User talk:ThatKongregateGuy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome[edit]

Hello, ThatKongregateGuy, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

ThatKongregateGuy, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure![edit]

The
Adventure
The Wikipedia Adventure guide

Hi ThatKongregateGuy!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. I hope to see you there! Ocaasi

Play The Wikipedia Adventure
This message was delivered by HostBot (talk) 17:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure![edit]

Hi ThatKongregateGuy! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 17:23, Saturday, May 30, 2015 (UTC)

Mission 1 Mission 2 Mission 3 Mission 4 Mission 5 Mission 6 Mission 7
Say Hello to the World An Invitation to Earth Small Changes, Big Impact The Neutral Point of View The Veil of Verifiability The Civility Code Looking Good Together

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure![edit]

Hi ThatKongregateGuy! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 17:34, Saturday, May 30, 2015 (UTC)

Mission 1 Mission 2 Mission 3 Mission 4 Mission 5 Mission 6 Mission 7
Say Hello to the World An Invitation to Earth Small Changes, Big Impact The Neutral Point of View The Veil of Verifiability The Civility Code Looking Good Together

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure![edit]

Hi ThatKongregateGuy! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 17:34, Saturday, May 30, 2015 (UTC)

Mission 1 Mission 2 Mission 3 Mission 4 Mission 5 Mission 6 Mission 7
Say Hello to the World An Invitation to Earth Small Changes, Big Impact The Neutral Point of View The Veil of Verifiability The Civility Code Looking Good Together

Me before you[edit]

  • I am not vandalizing the article in any way. Please stop undo my edits where I am cleaning up the formatting. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 22:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • A word gets messed up every time, maybe you should stop doing that? ThatKongregateGuy (talk) 22:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I take it you are referring to "quadriplegic." You could have just correct the one word. That is no reason to undo an entire edit of useful fixes. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 22:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had not known what the word was, sorry. ThatKongregateGuy (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A word please[edit]

  • Dear KongregateGuy, can we settle this discussion about the "1993 Tour of Flanders"? The article is sourced with excellent references, well-written and exists on four other projects of wikipedia. The argument that it would be too long ago to post is absurd. There is a "1913 Tour of Flanders" article that is relevant, as it is one of the most important annual sports events in Europe. —  User talk:Dr.robin 00:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry about that if you thought I messed up, I was just starting out on new articles, and I am not an expert in that field. Sorry again! ThatKongregateGuy (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to complain, but as a new editor, might you be better off sticking to what you do know, at least for now? Seems like you've ruffled a few feathers ([1]) by making good faith unhelpful edits on things you don't know much about. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will do. ThatKongregateGuy (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edits of Concern[edit]

Hello ThatKongregateGuy. I saw the above deletion discussion you started, and several of your other edits to articles lately I find concerning. For example:

Perhaps you should hold off patrolling and tagging new articles until you gain some experience about what articles are and are not typically kept, what an article in need of copyediting looks like, and so on. So far you've only made ~20 edits to articles, and a concerning percentage of them have been problematic. CrowCaw 22:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry about Azerbaijan. When I reviewed The 2015-16 Southern Counties East Football League, it said 2013-14 in the article, so I was confused. On the first one, It's name is the World Wildlife Fund, so it was a relevant change. ThatKongregateGuy (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Understandable, but we use "outdated" for constantly changing events that need to be kept up to date. Even if they created the article on 2013-14, that season is complete, and its facts and statistics are not going to change, so there's nothing to keep up to date.
  • On the WWF one, that change was also understandable, but also note that World Wide Fund is the organization's official name, and is "also called" World Wildlife Fund. When there's 2 equally valid ways to write something, the best rule of thumb is to leave it as it is unless there's a good reason to change it. You'll see that a lot with American vs British English like color/colour. The bigger problem with that edit though was removing a reference, which you just need to be careful about doing: if you do need to remove one, always say in the edit summary why it was removed.
  • Not trying to pick on you, just letting you know that there are a lot of little quirky things like these to be careful about. Happy editing! CrowCaw 23:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for letting me know. ThatKongregateGuy (talk) 23:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Modestinus, Florentinus and Flavianus[edit]

Thanks for pointing out the dead link - I've removed it. The two remaining are indeed in Italian (these are Italian saints). Non-English sources are allowed, are they not, epecially in the absence of English ones? Eustachiusz (talk) 02:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated[edit]

Hi, I'm Eustachiusz. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, William "Buck" Stanton, S.J., and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Eustachiusz (talk) 02:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion[edit]

You proposed Arta portretului şi a naraţiunii în opera cronicarilor moldoveni for deletion on the basis that

This is in the wrong language.

That is not a valid reason to delete an article. Wikipedia has a pages needing translation process; articles that are not in English but that do not immediately appear to need deletion for any other reason should simply be tagged with the {{notenglish}} tag and listed at WP:PNT. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiDan61: Sorry, I did not know. Thanks for the help!ThatKongregateGuy (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations[edit]

Hi ThatKongregateGuy, welcome to Wikipedia! In the future, if you find a page that's a copy/paste like The city bank, the best option is to tag it for Speedy deletion, with the tag {{db-g12|url=url}}. That ensures that the page is brought to the attention of administrators. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 18:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

National varieties of English[edit]

Information icon In a recent edit, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Widr (talk) 01:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for letting me know. ThatKongregateGuy (talk) 01:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Mirror Crack'd from Side to Side[edit]

I see you've already been informed about this above.

For future reference, the most common British spellings differences are using s instead of z e.g. organisation, recognise, realise, and using "our" instead of "or" e.g. flavour, colour, honour. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, please read WP:ENGVAR. The "wrong spellings" are British English. The article specifies that British English is to be used, so per WP:ENGVAR, you don't revert to American English. CrowCaw 17:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 03 June 2015[edit]

Editing "reflist"?[edit]

Hi. You asked about editing a "reflist". This question is rather deeper than it first appears. Would you like to discuss it? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I got a little help from the Village Pump, but OK. ThatKongregateGuy (talk) 22:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start with which article you want to work on, and what you want to do with the "reflist". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 June 2015[edit]

Speedy deletion request Wim van Norden[edit]

Hi ThatKongregateGuy, you recently requested the speedy deletion of Wim van Norden as CSD G3 Vandalism. "This includes blatant and obvious misinformation, and redirects created during cleanup of page move vandalism". With on the talkpage a full capslock message saying: "ATTENTION: A LOT OF THE INFORMATION ON THIS PAGE IS INCORRECT", without providing any further examples of this. Wim van Norden is a perfectly valid article, no vandalism, no misinformation. I see you have only been on Wikipedia for two weeks. If you really thought this article was vandalism I'd suggest staying away from patroling new pages for a while and gaining some more experiences in other areas first. Just like User:Crow suggested to you before. Crispulop (talk) 06:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know, the date of death IS incorrect, he died in 2001. I may have overdid it, thinking if that was wrong, a lot of other stuff is center around it and probably is too. Sorry about that. ThatKongregateGuy (talk) 19:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, no, he died in May of 2015: [2]. If anything in the article else is wrong, the correct response is to either, 1: Fix it yourself, or 2: Discuss it on the talk page. Nominating an article for deletion, especially as "pure vandalism", which has a very specific definition, is not the right response, and may be considered disruptive. CrowCaw 20:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 June 2015[edit]

Hey you[edit]

STOP! GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 00:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting other users edits[edit]

First off, I'm not sure what GalaxyFighter55 and you have going on, nor do I really care, but I'd appreciate it if you don't revert my edits I made on his talk page. It is really rude. Also per WP:BLANKING, that user has a right to remove anything from his/her talk page, including the warnings you've placed. The only thing they can't remove is Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block and confirmed sockpuppetry related notices from their talk page. By them removing the material means that they've read or are aware of your warnings. Now granted this edit was not right, you still shouldn't revert the edits on his talk page. Corkythehornetfan 15:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accidental Autoblock[edit]

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.
ThatKongregateGuy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
ip address (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Block message:

I am no longer allowed to edit. Can someone help me out?

Decline reason: To reiterate what was discussed on IRC, based upon technical evidence it appears you have used additional accounts in the past which were blocked for disruption. (Voteforthisguy and BlockyMan1) If you wish to contribute to Wikipedia in the future, I would encourage you to review the standard offer. Mike V • Talk 17:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My Block[edit]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ThatKongregateGuy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Mike V, I have been telling you, I do not know those accounts. They are not mine and never have been. This is my only account. I would never use a sockpuppet account or vandalize Wikipedia. Come on, someone please help me. I love Wikipedia and I want to keep editing. Help? Please? ThatKongregateGuy (talk) 19:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I have also run an independant checkuser investigation on this account, and I endorse Mike's findings; the technical data is extremely convincing. Yunshui 雲水 11:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The Signpost: 24 June 2015[edit]

2015 GA Cup[edit]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - June 2015

Welcome to the GA Cup! In less than 72 hours, the competition will begin! Before you all start reviewing nominations and reassessments we want to make sure you understand the following:

  • This is a friendly competition so we don't want any cheating/breaking of the rules. However, if you do believe someone is going against the rules, notify the judges. All the rules are listed here.
  • If you are a new editor or new to reviewing Good article nominations, it is imperative that you read the 4 essays/guides listed under FAQ #4. If you do not understand something, ask a judge for clarification ASAP!
  • The competition is not entirely about who can review the most nominations. Per the "Scoring" page, there is different criteria in which you can earn more points. Theoretically, you could review 10 nominations and have 80 points but another user could have reviewed 5 nominations and have 100 points. Yes, we want you to review as many nominations as you can as this will greatly increase the number of points you earn, but you must also keep in mind that every single review will be looked over by a judge. If we find that you are "rubber-stamping" (in other words, the review is not complete but you still passed/failed the article) you may be disqualified without warning. The same applies with reassessments. If you just say that the article should be delisted or kept with no explanation, points will not be awarded.
  • Remember, to submit Good article reviews and reassessments on your submissions page (Some of you have not created your submissions page yet. Only reviews/reassessments submitted on your submissions page can earn points. If you participated in the 2014-2015 GA Cup, you still need to re-create your submissions page.). Detailed instructions on how to submit reviews and reassessments can be found under the "Submissions" page. Ask a judge if you need clarification.

Also, rather than creating a long list on what to remember, make sure you have read the "Scoring", "Submissions", and "FAQ" pages.

Now some of you are probably wondering how on earth the rounds will work.

The rounds will work in a similar fashion as the previous competition, with the exception of the first round. Round 1 will have everyone compete in one big pool. Depending on the final number of participants after sign-ups close, a to-be-determined number of participants will move on (highest scorers will move on) to Round 2. We guarantee that the top 15 will move on (this number may change), so make sure you aim for those top positions! Moving on to Round 2, participants will be split into pools. The pools will be determined by a computer program that places participants by random. More details regarding Round 2 will be sent out at the end of Round 1.

It is important to note that the GA Cup will run on UTC time, so make sure you know what time that is for where you live! On that note, the GA Cup will start on July 1 at 0:00:01 UTC; Round 1 will end on July 29 at 23:59:59 UTC; Round 2 will commence on August 1 at 0:00:01 UTC. All reviews must be started after or on the start time of the round. If you qualify for Round 2 but do not complete a review before the end of Round 1, the review can be carried over to Round 2; however that review will not count for Round 1. Prior to the start of the the second round, participants who qualify to move on will be notified.

Finally, if you know anyone else that might be interesting in participating, let them know! Sign-ups close on July 15 so there is still plenty of time to join in on the action!

If you have any further questions, contact one of the judges or leave a message here.

After sign-ups close, check the Pools page as we will post the exact number of participants that will move on to the next round. Because this number will be determined past the halfway mark of Round 1, we encourage you to aim to be in the top 15 as the top 15 at the end of the round are guaranteed to move on.

Cheers from 3family6, Dom497, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar and MrWooHoo.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please unblock me[edit]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ThatKongregateGuy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello, I have some questions here. First, Why would it block me after almost a month and about 300 edits? Wouldn't it block me immediately? Second, could there be a glitch in your system? I have never vandalized. Some editors have let me know about stuff I did wrong, but I am still learning. I enjoy editing Wikipedia, it makes me feel good to know I am doing good things. I am telling you, I do not know why I was blocked, I just want to help and edit Wikipedia. I am begging you, please help me out. I want to continue with contributing to Wikipedia. <B> ThatKongregateGuy </B> (talk) 04:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC), in what might be his last edit on Wikipedia.[reply]

Decline reason:

The problem is that we have had so many people lie and deceive about sockpuppetry over the years, that it's got to the stage that if you technically match another account per the checkuser policy, it's pretty much impossible to unblock you on just your say-so. If you genuinely have no link to the other accounts, a further option is to email the Ban Appeals Sub-Committee, who can examine technical and behavioural evidence with greater scrutiny. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

That's not true. I googled it and it said he died in 2001 so I thought that since other information was centered around it. Guess I spelled his name wrong or something. Ever read the thing about being bold?

This is probably going to be my last attempt. I hope whoever reads this can help me.[edit]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ThatKongregateGuy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Ok, just want to say something here. If I was an administrator looking at this, I would probably let this account off the hook with a warning, because of a couple things. 1. This only popped up after about 300 edits. 2. This account has made a lot of good edits. I would probably let this user off the hook with a warning, and keep a VERY close eye on him. I know a lot of people have decided to bring up Wim Van Norden. Ok, I get I messed up. Rookie Mistake. I'm still learning people, why can you not realize that? I also said I have 1 account. I realized I have TheKongregateGuy, I am not sure if I ever really used that one other than created it. I did not use it because I did not like how that username sounded and liked this one better. I forgot I had it until about a week ago. Bottom line is, I love editing and contributing to Wikipedia. I just want my account back, and to be able to edit again. I might mess up sometimes, I am still learning. Please undo my block. I am innocent. Something must be wrong. If my account was a sockpuppet, I would not be able to make an account, am I right? Also, why did this only come up after 300 edits? Would it not come up immediately? I really want my account back. Ever since I joined Wikipedia, I loved it. It has been really hard these 2-3 weeks not being able to edit. I beg you guys, just let me have my account back. I am innocent. ThatKongregateGuy (talk) 22:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Firstly, "popped up after about 300 edits" is irrelevant. Sockpuppetry is not technically impossible. Secondly, I'm rather unimpressed by this account's ratio of good to problematic edits. And thirdly, I find the behavioural evidence on top of the technical evidence too strong to be convinced by your claims of innocence. Huon (talk) 00:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The Signpost: 08 July 2015[edit]

Ok, you can unblock me now.[edit]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ThatKongregateGuy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I just realized, I was on a proxy network when I was blocked! That means other people may share my ip address! I had only recently connected to a proxy server when I had been blocked, which is why it showed up then. I am normally off of a proxy server, I had forgotten I was on one, and when I checked my internet I saw I was. Sorry for all the trouble I caused you guys when it was a proxy server the whole time. <B> ThatKongregateGuy </B> (talk) 19:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Leaving aside the fact that editing though a proxy server is itself normally blockable, I find this explanation unbelievable. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'll leave this for another admin to review, since I've already dealt with an unblock request above. However, I would point out that the IP used by this account does not appear to be a proxy. I find the above claim implausible, to say the least. Yunshui 雲水 20:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 July 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 22 July 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 29 July 2015[edit]

2015 GA Cup - Round 2[edit]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - Round 2

Greetings, GA Cup competitors!

Wednesday saw the end of Round 1. The Rambling Man, who was eliminated during the first round in our last competition, earned an impressive 513 points, reviewed twice as many articles (26) as any other competitor. It was a tight race for second for first-time competitors BenLinus1214 and Tomandjerry211, who finished second and third with 243 and 224 points, respectively. Close behind was Wugapodes, who earned 205 points.

The change in our points system had an impact on scoring. It was easier to earn higher points, although the key to success didn't change from last time, which was choosing articles with older nomination dates. For example, most of the articles The Rambling Man reviewed were worth 18 points in the nomination date category, and he benefited from it. BenLinus1214 reviewed the longest article, A Simple Plan (at 26,536 characters, or 4,477 words), the 1994 film starring Bill Paxton, Billy Bob Thornton, and Bridget Fonda and directed by Sam Raimi, and earned all possible 5 points in that category.

After feedback from our participants, the judges slightly changed the rule about review length this time out. Shorter reviews are now allowed, as long as reviewers give nominators an opportunity to address their feedback. Shorter reviews are subject to the judges' discretion; the judges will continue their diligence as we continue the competition.

Despite having fewer contestants at the beginning of Round 1 than last time, 132 articles were reviewed, far more than the 117 articles that were reviewed in Round 1 of the inaugural GA Cup. All of us involved should be very proud of what we've accomplished thus far. The judges are certain that Round 2 will be just as successful.

16 contestants have moved onto Round 2 and have been randomly placed in 4 groups of 4, with the top 2 in each pool progressing to Round 3, as well as the top participant ("9th place") of all remaining competitors. Round 2 has already begun and will end on August 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 2 and the pools can be found here.

Good luck and remember to have fun!

Cheers from Dom497, Figureskatingfan, 3family6 and Jaguar, and MrWooHoo.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 05 August 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 12 August 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 19 August 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 26 August 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 02 September 2015[edit]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - Round 3[edit]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - Round 3

Greetings, all! We hope that everyone had a nice summer.

Saturday saw the end of Round 2. Things went relatively smoothly this month. The top 2 from 4 pools, plus the top participant (the wildcard, or "9th place") of all remaining competitors, moved onto Round 3. We had one withdrawal early in Round 2, so he was replaced by the next-highest scorer from Round 1. Round 2's highest scorer was Pool D's Tomandjerry211, who earned an impressive 366 points; he also reviewed the most articles (19). Close behind was Zwerg Nase, also in Pool D, at 297 points and 16 articles. The wildcard slot went to Good888. Congrats to all!

Round 3 will have 9 competitors in 3 pools. The key to moving forward was reviewing articles with the longest nomination dates, as it has been in every round up to now. For example, 2 competitors only needed to review 2 articles each to win in their pools, and each article were either from the pink nomination box (20 points) or had languished in the queue for over 5 months (18 points). The GA Cup continues to be a success in many ways, even with fewer competitors this time. For some reason, the competitors in the 2015 GA Cup have reviewed fewer articles in Round 2, which has made the judges scratch their head in confusion. We've speculated many reasons for that: the summer months and vacations, our competitors are saving their strength for the final rounds, or they all live in the Pacific Northwest and the heavy wildfire smoke has affected their thinking. Whatever the reason, Round 2 competitors reviewed almost 100 articles, which is a significant impact in the task of reviewing articles for GA status. We've considered that the lower participation this competition is due to timing, so we intend to discuss the best time frame for future GA Cups.

For Round 3, participants have been placed randomly in 3 pools of 3 contestants each; the top editor in each pool will progress, as well as the top 2 of all remaining users. Round 3 will start on September 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on September 28 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 3 and the pools can be found here.

Good luck to the remaining contestants, and have fun!

Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6 and Jaguar, and MrWooHoo.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

Delivered on behalf of WikiProject Good articles by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 09 September 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 16 September 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 23 September 2015[edit]

2nd Annual GA Cup - Round 4[edit]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - Round 4

GA Cup competitors and observers: Happy Fall! Get ready, we're about to move into the finals of the second-ever GA Cup!

Monday saw the end of Round 3. Out of the 8 contestants in the semi-finals, 5 have moved to the finals. The semi-finals were competitive. Our semi-finalists reviewed a total of 61 articles, or a grand total of 1,151 points. If you were to lump the top winners from each of the three pools together, it'd be a close horse race; they were within 35 points of each other, which can only mean that the finals will be an exciting race. Tomandjerry211, our top scorer in Round 2, again earned the most points in the semi-finals, with 288 points and 16 articles reviewed. Johanna came in second overall, with 251 points and 13 articles reviewed; Sturmvogel 66 came in third overall, with 221 points and 16 articles. Rounding out our wildcard slots are Zwerg Nase and The Rambling Man. These contestants were very strategic in how they reviewed articles. Like every other round in the history of the GA Cup, success depended upon reviewing oldest-nominated articles. For example, Johanna reviewed 5 articles that were worth the highest possible points. Congrats to all our finalists, and good luck!

Stay tuned to this space for more information about the 2nd GA Cup, including overall statistics and how this competition has affected Wikipedia. We regret to inform you that Dom497, one of our original judges and co-creator of the GA Cup, has stepped down as a judge. Dom, a longtime member of WP:WikiProject Good articles, is responsible for the look of the GA Cup and has been instrumental in its upkeep. We wish him the best as he starts his university education, and are certain that he'll make an impact there as he has in Wikipedia.

The finals started on October 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and will end on Ocober 29 at 23:59:59 UTC with a winner being crowned. Information about the Final can be found here.

Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6 and Jaguar, and MrWooHoo.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

The Signpost: 30 September 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 07 October 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 14 October 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 21 October 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 28 October 2015[edit]

2015 GA Cup Wrap-Up[edit]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - Finals/Wrap-Up


The second-ever GA Cup is now over! The competition officially ended Thursday. Congrats to everyone who participated, and especially to our finalists.

The winner of the 2nd GA Cup is Zwerg Nase! He earned 408 points, over 100 points more than he earned in all previous rounds. He tied with our second-place winner, Sturmvogel 66 with 367 points, in number of articles reviewed (24), and they earned almost the same points for reviewing articles that were in the queue the longest (Zwerg with 322, Sturmvogel with 326). Basically, they tied in points, but what made the different for Zwerg was the advantage he had in reviewing longer articles. It seems that the rule change of earning more realistic points for longer articles made a difference. All of our contestants should be proud of the work they were able to accomplish through the GA Cup. Congrats to these worthy opponents!

Our third and fourth place winners, Johanna and Tomandjerry211, also ran a close race, with 167 points and 147 points respectfully. We had one withdrawal; we found it interesting that competitors dropped out in Round 2 and 3 as well. One of the original judges and co-creator of this competition, User:Dom497 stepped down as judge during Round 3; as stated previously, we will miss his input and wish him the best.

The judges were pleased with our results, even though fewer users competed this time compared to our inaugural competition. We recognize that this might be due to holding the competition during the summer months. We intend on looking more closely when we should conduct this contest, as well as other aspects of the GA Cup. We've set up a feedback page for everyone's input about how we should conduct the contest and what rule changes should be made. If you have any ideas about how we can improve things, please visit it and give us your input.

Again, thanks to all and congratulations to our winners! Please stay tuned for the start of GA Cup #3.

Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar and MrWooHoo.

The Signpost: 04 November 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 11 November 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 18 November 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 25 November 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 02 December 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 09 December 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 16 December 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 30 December 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 06 January 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 13 January 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 20 January 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 27 January 2016[edit]

2016 GA Cup[edit]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup

Greetings, all!

We would like to announce the start of the 3rd GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Thus far, there have been two GA Cups; both were successful in reaching our goals of significantly reducing the traditionally long queue at GAN, so we're doing it again. Currently, there are over 500 nominations listed and about 450 articles waiting to be reviewed. We hope that we can again make an impact this time.

The 3rd GA Cup will begin on March 1, 2016. Four rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on July 31, 2016), but this may change based on participant numbers. There will be slight changes to the scoring system, based upon feedback we've received in the months since GA Cup #2. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same. We're also looking to spice up the competition a bit by running parallel competitions. Finally, there's a possibility of assisting a WikiProject Good Articles backlog drive in the last three weeks of February, before our competition. Please stay tuned for more information as we get it.

Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on February 20, 2015. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now!

If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the judges.

Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar and MrWooHoo.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 03 February 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 10 February 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 February 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 24 February 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 GA Cup-Round 1[edit]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Round 1

Greetings, all.

The 3rd Annual GA Cup has officially begun, and you can start reviewing your articles/reassessments now! However, sign-ups will not close til March 15th if anybody (who wishes to sign up) has not signed up yet. We currently have 1 group of 33 contestants in Round 1, and we will have 16 Wikipedians left in Round 2. Please be sure to review this information and the FAQ if you haven't already,

If you have any questions, please ask us here where all of the judges (including our newest one, Zwerg Nase!) will be answering any questions you may have. You can also feel free to ask us on our talk pages/send an email to us (information is here).

Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 02 March 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 09 March 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 16 March 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 March 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 GA Cup-Round 2[edit]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Round 1

Greetings, GA Cup competitors!

Wednesday saw the end of Round 1. Sainsf took out Round 1 with an amazing score of 765. In second place, MPJ-DK earned an astounding 742 points, and in third place, FunkMonk received 610 points.

In Round 1, 206 reviews were completed, more than any other year! At the beginning of March, there were 595 outstanding nominations in the GAN queue; by the end of Round 1, there were 490. We continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success, and for your part in helping other editors improve articles. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in Round 2 so we can lower the backlog as much as possible.

To qualify for the second round, you needed to make it into the top 16 of participants. Users were placed in 4 random pools of 4. To qualify for Round 3, the top 2 in each pool will progress, and there will also be one wildcard. This means that the participant who comes in 9th place (all pools combined) will also move on. Round 2 will start on April 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on April 28 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 2 and the pools can be found here

Also, remember that a major rule change will go into effect starting on April 1, which marks the beginning of Round Two. Round 1 had an issue brought up in the rules, which we are correcting with this clarification. We believe that this change will make the competition more inherently fair. The new rule is: All reviews must give the nominator (or anyone else willing to improve the article) time to address the issues at hand, even if the article would qualify for what is usually called a "quick fail" in GA terms. To avoid further confusion, we have updated the scoring page, replacing the term "quick fail" with the term "fail without granting time for improvements". We expect all reviewers to put a review on hold for seven days in cases such as these as well, in order to apply the same standards to every competitor. The judges will strictly enforce this new rule.

Good luck and have fun!

Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 April 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 April 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 April 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 2 May 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 GA Cup-Round 3[edit]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Round 3

Hello, GA Cup competitors!

Thursday saw the end of Round 2. Sainsf once again took out Round 2 with an amazing score of 996 (a higher score then he received in Round 1!). In second place, MPJ-DK earned an astounding 541 points, and in third place, Carbrera received 419 points.

In Round 2, 142 reviews were completed! At the beginning of April, there were 486 outstanding nominations in the GAN queue; by the end of Round 1, there were 384. Another demonstrable way in which this competition has made a difference is in the length of time articles languish in the queue. At the beginning of this GA Cup, the longest wait was over 9 months [3]; at the end of Round 2, the longest wait had decreased significantly, to a little over 5 months.[4] It's clear that we continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success, and for your part in helping other editors improve articles. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in Round 3 so we can keep lowering the backlog as much as possible.

To qualify for the third round, contestants had to earn the two highest scores in each of the four pools in Round 2; plus, one wildcard. We had an unusual occurrence happen in Round 2: because only one contestant submitted reviews in one pool, we selected the contestant with the next highest score to move forward to Round 3. (There will be a rule change for future competitions in case something like this happens again.) For Round 3, users were placed in 3 random pools of 3. To qualify for the Final of the 3rd Annual GA Cup, the top user in each pool will progress, and there will also be one wildcard. This means that the participant who comes in 4th place (all pools combined) will also move on. Round 3 will start on May 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on May 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 3 and the pools can be found here.

Good luck and have fun!

Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Cup-Round 3 Clarification[edit]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Round 3

Hello, GA Cup competitors!

It has been brought to our attention that we made a mistake in the last newsletter. In the last newsletter, we said that the "4th place" overall would make the Final along with the top user from each pool. However, the users who will advance will be the top user from each pool along with "4th and 5th place" overall.

We apologize for any inconvenience or confusion that we caused.

Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 May 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 May 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 GA Cup-Finals[edit]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Round 3

Hello, GA Cup competitors!

Tuesday saw the end of Round 3. Sainsf, for the third time, won with a sizable 487 points and a shocking 29 articles reviewed. In second, MPJ-DK had 168 points and 7 reviewed articles. In second place, MPJ-DK earned 168 points with just 7 articles, and in third place, Carbrera received 137 points with just 9 articles. Our two wildcard slots went to J Milburn with 122 points and Sturmvogel 66 with 101 points.

In Round 3, 65 reviews were completed! At the beginning of the GA Cup, there were 595 outstanding nominations in the GAN queue; by the end of Round 3, there were 394. Another demonstrable way in which this competition has made a difference is in the length of time articles languish in the queue. At the beginning of the GA Cup, the longest wait was over 9 months [5]; at the end of Round 3, the longest wait had decreased significantly, to a little over 5 months [6]—nothing before 2016. It's clear that we continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success, and for your part in helping other editors improve articles. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in the Finals for the GA Cup so that are successes continue.

To qualify for the Finals, contestants had to earn the highest scores in each of the three pools in Round 3; plus, as well as the top 2 of all remaining users in all of the pools. For the Finals, users were placed in one pool of the remaining five users. To win the GA Cup, you must have the most points. The Finals started on June 1 at 0:00:01 UTC' and end on June 30 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about the Finals and the pools can be found here. A clarification: in order for the points to count, you must mark your reviews as completed; it's not up to the judges to ensure that all reviews are completed by the end of a round.

We wish all the contestants the best of luck!

Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 05 June 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 June 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 GA Cup-Wrap Up[edit]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Final/Wrap-Up

Hello to our truly awesome GA Cup competitors!

Thursday, June 30 saw the end of the 2016 GA Cup. It was a huge success. In the final, our five competitors reviewed an astonishing 207 articles, the most in any GA Cup final thus far. We continue to reach our goals and make a substantial impact in how quickly articles are reviewed for GA status. On March 1, the start of this competition, the article longest in the queue had languished there since June 26, 2015 [7]; in the July 1, 2016 list, the average wait length is just four months [8]. It's clear that we continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for their enthusiasm, and for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success. Remember that most articles can't even be considered for FA status unless it's been passed to GA first, so our efforts have created hundreds of potentials FAs. That is, as they say, a big deal.

The final this time represented a real horse race between our 1st and 2nd place winners. First-time competitor (who had won all previous rounds) Sainsf earned an impressive 1456 points with 91 articles reviewed during the final. Close behind, in second place was Carbrera, also a first-time competitor, reviewed the most articles (94). Their enthusiasm was a treat to witness. Congrats to you both!

The competition went relatively smoothly, with very little drama this time. We had to clarify one rule: in order for the points to count, you must mark your reviews as completed; it's not up to the judges to ensure that all reviews are completed by the end of a round. We were strict about adhering to this clarification, especially at the end of the final. We intend on stressing it in the stated rules for our next competition, which will be announced soon, so watch out for it. We also intend on applying for a grant through Wikimedia to include gift certificates for our winners, to further incentivize the GA Cup.

MrWooHoo should receive special recognition for acting as our main judge, and for stepping in for the rest of the judges when real-life busyness took over. He reviewed the majority of the submissions during our final round. Thanks for your hard work, and for the hard work of all our judges. We look forward to the next competition.

Again, thanks to all our competitors, and congrats to our winners.

Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 July 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 July 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 August 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 August 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 06 September 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Cup Announcement[edit]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup

Greetings, all!

We would like to announce the start of the 4th GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Thus far, there have been three GA Cups, which were successful in reaching our goals of significantly reducing the traditionally long queue at GAN, so we're doing it again. Currently, there are over 400 nominations listed. We hope that we can again make an impact this time.

The 4th GA Cup will begin on November 1, 2016. Four rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on February 28, 2017), but this may change based on participant numbers. We may take a break in December for the holidays, depending on the results of a poll of our participants taken shortly after the competition begins. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same, as will the scoring.

Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on October 31, 2016. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now!

If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the judges.

Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 September 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 October 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup[edit]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup

Greetings, all!

We would like to announce the start of the 4th GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Thus far, there have been three GA Cups, which were successful in reaching our goals of significantly reducing the traditionally long queue at GAN, so we're doing it again. Currently, there are over 400 nominations listed. We hope that we can again make an impact this time.

The 4th GA Cup will begin on November 1, 2016. Four rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on February 28, 2017), but this may change based on participant numbers. We may take a break in December for the holidays, depending on the results of a poll of our participants taken shortly after the competition begins. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same, as will the scoring.

Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on November 14, 2016. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now!

If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the judges.

Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. We apologize for the delay in sending out this message until after the competition has started. Thank you to Krishna Chaitanya Velaga for aiding in getting this message out.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

4th Annual GA Cup - Round 1[edit]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup

Greetings, GA Cup competitors!

November 28, 2016 was supposed to mark the end of the first round. However, we needed 16 competitors to move on, and currently only 10 have completed articles. Thus, the judges have come together to let the participants decide what we shall do. Please complete this quick survey to let us know whether you would like a holiday break.

There will be two options for what we will do next in terms of Round 2 depending on the results of this poll.

  • If the survey indicates that the competitors want a break, we will have a 2nd round after the break ends with just the 10 competitors who have reviewed articles, starting in January (with a specific date TBA).
  • If the survey does not indicate that participants want a break, we will extend Round 1 until the end of December.

We apologize for sending out this newsletter late. Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase!

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

4th GA Cup - Round 2[edit]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup

Greetings, GA Cup competitors!

December 29th marked the end of the first round, after it was extended from its previously scheduled conclusion at the end of November. Because of the smaller pool of contestants this year, it was decided to keep sign-ups open throughout the month of December.

This extension proved to be very helpful as we saw that more users signed up and completed many reviews. Krishna Chaitanya Velaga earned an impressive 402 points, followed by Cartoon network freak with a close 338 points. Shearonink who signed up after our extension was in third with 170 points.

We had a rule clarification in Round 1 which was that many articles were being passed with blatant copyright violations and plagarism occurring in the articles. Thus, the judges have concluded that if an article is passed even if it has a copyright violation/plagarism, we will not provide points for that article as it wouldn't be considered a "complete review" under the scoring rules.

In the end, 94 articles were reviewed by 14 users who will all advance to Round 2. The judges had planned on having 16 contestants advance but since only 14 did, we are changing the pools in this round. We will be having 2 pools of 3 and 2 pools of 4 in Round 2, with the top 2 in each pool advancing to Round 3 as well as the top participant ("9th place") of all remaining competitors. Round 2 will begin on January 1 at 00:00:00 UTC and will end on January 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 2 and the pools can be found here.

Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase!

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

4th GA Cup - Round 3[edit]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Round 3

Hello, GA Cup competitors!

Sunday saw the end of Round 2. Shearonink took out Round 2 with an amazing score of 499. In second place, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga earned an astounding 236 points, and in third place, Cartoon network freak received 136 points. Originally, we had plans for one wild card for 9th place, however it appears that both Chris troutman and J Milburn were tied for 9th place. Therefore, we have decided to have both advance to Round 3.

In Round 2, 91 reviews were completed! At the beginning of this GA Cup, the longest wait was over 7 months; at the end of Round 2, the longest wait had decreased to a little over 6 months. It's clear that we continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success, and for your part in helping other editors improve articles. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in Round 3 so we can keep decreasing the backlog.

To qualify for the third round, contestants had to earn the two highest scores in each of the four pools in Round 2; plus, one wildcard. For Round 3, users were placed in 3 random pools of 3. To qualify for the Final of the 3rd Annual GA Cup, the top user in each pool will progress, and there will also be one wildcard. This means that the participant who comes in 4th place (all pools combined) will also move on. Round 3 has already started and will end on February 26 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 3 and the pools can be found here.

Also, we'd like to announce the departure of judge Zwerg Nase. We thank him for all his hardwork and hope to see him back in the future.

Good luck and have fun!

Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, and MrWooHoo.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

4th GA Cup - The Final[edit]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Final

Hello, GA Cup competitors!

Sunday, February 26 saw the end of Round 3. Shearonink finished in first with 616 points, which is more than the point totals for all the other competitors combined! In second place, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga earned an impressive 152 points, followed by Sturmvogel_66 in third with 111 points. Chris troutman and Kees08 each received a wild-card and were able to advance to the Final Round. There was a major error on the part of the judges, and initially, 8 users were advanced instead of 5. This has been corrected, and we sincerely apologize for this confusion.

In Round 3, 71 reviews were completed! At the beginning of this GA Cup, the longest wait was over 7 months; at the end of Round 3, the longest wait is still holding steady at a little over 6 months, the same as for the previous round. By the end of all three Rounds, the total number of nominations increased slightly - this suggests that users are more willing to nominate, knowing that their articles will be reviewed. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in the Final so we can keep tackling the backlog.

In the Final Round, the user with the highest score will be the winner. The Final has already started and will end on March 31st at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Finals and the pools can be found here.

Good luck and have fun!

Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, and MrWooHoo.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

4th GA Cup - Wrap Up[edit]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Wrap Up

Hello, GA Cup competitors!

Saturday, April 1 concluded the 2016-2017 GA Cup. 64 reviews were completed by our finalists. Although the backlog increased by 42 over the reviewing period instead of declining, the increase suggests that the contest is encouraging editors to nominate articles for review.

Congratulations to Shearonink, who is the winner of the Cup, finishing with 672 points! Once again, just as in last round, this is more than the point totals for all the other competitors combined! It was a close race for second place between Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, who achieved 164 points, and Sturmvogel_66, who earned 150. Though Sturmvogel_66 reviewed one more article than Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga managed to earn 14 points more due to reviewing older articles. Our two wildcard competitors, Kees08 and Chris troutman, came in fourth and fifth, respectively.

There were some bumps in the competition this time: The sign-up deadline and the first round were both extended due to fewer competitors signing up then was planned for. And there were delays in tallying points and getting out the newsletter. The judges apologize for this latter difficulty. Lastly, mid-way through the competition we bid farewell to Zwerg Nase, who stepped down from their position as judge due to other commitments. Information about the Final can be found here.

Thank you to all of our competitors, and congrats to our winners!

Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, and MrWooHoo.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ThatKongregateGuy&oldid=1088229955"