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

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

Between them during round 4, contestants achieved 12 featured articles, 3 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 126 good articles, 46 DYK entries, 14 ITN entries, 67 featured article candidate reviews and 147 good article reviews. Congratulations to our eight finalists and all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them and within 24 hours of the end of the final. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.

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

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, people's rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension. Happy Holidays to you and yours. Always a pleasure to see your work. ―Buster7 ☎

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

Guideline and policy news

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

Arbitration

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

Miscellaneous

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

---

Go to my talk page and see what user Stefen 𝕋ower wrote there. Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 22:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Domen von Wielkopolska, one editor is not a consensus. Contested content does not remain pending discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And also one editor is contesting my content. Where are we going to discuss this contested content? Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 22:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Muboshgu, you are an administrator so I am proceeding with extreme caution due to concern on being banned if I say something you don't like.

Not stating you will do as above but my experience seeing other Administrators and reading about recent biases WP has in mainstream media worries me.

You and I have disagreed on another TP over a possible addition to an article. It seems you do not like the sources I brought even though they are not blocked nor deprecated.

In another TP which I dont see you have edited any time in the recent past (apologies if you did and I missed it; if so, please state so) you replied to me negatively on another sourced addition I asked.

Given your years of experience I dont believe this to be an example of following every post I make and try to counter my arguments. I will thus proceed with a RfC on that TP.

I would like to ask, very respectfully, for you to please not reply to me, edit my comments or post on my TP. I apologize for asking this, but if we can have an uninvolved administrator do so, if there is a need, that would be great.

Thank you for reading.

Very respectfully,

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:8BAB:B116:675B:AB5F (talk) 01:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot and will not agree to not reply to your talk page posts. I don't edit other people's posts unless they meet WP:REVDEL criteria. I will not block or sanction you as I don't act as an administrator on pages where I am WP:INVOLVED as an editor. You can get feedback from uninvolved administrators by visiting various noticeboards. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:14, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying. Just to understand properly, when I ask you to please not interact with me as an editor, you are confirming that Wikipedia:USERTALKSTOP doesn't apply?

If it's ok to ask, is this because of your Administrator status or because its a personal decision to ignore my request?

The above are all valid questions and asked without ill will. I am just trying to learn. WP is an extremely complex and arcane place.

Thanks.

Respectfully,

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:8BAB:B116:675B:AB5F (talk) 01:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to article talk pages, not your user talk page. I will adhere to WP:USERTALKSTOP, as it says, within reason. Despite the unusual nature of the request, which I don't see as warranted. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
15		Kohn anomaly (talk)	Add sources
970		Upstate New York (talk)	Add sources
312		Timeline of the history of the United States (2010–present) (talk)	Add sources
2,166		New York metropolitan area (talk)	Add sources
4,177		Baldur's Gate 3 (talk)	Add sources
747		Kyle Kulinski (talk)	Add sources
40		Mike Minor (baseball) (talk)	Cleanup
16		Horacio Ramírez (talk)	Cleanup
1,396		Rust shooting incident (talk)	Cleanup
740		Communist International (talk)	Expand
38		Government Accountability Institute (talk)	Expand
180		Humboldt Park, Chicago (talk)	Expand
1,538		Central Europe (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
2,700		Tomato (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
6,180		1964 United States presidential election (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
43		2020 American Samoa presidential caucuses (talk)	Merge
953		Trump Media & Technology Group (talk)	Merge
8		River Falls, Alabama (talk)	Merge
201		Trae tha Truth (talk)	Wikify
17		Steve Delabar (talk)	Wikify
31		Trevor Cahill (talk)	Wikify
5		Baegot (talk)	Orphan
3		Beth Hagendorf (talk)	Orphan
4		Conflict-free coloring (talk)	Orphan
27		Dylan Lesko (talk)	Stub
124		National Security Advisor to the Vice President (talk)	Stub
6		Ashes and Blood (talk)	Stub
143		Riley Bonner (talk)	Stub
26		Fearna Storage project (talk)	Stub
9		Line 1 (Pingshan SkyShuttle) (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget Russian interference in the 2024 United States elections! XOR'easter (talk) 02:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Mike Veeck at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Innisfree987 (talk) 12:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've some across some...well, interesting editing. An editor is blanking article talk pages without establishing an archive page. This seems to be mostly' blanking bot notices, "External links modified" etc. I've asked "why" on their user talk but would appreciate some guidance here. I mean, is this actually good practice? Am I missing something? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shearonink, I have seen people remove bot notices like this before, and it hasn't been considered to be problematic. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for saying so. I had come across it on user talk pages but never on article talk pages. *sigh*...learn something new every day around here. - Shearonink (talk) 21:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Muboshgu I appreciate your contribution to WP: community and helping other users for updating the better quality article. regarding the edit change below; I relocated the contents to the relevant section. Please reply me on this subject with ping to my user-name, if you have feedback or suggestion for it. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove from Elon Musk's article his conservative political activism? Currently, it is undeniable that this is a very notable and important part of Elon Musk. In addition to The Washington Post and CNN sources, just look at his X or Twitter account, almost every post he makes is explicit conservative political activism. He cheers, pushes and promotes conservative politicians, attacks those who are not, spreads conspiracy theories and far-right accounts. This is no small matter. This is a man who openly says he uses his position of power to promote conservative and radical right-wing politics. Esterau16 (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read MOS:ROLEBIO. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:41, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. So I have a favor to ask. Can you start the process of merging "Legacy of Roberto Clemente" to "Roberto Clemente". I think the it is an unnecessary fork and very vague criteria. Merging it won't cause article size issues or WP:UNDUE problems - I believe in Quality v Quantity - and most of it is already there anyways.

I would do so myself but the problem is that I was new to AFDs when I first attempted to merge it -- the Afd lacked input from WP:Baseball even though I did try to get people there to comment on the talk page and everyone who commented agreed with me that it should be merged (you included). I don't want to start again on what would be my third try.

So can you do so and bring in people from WP:Baseball? Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No offense @Omnis Scientia: but why are you obsessed with getting rid of this? The AFD seemed pretty clear for keep. I know you asked me on my talk page at the time to check it out but I never got to it and I probably would have voted keep anyways. Why not just move on at this point?-- Yankees10 16:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I won't say "obsessed" but I do feel that articles about sports legacies are unhelpful -- do we really need pages about the "Legacy of *insert name here*" for athletes with vague criteria because that person was famous for simply playing a sport? Isn't that what their biographical article is for? Its not a good precedent, IMO.

As I noted about this particular article, there's nothing in it which isn't already discussed in the main one (which gets far more views as it is). As for the Afd; one of the (three) keep votes later told me that he agreed with me but he just voted "keep" because he "doesn't believe in deletion" under any circumstance. A second used WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST to justify keeping it. Compare that to several members of the Baseball Project agreeing with me -- but days after that Afd closed. I just feel that deletion is supported by strong reasons but that they weren't adequately addressed in the first one. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also it was a speedy and one Afd; I wouldn't say "obsessed" based on that. I actually forgot about it for a few months until it resurfaced (for me) while I was checking something else sort of related about the merger of two articles. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I think will do this myself since there isn't anything in Afd rules against a second one. HOWEVER, I won't do it right now. Yankees10 make a fair point. Its not important or even pressing so I will let it be. I have more projects to work on ATM. It just came to my mind because of something else, as I noted. Thank you either way.

Best regards, Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]