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 ☎

You may want to double-check your protection times. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 01:53, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weird... I put it in for a week, and it said that at the bottom, but then the protection itself said infinite? – Muboshgu (talk) 02:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You set the existing indef move protection for a week and the edit protection for indef. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 02:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhhh. Oops. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 02:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out my mistake. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it should be cited in the body, but I don't think it is in this case. Yes, some of the information is repeated in the "Analysis" section, but it doesn't have any source listed there either. Additionally, that section actually mentions precisely what I wanted to add to the lead: "As of 2020, this election is the last time that Indiana or North Carolina voted Democratic, and is also the most recent election where one of the nominees has since died." So if the former (i.e. the info on Indiana and North Carolina never voting Democratic after 2008) can stay in the lead, why can't the latter?

Also, I can understand that one could consider my addition trivial, but to be consistent, one would have to remove the other similar passages ("Since the death of George McGovern in 2012, this is the earliest election where at least one of the major party nominees for president (Carter) or vice president is still alive (Ford died in 2006 and both Mondale and Dole died in 2021)." from 1976 United States presidential election, "Since Mondale's death in April 2021, this is the latest election where all of the major party nominees for president or vice president are deceased." from 1984 United States presidential election, and "Since the death of 2000 Democratic vice-presidential nominee Joe Lieberman in 2024, this is the earliest presidential election in which all major-party candidates for president and vice president are still alive." from 2004 United States presidential election) as well.

"Don't revert, discuss" - a very good idea on paper, but it has happened to me before that the user reverting my edit never replied to the talk page message I left them. TVShowFan122 (talk) 04:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you message them on their talk page or the article page? Because this should be on the article talk page to get more page watchers involved. There is a lot of uncited content in the "Analysis" section. I haven't looked through that article in some time. The answer isn't to add more uncited content, but to clean it up. A lot of it looks like trivia that should be deleted. And McCain's death is quite immaterial to the 2008 election. As was Mondale's death to the 1976 election, Mondale's death to the 1984 election, and Lieberman's death to the 2004 election. People add cruft that doesn't get reverted all the time. I will go remove those three entries now, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't talking about BusterD in particular here, I don't think I've ever interacted with them. What I meant was that I've experienced being reverted, messaging the person who reverted me, and never getting a response at least 2 times before - although it was on the Polish Wiki, where I'm more active than here nowadays. Thank you for being consistent and removing the other death-related trivia as well. TVShowFan122 (talk) 02:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you merge Draft:Shavon Revel with Shavon Revel? Yankees10 23:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and Steve Mott (American football) back to Steve Mott? I don't know what this was all about.-- Yankees10 00:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Mott done. Change your mind on Revel? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, doesn't look notable to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not misrepresent sources as you did here and in the related talk page discussion before your edit. I think some reasonable administrator should warn you. Politrukki (talk) 19:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps you should learn to WP:AGF about honest mistakes. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We all make mistakes. What I fail to understand how this was an example of "honest mistake". Twice. Would you like to enlighten me? Politrukki (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't take your meaning about "twice". I made a mistake in forgetting to attribute it to the Democratic minority of the committee rather than the full committee, and corrected it when you pointed it out. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Twice" as in first on the talk page and then in the mainspace. The former is much more serious mistake. "Honest mistake" is an understatement. To use a similar incident with someone else as an example, an editor cited a source without reading it or fundamentally misread it, for a claim that no reliable source ever made, as far as I know. Characterising that edit as "honest mistake" would be an understatement. Still, I would not say the user was being "dishonest", because I do not believe it. Subpar behaviour, but there was no intention to disrupt Wikipedia.

Thank you for amending the article, even though someone reverted your contributions. Do you believe that your two contributions accurately summarised the source in the article? Politrukki (talk) 15:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Someone asked about Trump conflicts of interest with staying at his properties, I said "overcharging the Secret Service", found several sources, and added one with imprecise language. That is what we would call ONEEVENT on Wikipedia.

I do not think you are assuming good faith. This is a small error, not a "fundamental misread". Yeah, "someone" reverted it. You. Why did you remove it? Where's the SYNTH? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"ONEEVENT"? If you mean WP:ONEEVENT, I have no idea who you are talking about. Back to my question ("Do you believe..."), since you did not answer, let me ask you this is in another way. What does "during these stays" refer to? Politrukki (talk) 17:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My "ONEEVENT" is finding the source and adding it to the article. "During these stays"? It refers to Trump's stays at Trump properties where the Secret Service had to be there with him and they were overcharged for the rooms. Golf cart rentals, too. What else would it refer to? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the Bump column. That's another matter. I didn't see there was an intervening edit. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the post certification section because there were no new attempts to overturn the elections. Plus, it said "ongoing". It was unnecessary. And even in the source it mentioned it was a news article about Trump acknowledging and admitting the results. That's why I removed it. Lightnightx3x (talk) 16:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lightnightx3x, understandable, but next time you make an edit use the WP:EDITSUMMARY to explain it. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

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

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 17:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mr. Baseball, maybe you can make something out of this. There's material in the history, some of which I brought back in. It seems the man deserves the best article we can write. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the nickname, but I'm no Tom Selleck. I can look into it, but unfortunately press coverage of the Negro leagues is not the best. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]