bloom6132, with 683 points, garnered mostly from "In the news" items and related DYKs.
• Sammi Brie, with 527, from a variety of submissions related to radio and television stations.

Between them contestants achieved 5 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 51 good articles, 149 DYK entries, 68 ITN entries, and 109 good article reviews. 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.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article nomination, a featured process, or anything 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. WikiCup judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see this new article. I'll see if I can dig out any more from my book sources. I think I have some more recent pix as well, which I still need to upload. Cheers, Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 09:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Hassocks5489:. I had been longing to write this article for a while because I really liked the architecture of it (still can't believe it was never listed!) but the lack of sources that I could find online was something that gave me pause for thought but I was feeling WP:BOLD today and went for it. I look forward to seeing what you can dig up! The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Morning! I've had the chance to edit and upload my pics from August last year, when I was briefly in town for the Spa Valley Railway beer festival. The one I have used in the infobox is quite a tight crop but was the only face-on one I managed without any traffic on Vale Road. I've got a few more 2012 ones to upload as well. Cheers, Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 09:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hassocks5489: Thank you. I have to say, as well as your excellent photography skills I also commend your excellent choice in attending that marvellous Spa Valley beer fest. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was a long day (we got the last bus back from TW to Brighton @ 2245, and I wasn't home until 1am), but definitely worth it! Surprisingly it was my first trip on the line, although I had visited both Eridge and TW West stations in the past. I see it's on again in October; it coincides with the Wightrider beer-and-buses event in Ryde, which my friends and I talked about going to, but no firm decisions have been made yet. Hopefully we'll end up at one or the other! Cheers, Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 19:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you recently started an RfC on RSN about the source's reliability. It might be best to simply leave the question and the options in the prompt, and to move the explanation for why you were motivated to launch an RfC into a comment/!vote for reasons of WP:RFCNEUTRAL. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 07:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fourth round of the WikiCup has now finished. 383 points were required to reach the final, and the new round has got off to a flying start with all finalists already scoring. In round 4, Bloom6132 with 939 points was the highest points-scorer, with a combination of DYKs and In the news items, followed by BennyOnTheLoose, Sammi Brie and Lee Vilenski. The points of all contestants are swept away as we start afresh for the final round.

At this stage, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. For the remaining competitors, 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 14 days of "earning" them, and importantly, before the deadline on October 31st!

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 Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). 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. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. The judges are Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:45, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol | October 2022 backlog drive
On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive. Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Sign up here!
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 21:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello The C of E,

Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.

Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.

Suggestions:

• There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
• Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
• Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
• This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog:

Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!

The 2022 WikiCup has drawn to a close with the final round going down to the wire. The 2022 champion is

• Lee Vilenski (1752 points), who won in 2020 and was runner up in both 2019 and last year. In the final round he achieved 3 FAs and 15 GAs, mostly on cue sports. He was closely followed by
• Bloom6132 (1732), who specialised in "In the news" items and DYKs, and who has reached the final round of the Cup for the past three years. Next was
• BennyOnTheLoose (1238), another cue sports enthusiast, also interested in songs, followed by
• Muboshgu (1082), an "In the news" contributor, a seasoned contestant who first took part in the Cup ten years ago. Other finalists were
• Sammi Brie (930), who scored with a featured article, good articles and DYKs on TV and radio stations,
• Kavyansh.Singh (370), who created various articles on famous Americans, including an FA on Louis H. Bean, famed for his prediction of election outcomes. Next was
• PCN02WPS (292), who scored with good articles and DYKs on sporting and other topics and
• Z1720 (25) who had DYKs on various topics including historic Canadians.

During the WikiCup, contestants achieved 37 featured articles, 349 good articles, 360 featured article reviews, 683 good article reviews and 480 In the news items, so Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors. Well done everyone! All those who reached the final round will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. 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 the overall leader in this field.

• Lee Vilenski wins the featured article prize, for a total of 6 FAs during the course of the competition and 3 in the final round.
• Kavyansh.Singh wins the featured list prize, for 3 FLs in round 2.
• Adam Cuerden wins the featured picture prize, for 39 FPs during the competition.
• Z1720 wins the featured article reviewer prize, for 35 FARs in round 4.
• Epicgenius wins the good article prize, for 32 GAs in round 1.
• SounderBruce wins the featured topic prize, for 4 FT articles in round 1.
• Lee Vilenski wins the good topic prize, for 34 GT articles in round 5.
• Sammi Brie wins the good article reviewer prize, for 71 GARs overall.
• Sammi Brie wins the Did you know prize, for 30 DYKs in round 3 and 106 overall.
• Bloom6132 wins the In the news prize, for 106 ITNs in round 5 and 289 overall.

Next year's competition will begin on 1 January and possible changes to the rules and scoring are being discussed on the discussion page. You are invited to sign up to take part in the contest; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to have a good turnout for the 2023 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners and finalists, 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. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify the a Union Jack interposed on top of a red swastika was proposed as a flag for the Union of South Africa you added to Swastika any? I don't understand your use of the word 'interpose'? But then again, apart from the famous Lytton Strachey quote, it is not a word often seen. Did you mean defaced? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:16, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@John Maynard Friedman: If you think there's a better way of rewording it, please feel free to change it. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would have just done that, had I understood what you meant. If I gave the impression that I was quibbling with your choice of words, it was unintentional. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Defaced is fine then @John Maynard Friedman:. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I've assumed you meant swastika "overprinted" on a Union flag rather than the other way round. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I admit it. I didn't notice that you had posted the flag image too, which made clear what you meant. It really is the other way round. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pleased to see this one appearing on my watchlist via the link you made to the TW places of worship list! I have no pix to offer yet – a multi-day church-/chapel-crawl to the rural areas east and north of Tunbridge Wells is very much on the agenda for next year, time permitting – but I can expand the article with a few other bits and pieces. I found the Act of Parliament authorising creation of the parish in the London Gazette, which looks to be quite helpful, among other things. Expect some additions in the next 2 or 3 days. Cheers, Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 14:58, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More to come on the architecture this afternoon. There's quite a lot of source material to wade through! (A good thing!) Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 12:08, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hassocks5489: Thank you for this. It is great there are a lot of offline sources around to assist. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 21:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2023 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Abishe (talk) 01:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:London Irish Amateur.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see from WP:Good article nominations that you're in the process of reviewing San Marino in the Eurovision Song Contest 2022. I'm planning on nominating piri (singer) for GA at some point (basically, I want its DYK to run, and then depending on what its pageviews are like I might put in an RM to piri if I judge it to be the primary topic). I was wondering, other than the complete lack of images, is there anything screaming that would mean it would be a waste of time me nominating it? (If this is successful, I might nominate Jordan Gray as well.) Launchballer 13:40, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer: It seems fine to me though I think people might make comment about using Tiktok as a source (likewise the smileys in it but can't be helped if thats the title). The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those Tiktok links are piri's own Tiktok, so a primary source.--Launchballer 16:06, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So ends the first round of the 2023 WikiCup. Everyone with a positive score moved on to Round 2, with 54 contestants qualifying. The top scorers in Round 1 were:

• Unlimitedlead with 1205 points, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with two featured articles on historical figures and several featured article candidate reviews.
• Epicgenius was in second place with 789 points; a seasoned WikiCup competitor he specialises in buildings and locations in New York.
• FrB.TG was in third place with 625 points, garnered from a featured article on a filmmaker which qualified for an impressive number of bonus points.
• TheJoebro64, another WikiCup newcomer, came next with 600 points gained from two featured articles on video games.
• Iazyges was in fifth place with 532 points, from two featured articles on classical history.

The top sixteen contestants at the end of Round 1 had all scored over 300 points; these included LunaEatsTuna, Thebiguglyalien, Sammi Brie, Trainsandotherthings, Lee Vilenski, Juxlos, Unexpectedlydian, SounderBruce, Kosack, BennyOnTheLoose and PCN02WPS. It was a high-scoring start to the competition.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start again from scratch. The first round finished on February 26. Remember that any content promoted after that date but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Some contestants made claims before the new submissions pages were set up, and they will need to resubmit 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. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, 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. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April songs

my story today

Remembering you on Good Friday, and I'll sing, including chorales from Bach's greatest Passion that you kindly reviewed 11 years ago. I recently listened to the one by Homilius: a discovery! "Songs" take you to vacation pictures, not yet complete. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Thank you Gerda, and I will do the same for you. I hope some time I can return when people will be willing to accept me back. God bless. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 09:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope so! - I loved to see Marian Anderson and her story of protest against discrimination by singing on Easter Sunday 9 April 1939 on the Main page yesterday. Impressions of Easter here and music here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My story today, Messiah (Handel), was my first dip into the FA ocean, thanks to great colleagues. - The ultimate Easter music! - a few pics added, one day missing --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Today is the 80th birthday of John Eliot Gardiner. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Indeed it is! And that you for the comment in the AN talk, even if it didn't go the way I had hoped. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: when you purged your collection of userboxen in 2020 you accidentally also removed the disclosure of your alternate account, User:The Royal C. XAM2175 ^(T) 21:06, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@XAM2175: An honest mistake on my part, apologies. It has been rectified. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 10:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol | May 2023 Backlog Drive
On 1 May, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of redirects patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive. Article patrolling is not part of the drive. Sign up here! There is a possibility that the drive may not run if there are <20 registered participants. Participants will be notified if this is the case.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, The C of E. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! interstatefive  00:00, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article United States v. One Solid Gold Object in Form of a Rooster you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of MaxnaCarta -- MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Please excuse the delay. Will be done with initial review over the next seven days. MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The second round of the 2023 WikiCup has now finished. Contestants needed to have scored 60 points to advance into round 3. Our top five scorers in round 2 all included a featured article among their submissions and each scored over 500 points. They were:

• Iazyges (1040) with three FAs on Byzantine emperors, and lots of bonus points.
• Unlimitedlead (847), with three FAs on ancient history, one GA and nine reviews.
• Epicgenius (636), a WikiCup veteran, with one FA on the New Amsterdam Theatre, four GAs and eleven DYKs
• BennyOnTheLoose (553), a seasoned competitor, with one FA on snooker, six GAs and seven reviews.
• FrB.TG (525), with one FA, a Lady Gaga song and a mass of bonus points.

Other notable performances were put in by Sammi Brie, Thebiguglyalien, MyCatIsAChonk, PCN02WPS, and AirshipJungleman29.

So far contestants have achieved thirteen featured articles between them, one being a joint effort, and forty-nine good articles. The judges are pleased with the thorough reviews that are being performed, and have hardly had to reject any. 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.

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. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article United States v. One Solid Gold Object in Form of a Rooster you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:United States v. One Solid Gold Object in Form of a Rooster for comments about the article, and Talk:United States v. One Solid Gold Object in Form of a Rooster/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of MaxnaCarta -- MaxnaCarta (talk) 05:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's so cool to see someone still making contributions to this site after 15 years, volunteering learnedly and professionally; you all are who I look up to when participating here, as one who hasn't much experience and switches between new hobbies frequently. It's great to have such an editor working on UK topics, as well—I am from America but admire your country dearly. Thanks for improving all our knowledge, I wish you a pleasant day! 👍 Kaasterly (talk) 02:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaasterly: Thank you very much, that is very kind of you to say that. I am touched by that. If you need any help with anything at all when editing here, just let me know! :) The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 06:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see a much more obvious candidate than the one you reported. 185.165.188.68 (talk) 02:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two new candidates: MbappeUnited and GerrardLeeds 185.165.188.68 (talk) 10:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@185.165.188.68: I think it might be best to put it in WP:SPI rather than here. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The amendment request which you filed has been closed. The request was closed with the following summary:

The request has been archived to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 124 § Amendment request: The Troubles (June 2023). For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 13:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery at 06:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The third round of the 2023 WikiCup has come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round had at least 175 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

• Thebiguglyalien, with 919 points from a featured article on Frances Cleveland as well as five good articles and many reviews,
• Unlimitedlead, with 862 points from a high-scoring featured articles on Henry II of England and numerous reviews,
• Iazyges, with 560 points from a high-scoring featured article on Tiberius III.

Contestants achieved 11 featured articles, 2 featured lists, 47 good articles, 72 featured or good article reviews, over 100 DYKs and 40 ITN appearances. As always, 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.

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. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was busy posting my comment about the proposal ignoring the other Commonwealth countries, but you pipped me at the post with your comment! In any event, we appear to be ad idem. :) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:24, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The fourth round of the competition has finished, with anyone scoring less than 673 points being eliminated. It was a high scoring round with all but one of the contestants who progressed to the final having achieved an FA during the round. The highest scorers were

• Epicgenius, with 2173 points topping the scores, gained mainly from a featured article, 38 good articles and 9 DYKs. He was followed by
• Sammi Brie, with 1575 points, gained mainly from a featured article, 28 good articles and 50 good article reviews. Close behind was
• Thebiguglyalien, with 1535 points mainly gained from a featured article, 15 good articles, 26 good article reviews and lots of bonus points.

Between them during round 4, contestants achieved 12 featured articles, 3 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 126 good articles, 46 DYK entries, 14 ITN entries, 67 featured article candidate reviews and 147 good article reviews. Congratulations to our eight finalists and 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 and within 24 hours of the end of the final. 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. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.

I will be standing down as a judge after the end of the contest. I think the Cup encourages productive editors to improve their contributions to Wikipedia and I hope that someone else will step up to take over the running of the Cup. Sturmvogel 66 (talk), and Cwmhiraeth (talk)

New Page Patrol | October 2023 Backlog Drive
On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Articles will earn 3x as many points compared to redirects. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a Request Move discussion about William IV. Since you participated in the previous move discussion involving William IV, I thought you might want to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiCup is a marathon rather than a sprint and all those reaching the final round have been involved in the competition for the last ten months, improving Wikipedia vastly during the process. After all this hard work, BeanieFan11 has emerged as the 2023 winner and the WikiCup Champion. The finalists this year were:-

• BeanieFan11 with 2582 points
• Thebiguglyalien with 1615 points
• Epicgenius with 1518 points
• MyCatIsAChonk with 1012 points
• BennyOnTheLoose with 974 points
• AirshipJungleman29 with 673 points
• Sammi Brie with 520 points
• Unlimitedlead with 5 points

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether they made it to the final round or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the competition, some of whom did very well. Wikipedia has benefitted greatly from the quality creations, expansions and improvements made, and the numerous reviews performed. All those who reached the final round will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. Awards will be handed out in the next few days.

• Unlimitedlead wins the featured article prize, for 7 FAs in total including 3 in round 2.
• MyCatIsAChonk wins the featured list prize, for 5 FLs in total.
• Lee Vilenski wins the featured topic prize, for a 6-article featured topic in round 4.
• MyCatIsAChonk wins the featured picture prize, for 6 FPs in total.
• BeanieFan11 wins the good article prize, for 75 GAs in total, including 61 in the final round.
• Epicgenius wins the good topic prize, for a 41-article good topic in the final round.
• LunaEatsTuna wins the GA reviewer prize, for 70 GA reviews in round 1.
• MyCatIsAChonk wins the FA reviewer prize, for 66 FA reviews in the final round.
• Epicgenius wins the DYK prize, for 49 did you know articles in total.
• Muboshgu wins the ITN prize, for 46 in the news articles in total.

The WikiCup has run every year since 2007. With the 2023 contest now concluded, I will be standing down as a judge due to real life commitments, so I hope that another editor will take over running the competition. Please get in touch if you are interested. Next year's competition will hopefully begin on 1 January 2024. You are invited to sign up to participate in the contest; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors. It only remains to congratulate our worthy winners once again and thank all participants for their involvement! (If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.) Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Posting here as you suggested you would rather have a talk page message. I agree with Amakaru that there's every reason to think that acting as a WikiCup judge would be inconsistent with your topic ban. Per WP:BMB, "If there is any doubt whether a limited ban prohibits any specific edit, the banned editor should assume that it does, unless whoever imposed the ban expressly clarifies that it does not. If clarification is not sought before making the edit, the banned editor assumes the risk that an administrator takes a broader view of the scope of the ban and enforces it with a block or other sanction." (See also Wikipedia:Broadly construed.) I advise that you don't pursue becoming a WikiCup judge while the ban is active. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:09, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn: This is what I appreciate, a subtle nudge that says "thats not a good idea" and that's fine, I had no intention of breaching any of the ban so it is good that I have been told that doing that might be seen to be in breach. What I didn't like was the bringing it up in the general public discussion as its embarrassing when there was no intent to interfere or skirt the ban. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 22:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your offer to help judge the WikiCup. Several editors more experienced than me have suggested it might be considered to breach your topic ban. I have always felt that you have been harshly treated by Wikipedia so I hope that in the future your ban can be lifted. Best wishes, Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cwmhiraeth: Thank you, I am grateful for your comments. I am not going to be putting myself forward for it now. I was hoping to make an appeal in a few weeks but now I worry people will misinterpret the above and I fear I'd get piled on again. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 11:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have corrected the mistakes you have included in the "Scottish Sword of State" article. If you need any advice from an expert (and master's graduate in Scottish history and politics) on such subjects please message me. Mcchib (talk) 10:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend you suggest an RM of it then. I can understand the concerns with the reword and amended it accordingly but I have restored the removal of sourced content. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 12:46, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol | January 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 January 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure we've chipped in many of the same rugby articles over the years, nice to see you contributing to horse racing. I'm going to remove your addition of Desert Hero from Sea The Stars' "notable progeny" section - the standard there is only to list Group / Grade 1 winning progeny, and then only their G1 race wins - are you familiar with the terminology there? I wanted to explain why I'm removing it rather than just revert your edit. All the best! Bcp67 (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bcp67: That's fine, thank you for letting me know. I wasn't sure on the horse stats so I just thought be WP:BOLD. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2024 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close on 31 January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), Epicgenius (talk · contribs · email), and Frostly (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, do you mind archiving your talk page? At close to 400kb, it is on the chunky side (WP:TALKCOND recommends a maximum of 75kb), and my old computer struggles with such large pages on occasion. It would be really helpful. Thanks. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The C of E, thanks for participating in the WikiCup. You recently submitted Barry John for ITN points in the WikiCup, but you do not seem to have been a major contributor to the article (in fact, your name does not appear on the list of 50 top contributors to that page). Unfortunately, this is not eligible for points as a result. Epicgenius (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 2024 WikiCup is off to a flying start, with 135 participants. This is the largest number of participants we have seen since 2017.

Our current leader is newcomer Generalissima (submissions), who has one FA on John Littlejohn (preacher) and 10 GAs and 12 DYKs mostly on New Zealand coinage and Inuit figures. Here are some more noteworthy scorers:

• AirshipJungleman29 (submissions), with one FA on Hö'elün, two GAs on Mongolia-related articles, and two DYKs;
• Vami_IV (submissions), with one FA on Doom (2016 video game), one GA on Boundary Fire (2017), and 11 reviews;
• MaranoFan (submissions), with one FA on Holidays (Meghan Trainor song), a nine-article FT on 30 (album), and two DYKs;
• Skyshifter (submissions), with one FA on OneShot and one DYK;
• Sammi Brie (submissions), with five GAs and five DYKs on television and radio stations;
• voorts (submissions) and Elli (submissions), both with one FA and one DYK each.

As a reminder, competitors may submit work for the first round until 23:59 (UTC) on 27 February, and the second round starts 1 March. Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round; currently, competitors need at least 15 points to progress. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, 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) 17:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first round of the 2024 WikiCup ended at 23:59 (UTC) on 27 February. Everyone with at least 30 points moved on to Round 2, the highest number of points required to advance to the second round since 2014. Due to a six-way tie for the 64th-place spot, 67 contestants have qualified for Round 2.

The following scorers in Round 1 all scored more than 300 points:

• Generalissima (submissions), who has 916 points mostly from one FA on John Littlejohn (preacher), 15 GAs, and 16 DYKs on a variety of topics including New Zealand coinage and Inuit figures, in addition to seven reviews
• Vami_IV (submissions), who has 790 points from two FAs on Felix M. Warburg House and Doom (2016 video game), two GAs, one DYK, and 11 reviews
• AirshipJungleman29 (submissions), who has 580 points from one FA on Hö'elün, two GAs on Mongolia-related articles, two DYKs, and five reviews
• Sammi Brie (submissions), who has 420 points mostly from nine GAs and seven DYKs on television and radio stations
• MaranoFan (submissions), who has 351 points from one FA on Holidays (Meghan Trainor song), a nine-article FT on 30 (album), and three DYKs
• Skyshifter (submissions), who has 345 points from one FA on OneShot, one DYK and two reviews

In this newsletter, the judges would like to pay a special tribute to Vami_IV (submissions), who unfortunately passed away this February. At the time of his death, he was the second-highest-scoring competitor. Outside the WikiCup, he had eight other featured articles, five A-class articles, eight other good articles, and two Four Awards. Vami also wrote an essay on completionism, a philosophy in which he deeply believed. If you can, please join us in honoring his memory by improving one of the articles on his to-do list.

Remember that any content promoted after 27 February but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Newport Association Football Club Ltd and others v Football Association of Wales Ltd you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Llewee -- Llewee (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Newport Association Football Club Ltd and others v Football Association of Wales Ltd you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Newport Association Football Club Ltd and others v Football Association of Wales Ltd for comments about the article, and Talk:Newport Association Football Club Ltd and others v Football Association of Wales Ltd/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Llewee -- Llewee (talk) 15:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heya, just wanted to drop a friendly note, when copying the code from the {{infobox rugby biography}} documentation, please make sure you don't include things like blank lines containing only the ... ellipses. I do realise they're not immediately obvious so I did add some text but I thought you'd like to know. Cheers for creating new pages about rugby players! Primefac (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Thank you for participating in the March 2024 GA backlog drive. Your noteworthy contribution (8.5 points total) helped reduce the backlog by more than 250 articles! Here's a token of our appreciation. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are approaching the end of the 2024 WikiCup's second round, with a little over two weeks remaining. Currently, contestants must score at least 105 points to progress to the third round.

Our current top scorers are as follows:

• Sammi Brie (submissions) with 642 points, mostly from 11 GAs about radio and television;
• voorts (submissions) with 530 points, mostly from two FAs (Well he would, wouldn't he? and Cora Agnes Benneson) and three GAs;
• Generalissima (submissions) with 523 points, mostly from 11 GAs about coinage and history;
• SounderBruce (submissions) with 497 points, mostly from a FA about the 2020 season of the soccer club Seattle Sounders FC and two GAs;
• Tamzin (submissions) with 410 points, mostly from a FA about the drink Capri-Sun and three GAs;
• Kusma (submissions) with 330 points, mostly from a FA about the English botanist Anna Blackburne and a GA.

Competitors may submit work for the second round until the end of 28 April, and the third round starts 1 May. Remember that only competitors with the top 32 scores will make it through to the third round. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs. As a reminder, competitors are strictly prohibited from gaming Wikipedia policies or processes to receive more points.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please read Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. 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) 15:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]