@EditorE: I am not an administrator,but you don't have to request an unblock. I know you are trying to change yourself on Wikipedia, but it says you have been blocked for only 31 hours, and you are not permanently blocked. After 31 hours, you can be free to make Wikipedia edits, just make sure to assume good faith. Spike789🇺🇸18:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A page you started (Weird Soundcloud) has been reviewed!
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Captain Janks, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Landers and Century Theater. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Persona (Lorenzo Senni EP), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hyperreal. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ten Love Songs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Annie. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Miracle Mile (Starfucker album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alternative Press. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hey to be clear, I think you've done a good job with the Ferraro album articles, I'm just trying to clear up the leads a bit bc they seem a bit all over the place to me, and some of the writing on Ferraro can be hard to summarize in accessible terms. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Victor Wong 1927.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).
The third round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 288 points being required to qualify for round 4. It was a hotly competitive round with all but four of the contestants exceeding the 106 points that was necessary to proceed to round 4 last year. Coemgenus and Freikorp tied on 288, and both have been allowed to proceed, so round 4 now has one pool of eight competitors and one of nine.
Round 3 saw the achievement of a 26-topic Featured topic by MPJ-DK as well as 5 featured lists and 13 featured articles. PanagiotisZois and SounderBruce achieved their first ever featured articles. Carbrera led the GA score with 10, Tachs achieved 17 DYKs and MBlaze Lightning 10 In the news items. There were 167 DYKs, 93 GARs and 82 GAs overall, this last figure being higher than the number of GAs in round 2, when twice as many people were taking part. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.
As we start round 4, we say goodbye to the fifteen or so competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).
If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth05:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A page you started (Exercises (EP)) has been reviewed!
Please consider switching to full refs. It's way fast anyway. This is to ensure that an bot [or another editor] is able to easily add archive URLs. If you want a tutorial, I can type one up [or even make an image guide]. It's all done within the wiki toolbar and it's easy :) --Jennica✿ / talk04:56, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "full refs"? I put all the information of the source that's available in my citations, I just don't use a template. editorEهեইдအ😎15:20, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I do mean the template. Like I previously said, it's to ensure that the links can be easily archived. The way you are doing it now, no bot can archive them as far as I know. I would say it would almost be better to do bare references and run it through reFill versus the current way you do it. I went ahead and made an infographic. It's super easy and auto-fills most of the info needed. I hope you give it a try. :) → --Jennica✿ / talk01:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Round 4 of the WikiCup has ended and we move forward into the final round. In round 4, a total of 12 FAs, 3 FLs, 44 GAs, 3 FLs, 79 DYKs, 1 ITN and 42 GARs was achieved, with no FPs or FTs this time. Congratulations to Peacemaker67 on the Royal Yugoslav Navy Good Topic of 36 items, and the 12 featured articles achieved by Cas Liber (5), Vanamonde93 (3), Peacemaker67 (2), Adityavagarwal (1) and 12george1 (1). With a FA scoring 200 points, and bonus points available on top of this, FAs are likely to feature heavily in the final round. Meanwhile Yellow Evan, a typhoon specialist, was contributing 12 DYKs and 10 GAs, while Adityavagarwal and Freikorp topped the GAR list with 8 reviews each. As we enter the final round, we are down to eight contestants, and we would like to thank those of you who have been eliminated for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. The lowest score needed to reach round 5 was 305, and I think we can expect a highly competitive final round.
Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck, and let the best man (or woman) win! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth06:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to recognizing the achievements of the top finishers and everyone who worked hard to make it to the final round, we also want to recognize those participants who were most productive in each of the WikiCup scoring categories:
Featured Article – Cas Liber (actually a two-way tie with themselves for an astonishing five FAs in R2 and R4).
Good Article – Adityavagarwal had 14 GAs promoted in R5.
Over the course of the 2017 WikiCup the following content was added or improved on Wikipedia: 51 Featured Articles, 292 Good Articles, 18 Featured Lists, 1 Featured Picture, 1 Featured Topics, 4 Good Topics, around 400 Did You Knows, 75 In The News, and 442 Good Article Reviews. Thank you to all the competitors for your hard work and what you have done to improve Wikipedia.
Regarding the prize vouchers - @Adityavagarwal, Vanamonde93, Casliber, Bloom6132, 1989, and SounderBruce: please send Godot13 (talk·contribs·email) an email from the email address to which you would like your Amazon voucher sent. Please include your preference of global Amazon marketplace as well. We hope to have the electronic gift cards processed and sent within a week.
Thanks for uploading File:EastWest Studios.png. 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).
So the 2017 WikiCup has come to an end. Congratulations to the winner, to the other finalists and to all those who took part. 177 contestants signed up, more than usual, but not all of them submitted entries in the first round. Were editors attracted by the cash prizes offered for the first time this year, or were these irrelevant? Do the rules and scoring need changing for the 2018 WikiCup? If you have a view on these or other matters, why not join in the WikiCup discussion about next year's contest? Sturmvogel 66 (talk·contribs·email), Godot13 (talk·contribs·email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk·contribs·email). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, EditorE. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Apple (1980 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Crevice (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Wikipedia editor Abishe just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Hello EditorE: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Abishe (talk) 17:46, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
Hi. Thanks for your additions to Pleasure (Feist album), however, and I believe I've pointed it out either directly to you or in edit summaries after you've edited before—please use a consistent date format for a page you're editing. The article for Pleasure uses dmy, so please utilise that per WP:DATEFORMAT: "Dates in article body text should all use the same format". Also, as for you not using cite web templates, WP:CITESTYLE says: "citations within any given article should follow a consistent style". Not using templates is a different reference style. Please try to go with the established style of an article when editing in future. It's helpful to adapt your editing style in this way for what has already been done on different articles. Thanks. Ss11207:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care what date format the page is in. We should stick to one style regardless and you didn't do that. I wouldn't believe you claiming it's because Feist is a Canadian artist—you've edited albums by British artists before and used mdy in what you've added, so I just think you can't be bothered to adapt your own content. Furthermore, don't restore publishers where work is already defined (that means we don't need Spin Media listed after Spin and so on). I removed them for a reason, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't edit your own version back into the article. Read Template:Cite web, which still applies even if you don't use a template (as you didn't, making the article un-uniform). It's also CS1 style on Wikipedia to not use both work and publisher, even in typed-out references. Ss11213:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter what date format you used, they were inconsistent with the rest of the page at the time you added it. WP:DATEFORMAT. Also, calm down. I already specified what style: The established referencing style of an article per WP:CITESTYLE. The style the first post-stub revision used (i.e. the first major contribution) is the one we stick to (WP:RETAIN). You didn't do that on Pleasure or the Black Origami article, it seems. You've just typed out references instead of using templates, which every other editor who added a citation to the page did. You might not see a problem with it, but it's incongruous with what was there already and we should aim for consistency. Ss11215:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Artpop is not really an example of what's best for an article. It's not a featured article or even at GA status. The existence of the Discogs master template obviously came about before the page was listed on WP:ALBUMAVOID as a site we can't trust and should not use because of its user-generated content (WP:USERGEN). What other articles do is not the best reason for keeping things on other articles (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Perhaps there are less discerning editors editing Artpop. There are a myriad of explanations. Ss11221:46, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. With 53 contestants qualifying, the groups for round 2 are slightly smaller than usual, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining users.
Our top scorers in round 1 were:
Aoba47 led the field with a featured article, 8 good articles and 42 GARs, giving a total of 666 points.
FrB.TG , a WikiCup newcomer, came next with 600 points, gained from a featured article and masses of bonus points.
Ssven2, another WikiCup newcomer, was in third place with 403 points, garnered from a featured article, a featured list, a good article and twelve GARs.
Ceranthor, Numerounovedant, Carbrera, Farang Rak Tham and Cartoon network freak all had over 200 points, but like all the other contestants, now have to start again from scratch. A good achievement was the 193 GARs performed by WikiCup contestants, comparing very favourably with the 54 GAs they achieved.
Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.
Thanks for uploading File:NightintheWoodsPCCover.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).
Not sure what these edits reference (1, 2), but you need to chill out. If you have an issue with an edit I made, bring it to me in a mature, adult manner rather than leaving a childish all caps tantrum. AldezD (talk) 22:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:SheepandWolvesposter.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).
The second round of the 2018 WikiCup has now finished. Most contestants who advanced to the next round scored upwards of 100 points, but two with just 10 points managed to scrape through into round 3. Our top scorers in the last round were:
Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with three featured articles
Iazyges, with nine good articles and lots of bonus points
Yashthepunisher, a first time contestant, with two featured lists
SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with seventeen good topic articles
Usernameunique, a first time contestant, with fourteen DYKs
Muboshgu, a seasoned competitor, with three ITNs and
Courcelles, another first time contestant, with twenty-seven GARs
So far contestants have achieved twelve featured articles between them and a splendid 124 good articles. Commendably, 326 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2018 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met; most of the GARs are fine, but a few have been a bit skimpy.
Thanks for uploading File:SheepandWolvesposter.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).
At the AfD for Blockstack, you first of all said "either you didn't read the article, or you're a total idiot". Since I did read the article (and I've also read the policies and guidelines applicable to Organizations and Companies), you have called me a "total idiot". I'm not offended in the slightest about your use of the word Bullshit - you'd be surprised how much Bullshit I come across on AfD every single day and that includes your response at the AfD too. Also, adding in "Go make-love yourself" as an attempt to not say "Go Fuck Yourself" while still making it clear what you didn't have the balls to actually say, means that you get a warning. Your behaviour is against Wikepedia policy, namely WP:PERSONAL. It is also disruptive and against the spirit of the project. I can see from other editor's comments and warnings above that you are in the habit of using a particular style of language and delivery and while some other editors might find it distasteful and others might say it is perfectly normal for the snowflake generation, you cross the line and breach policy when you make personal comments. I'm sure it was most likely unintentional or maybe you were unaware that such a policy exists. But now you know. Next time it happens (and we all hope there isn't a next time), any editor may report your behaviour (and point to this warning to show that you were made aware of policy) and you may end up receiving a temporary block - it all depends on the humour of the administrators on the day but its probably not a risk you want to take. Once you get on their bad side ... P.S. I've only just now realised that you have been blocked previously for personal attacks. If I'd known that at the start, I'd have reported you but seeing as I've written all this out, I'll just leave it as the warning I intended when I started. HighKing++ 17:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Um, you know, "make-love" and the f-word mean the same thing, right? So really, I did say the same thing as "go f yourself?" Just saying editorEهեইдအ😎18:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nice of you to clear up any potential misunderstanding and to provide an admission. It'll be useful should your behaviour continue in the future and some other editor looking over your Talk page and thinking of giving you a gentle warning. HighKing++ 10:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The third round of the 2018 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round had at least 227 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:
Courcelles, a first time contestant, with 1756 points, a tally built largely on 27 GAs related to the Olympics
Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three GAs on natural history and astronomy topics
SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with a variety of submissions related to transport in the state of Washington
Contestants managed 7 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 120 good articles, 1 good topic, 124 DYK entries, 15 ITN entries, and 132 good article reviews. Over the course of the competition, contestants have completed 458 GA reviews, in comparison to 244 good articles submitted for review and promoted. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process; several submissions, particularly in abstruse or technical areas, have needed additional work to make them completely verifiable.
hi there, i hope that i am doing this correctly. i recorded no stairway -- i believe that you created the wikipedia entry for that album. great work! might i be able to talk to you about some possible changes? i have no idea what i'm doing.
Hey, @Glassineasleep:, it's such a pleasure of an artist to read an article about one of their albums that I made. It's such a pleasure! As far as changes, I'm gonna have to let you know that they're whatever info you'd like, it's going to have to be stated in reliable sources or else I can't put it in. editorEهեইдအ😎10:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
well, it was even more of a pleasure to read what someone had to say about an album i made. do i count as a reliable source? are we able to talk via email? glassineglassine@gmail.com Glassineglassine (talk) 19:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)glassineasleep[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:SheepandWolvesposter.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).
Hi. I see you editing a lot of music articles where you add citations in your own style. Per WP:CITEVAR, you should follow the established style of citations on the page. Most of the pages I have seen you edit in the past month have all used Template:Cite web and CS1 style templates, so please adapt what you add into these. I find it's actually less tedious than typing out "Retrieved..." and the markup yourself (of course, others, including yourself, do and may disagree). Also, it will save on time other editors who edit those pages or see them on their watchlist spend editing after you making the style consistent when you can just do it yourself. Thank you. Ss11203:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The fourth round of the 2018 WikiCup has now come to an end. The eight users who made it to the final round had to score a minimum of 422 points to qualify, with the top score in the round being 4869 points. The leaders in round 4 were:
Courcelles scored a magnificent 4869 points, with 92 good articles on Olympics-related themes. Courcelles' bonus points alone exceeded the total score of any of the other contestants!
Kees08 was second with 1155 points, including a high-scoring featured article for Neil Armstrong, two good topics and some Olympics-related good articles.
Cas Liber, with 1066 points, was in third place this round, with two featured articles and a good article, all on natural history topics.
During round four, 6 featured articles and 164 good articles were promoted by WikiCup contestants, 13 articles were included in good topics and 143 good article reviews were performed. There were also 10 "in the news" contributions on the main page and 53 "did you knows". Congratulations to all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.
Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck, and let the best editor win! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In response to this, if you consider "stalking" checking your edits every now and again to adapt your references on articles because you refuse to—and are choosing to ignore requests to follow WP:CITEVAR, one of our guidelines, then sure, I'm "stalking" you. Most days you edit extensively, you edit at least one page on my watchlist, which prompts me to look at your contributions; today, it was two: Bloom and Lotusflow3r. Both times you did not adapt the references you added to the established citation style of the page. If this is a problem to you, by all means, reach out to an admin or elsewhere. Maybe then you can also say why you're choosing to ignore polite requests to adapt the references you add to pages, which really is not too much to ask. Ss11206:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ss112: "you're choosing to ignore polite requests to adapt the references you add to pages" WRONG!!!!!!! I haven't ignored any of your requests. Just because my sources aren't in templates doesn't mean they violate WP:CITEVAR or don't follow the "established citation style." I'm following the style you've asked me a billion times to follow. I've been on this encyclopedia for five years, so I know what the proper format is. My source format is always still in the same format as they would be in a template. Also, the source format the chart templates follow also doesn't follow the citation style: the templates always have the publication name where the title field is and the author name as the publisher. Citation templates are a joke. They are stupid and complicated to set up, so you're the one wasting the time, not me. editorEهեইдအ😎08:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Uh...that's exactly what WP:CITEVAR means. It clearly states "When an article is already consistent, avoid: adding citation templates to an article that already uses a consistent system without templates, or removing citation templates from an article that uses them consistently". Obviously that includes the reverse—they don't need to spell it out. Then below that, it states: "The following are standard practice: [...] imposing one style on an article with inconsistent citation styles (e.g., some of the citations in footnotes and others as parenthetical references): an improvement because it makes the citations easier to understand and edit". That obviously includes using templates if the rest of the page does, because the format you put it in is the citation style. It doesn't matter if you type out your references in the order that they appear when one uses templates anyway, and it also does not matter if you think they're "stupid" or a joke. You should be using them if everywhere else on an article already does. They are really not complicated at all—they are one of the simplest things to fill out. Your message also appears to be contradictory—first you appear to be saying you're not violating WP:CITEVAR anyway, then you're saying citation templates are a "joke" and that's why you're not using them. If that's not what CITEVAR means to you, I don't see the need for your reasoning that you refuse to use them because they're a "joke". If you're unclear about what CITEVAR means, please ask an admin, like Ad Orientem, who commented above. Any editor will tell you WP:CITEVAR includes using templates or not. Ss11214:01, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ss112: You know what, WP:CITEVAR can go birth itself. If you think templates are "one of the simplest things to fill out," you must be the type of person who thinks college exams are for preschoolers. I'm not using templates for sources. It's nobody's business, and anyone wanting to make it a rule can.................. listen to Charlie Puth. editorEهեইдအ😎14:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, is the retaliation on now, is it? Quoting me and changing something I did? [1] Lol. You need to try and chill, you seem really bothered by me pointing a guideline out to you. Maybe check out some other discographies while you're at it, and read extended play. It's a separate format; not a single, not an album, but in between. And no buddy, I won't be shutting up. Ss11218:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is Courcelles (submissions), who over the course of the competition has amassed 147 GAs, 111 GARs, 9 DYKs, 4 FLs and 1 ITN. Our finalists were as follows:
Zanhe (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 17 in the news articles overall.
Aoba47 (submissions) wins the GAR prize, for 43 good article reviews in round 1.
Awards will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!
Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved much this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition.
Thank you for uploading File:Original 1968 Rush Lineup.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Mjs1991 (talk) 06:01, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:VIsibleCloaksReassemblage.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).
Thanks for uploading File:Gazelle twin unflesh.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).
Thanks for uploading File:Geronimo Sheppard altcover.png. 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).
Thanks for uploading File:Geoff Downes The Age of Plastic.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).
Thanks for uploading File:AsyncRemodels.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).
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weird SoundCloud until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Störm(talk)17:07, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Beatnik Buggles.ogg. 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).
Thanks for uploading File:Buggles Lenny.ogg. 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).
Thanks for uploading File:Lorde-The-Love-Club-EP.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).
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/It Should Be Easy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Web (album) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Thanks for uploading File:Shoes Kelly video.png. 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).
Lack of sufficient third party sources to prove notability. Most found after a Google search are either review aggregator websites, reviews or articles concerning the original board game; this also applies to the article itself where all sources are either review aggregators or reviews. I have seen more notable games that have had their articles rejected on this site, and this generic adaptation of a generic board game fails to demonstrate exactly why does it deserve an arricle of its own.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Adityavagarwal (submissions)
Vanamonde (submissions)
Cas Liber (submissions)
Bloom6132 (submissions) and 
1989 (submissions) both produced 2 FLs in R2
SounderBruce (submissions) improved an image to FP status in R5, the only FP this year.
MPJ-DK (submissions) has the only FT of the Cup in R3.
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
_(14752756965).jpg)
_(14573454469).jpg)
.jpg)
Aoba47 led the field with a featured article, 8 good articles and 42 GARs, giving a total of 666 points.
FrB.TG , a WikiCup newcomer, came next with 600 points, gained from a featured article and masses of bonus points.
Carbrera, 
Farang Rak Tham and 
Cartoon network freak all had over 200 points, but like all the other contestants, now have to start again from scratch. A good achievement was the 193 GARs performed by WikiCup contestants, comparing very favourably with the 54 GAs they achieved.
Iazyges, with nine good articles and lots of bonus points
SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with seventeen good topic articles
Muboshgu, a seasoned competitor, with three ITNs and
Courcelles, another first time contestant, with twenty-seven GARs
Kees08 was second with 1155 points, including a high-scoring featured article for Neil Armstrong, two good topics and some Olympics-related good articles.
Nova Crystallis, 
Kosack and 
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
SounderBruce (submissions)
Aoba47 (submissions) wins the GAR prize, for 43 good article reviews in round 1.
User:EditorE/Details, 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/User:EditorE/Details and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:EditorE/Details 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. AldezD (talk) 00:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
