I'm planning to go for another FAC in the coming days. Please check if your comments have been resolved (I didn't mention that at Talk:Lead but I added a sentence on seafood in the subsection on sources of intoxication). I'm trying to ensure the second FAC will have some basic support and I'd appreciate that from you; feel free to see if there's anything more this would take.--R8R (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The second round of the competition has now closed, with just under 100 points being required to qualify for round 3. YellowEvan just scraped into the next round with 98 points but we have to say goodbye to the thirty or so competitors who didn't achieve this threshold; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Our top scorers in round 2 were:

• Cas Liber, led the field with five featured articles, four on birds and one on astronomy, and a total score of 2049, half of which came from bonus points.
• 1989 was in second place with 826 points, 466 of which were bonus points. 1989 has claimed points mostly relating to anime and Japanese-related articles.
• Peacemaker67 took third place with two FAs, one GA and seven GARs, mostly on naval vessels or military personnel, scoring 543 points.
• Other contestants who scored over 400 points were Freikorp, Carbrera, and Czar. Of course all these points are now wiped out and the 32 remaining contestants start again from zero in round 3.

Vivvt submitted the largest number of DYKs (30), and MBlaze Lightning achieved 13 articles at ITN. Carbrera claimed for 11 GAs and Argento Surfer performed the most GARs, having reviewed 11. So far we have achieved 38 featured articles and a splendid 132 good articles. Commendably, 279 GARs have been achieved so far, more than double the number of GAs.

So, on to the third round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The third round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 288 points being required to qualify for round 4. It was a hotly competitive round with all but four of the contestants exceeding the 106 points that was necessary to proceed to round 4 last year. Coemgenus and Freikorp tied on 288, and both have been allowed to proceed, so round 4 now has one pool of eight competitors and one of nine.

Round 3 saw the achievement of a 26-topic Featured topic by MPJ-DK as well as 5 featured lists and 13 featured articles. PanagiotisZois and SounderBruce achieved their first ever featured articles. Carbrera led the GA score with 10, Tachs achieved 17 DYKs and MBlaze Lightning 10 In the news items. There were 167 DYKs, 93 GARs and 82 GAs overall, this last figure being higher than the number of GAs in round 2, when twice as many people were taking part. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.

As we start round 4, we say goodbye to the fifteen or so competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 05:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nergaal,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Pillars of creation 2014 HST WFC3-UVIS full-res denoised.jpg is scheduled to be Picture of the Day on July 23, 2017. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2017-07-23. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for what you did for Oxygen! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Five years, and missed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for Germanium, on a relevant date! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the oxygen article has been scheduled as today's featured article for September 5, 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 5, 2017, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Round 4 of the WikiCup has ended and we move forward into the final round. In round 4, a total of 12 FAs, 3 FLs, 44 GAs, 3 FLs, 79 DYKs, 1 ITN and 42 GARs was achieved, with no FPs or FTs this time. Congratulations to Peacemaker67 on the Royal Yugoslav Navy Good Topic of 36 items, and the 12 featured articles achieved by Cas Liber (5), Vanamonde93 (3), Peacemaker67 (2), Adityavagarwal (1) and 12george1 (1). With a FA scoring 200 points, and bonus points available on top of this, FAs are likely to feature heavily in the final round. Meanwhile Yellow Evan, a typhoon specialist, was contributing 12 DYKs and 10 GAs, while Adityavagarwal and Freikorp topped the GAR list with 8 reviews each. As we enter the final round, we are down to eight contestants, and we would like to thank those of you who have been eliminated for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. The lowest score needed to reach round 5 was 305, and I think we can expect a highly competitive final round.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck, and let the best man (or woman) win! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 06:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Exploration of Jupiter has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • 21:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you so much for your comments on Silicon! I admit that I was rushing it towards the end because I knew I'd be short of time shortly after I finished writing a first draft. I will surely rectify the problems you have pointed out. Double sharp (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've seen you're back and decided to leave a note. Double sharp and I are submitting thorium to FAC soon. It will be great if you give it a look before we do.

Last time, an FAC reviewer saw the number of your comments and delisted the nomination. Personally, I don't think it's your fault at all and have no bad feelings about you. I'm sure you'll want to take part in the FAC review this time as well and I actually am looking forward for your comments. Still, I want the article to pass, which means we have to make sure such an intrusion won't happen again. So I'd like to ask you to take a look at it now and write any suggestions you're not too confident about ("maybe add this" or "maybe that's too much") so you only have definite comments when the FAC begins. I'll consider each comment you write and reply soon.

It's very embarrassing to ask for this. I hope you do see I don't like this and am only doing this because of the FAC conditions. I also hope there won't be any bad feelings on your side.--R8R (talk) 12:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The final round of the 2017 WikiCup is over. Congratulations to the 2017 WikiCup top three finalists:

• First Place - Adityavagarwal (submissions)
• Second Place - Vanamonde (submissions)
• Third Place - Cas Liber (submissions)

In addition to recognizing the achievements of the top finishers and everyone who worked hard to make it to the final round, we also want to recognize those participants who were most productive in each of the WikiCup scoring categories:

• Featured Article – Cas Liber (actually a two-way tie with themselves for an astonishing five FAs in R2 and R4).
• Good Article – Adityavagarwal had 14 GAs promoted in R5.
• Featured List – Bloom6132 (submissions) and 1989 (submissions) both produced 2 FLs in R2
• Featured Pictures – SounderBruce (submissions) improved an image to FP status in R5, the only FP this year.
• Featured Topic – MPJ-DK (submissions) has the only FT of the Cup in R3.
• Good Topic – Four different editors created a GT in R2, R3 and R4.
• Did You Know – Adityavagarwal had 22 DYKs on the main page in R5.
• In The News – MBlaze Lightning (submissions) had 14 ITN on the main page in R2.
• Good Article Review – Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (submissions) completed 31 GARs in R1.

Over the course of the 2017 WikiCup the following content was added or improved on Wikipedia: 51 Featured Articles, 292 Good Articles, 18 Featured Lists, 1 Featured Picture, 1 Featured Topics, 4 Good Topics, around 400 Did You Knows, 75 In The News, and 442 Good Article Reviews. Thank you to all the competitors for your hard work and what you have done to improve Wikipedia.

Regarding the prize vouchers - @Adityavagarwal, Vanamonde93, Casliber, Bloom6132, 1989, and SounderBruce: please send Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) an email from the email address to which you would like your Amazon voucher sent. Please include your preference of global Amazon marketplace as well. We hope to have the electronic gift cards processed and sent within a week.

We will open up a discussion for comments on process and scoring in a few days. The 2018 WikiCup is just around the corner! Many thanks from all the judges. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So the 2017 WikiCup has come to an end. Congratulations to the winner, to the other finalists and to all those who took part. 177 contestants signed up, more than usual, but not all of them submitted entries in the first round. Were editors attracted by the cash prizes offered for the first time this year, or were these irrelevant? Do the rules and scoring need changing for the 2018 WikiCup? If you have a view on these or other matters, why not join in the WikiCup discussion about next year's contest? Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nergall, you wrote some years ago Isotopes of seaborgium. You wrote this paragraph "A recent re-evaluation of the decay characteristics of 265Sg and 266Sg has suggested that all decays to date in this reaction were in fact from265Sg, which exists in two isomeric forms. The first, 265aSg has a principal alpha-line at 8.85 MeV and a calculated half-life of 8.9 s, whilst265bSg has a decay energy of 8.70 MeV and a half-life of 16.2 s. Both isomeric levels are populated when produced directly. Data from the decay of269Hs indicates that 265bSg is produced during the decay of 269Hs and that 265bSg decays into the shorter-lived261gRf isotope. This means that the observation of 266Sg as a long-lived alpha emitter is retracted and that it does indeed undergo fission in a short time.". Do you remember from which source did you get this information? Actually I am interested by inderstanding what are 265aSg and 265bSg. Pamputt (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I have this information and some of the original papers on Sg and its parents and will respond when I'm back (I'm currently on my phone). In the meantime, Sg and Sg mean the ground state and an isomeric state of the Sg nucleus. Double sharp (talk) 05:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pamputt: The original paper with this reinterpretation has doi 10.1103/PhysRevC.77.064320: the authors are Ch. E. Düllmann and A. Türler, and the title is "Cm(Ne,xn)Sg reaction and the decay properties of Sg reexamined". It was published in Physical Review C 77 in 2008. This information also played a part in the JWP report on element 112 from 2009: "Recently, a re-analysis [7] of reactions of Cm + Ne that produced 60 Sg → Rf α-α chains was reported that supports isomerism in both Sg and Rf. In the latter case, a 3-s lifetime state associated with an 8.51 MeV α-particle is substantiated, supporting the Hofmann et al. interpretation." Double sharp (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. With 53 contestants qualifying, the groups for round 2 are slightly smaller than usual, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining users.

Our top scorers in round 1 were:

• Aoba47 led the field with a featured article, 8 good articles and 42 GARs, giving a total of 666 points.
• FrB.TG , a WikiCup newcomer, came next with 600 points, gained from a featured article and masses of bonus points.
• Ssven2, another WikiCup newcomer, was in third place with 403 points, garnered from a featured article, a featured list, a good article and twelve GARs.
• Ceranthor, Numerounovedant, Carbrera, Farang Rak Tham and Cartoon network freak all had over 200 points, but like all the other contestants, now have to start again from scratch. A good achievement was the 193 GARs performed by WikiCup contestants, comparing very favourably with the 54 GAs they achieved.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) and Vanamonde (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CRS-1 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Comparison satellite navigation orbits.svg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust 21:48, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am going through old Good Articles with clean up tags and have come across Group 4 element. It has been tagged for expansion under the history section. I was hoping you would take a look as it is not a topic area I have much strength in. The original GA nominator has well and truly left so it will be up to someone else. It is also the key part of a Good Topic, which is how I came upon your name, and that status will drop if this one is no longer a Good Article. Cheers AIRcorn (talk) 02:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I've noticed your recent edits to Race (human categorization). I have tried at some length to describe the overall conclusions of human clustering studies, including those of Rosenberg and his collaborators. You may find the article Human genetic clustering informative. In particular, you should note that Rosenberg and co-authors comment that evidence of clusterdness is not evidence for any concepts of "biological race."--Carwil (talk) 15:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, those articles are completely unscientific. Debating links between groupings of phenotypes, "race", and genetics is the same type of debate as to what constitutes a continent. You can choose to push whatever agenda you want, but lack of absolute boundaries does not imply that the concept has no uses. Saying a continent is a social construct while ignoring abyssal rifts and deep sea trenches is a waste of debate. Just look at Race and health and see how regressive the "social construct" mentality is. If you choose to put your head in the sand, go ahead, but don't imply that the articles here represent a meaningful scientific/academic consensus. Nergaal (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Nergaal. I appreciate all the work you are contributing on articles related to SpaceX. However I wish you started making a habit of adding edit summaries to document your work. Looking for example at the revision history of SpaceX Dragon, I wish I could see at a glance what you have edited without inspecting each diff. Thank you for considering this suggestion. — JFG 20:22, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Falcon 9 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Vulcan

List of communication satellite companies (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to SES

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. N2e (talk) 20:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Frankfurt School. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Please don't violate consensus.

Your recent editing history at Frankfurt School shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Dave Dial (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or change other editors' legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Frankfurt School. Dave Dial (talk) 17:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Dave Dial (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Dave Dial (talk) 20:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You deserve a special kind of award. You go ahead and make sure you destroy any change of consensus building. You are a welcome addition to wikipedia. /s Nergaal (talk) 20:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Admin EdJohnston points out what you're doing wrong in this post. That, combined with your continued failure to assume good faith, leave me extremely inclined to block you. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For having a talk page etiquette that is (or was) common at PR and FXC? You might see a different impression of who is editing in bad faith if you go through edit histories. Nergaal (talk) 22:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How things are done elsewhere has no bearing whatsoever with how almost all talk pages on this website work.

Someone editing an article doesn't justify editing their talk page comments.

Seriously, you need to drop the combative attitude. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:34, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As the person being reverted in Nergaal's diff, I'd just like to say that I in no way feel Dave Dial was edit warring against me, and from what I've seen Dave has always been a courteous and polite editor of good standing. --Jobrot (talk) 23:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nergaal, if you don't respond and promise to stop the talk page behavior described in the AN3, I will proceed with the block. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: wait, how does this work? First, you casually accuse me of "he is at six reverts on the article talk page" despite my edit history there showing four. Then, you fail to even mention/notice that the whole 3RR was started not by me (AFAIK this original revert is not allowed by guidelines - am I wrong on this one?), but by an editor who is at five reverts now. Shouldn't the initiator of the revert-war be the one admonished first? Then you quote "Generally, you should not break up another editor's text by interleaving your own replies to individual points; this confuses who said what and obscures the original editor's intent" (it's a guideline, not an bannable offense AFAICT). But you ignore the fact that even now my replies that I left there are STILL currently missing - as a result of the 5 reverts done by the user you casually failed to admonish. Are you trying to imply that my replying precisely to each bullet point is bannable, but his complete removal of my replies (one could say completely "obscuring the original editor's intent") to those bullet points is A-OK in your admin book? I thought one of the primary focuses of an admin would be to aid conflict resolution in a balanced manner, not to gaslight. Whose job is it to notice that the revert war was started by the guy who reported me? I would have thought that by now, you would have at least mentioned something to the person who started the revert war and the report thread. It is clear to anybody by now that this is a contentious article, and could be nice of you if you "spread the making of threats" in a more balanced manner. Take some seconds to notice that I've already tried to stay away from that minefield for the past day, since it is obviously that this dead horse is not going to move. Not sure what is your goal coming here trying to remind me of it other than instilling rancor. Do I need to manually start a new AN3 thread with those 5 reverts did by the other editor? Nergaal (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos for updating, referencing and overhauling the Explorers program! I know it takes time. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :) Nergaal (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I wonder if you would care to weigh in on the proposed deletion of the Flagship Program category at [1]. Thanks, and again: great job overhauling the planetary mission programs. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Explorers program, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Suzaku (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The second round of the 2018 WikiCup has now finished. Most contestants who advanced to the next round scored upwards of 100 points, but two with just 10 points managed to scrape through into round 3. Our top scorers in the last round were:

• Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with three featured articles
• Iazyges, with nine good articles and lots of bonus points
• Yashthepunisher, a first time contestant, with two featured lists
• SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with seventeen good topic articles
• Usernameunique, a first time contestant, with fourteen DYKs
• Muboshgu, a seasoned competitor, with three ITNs and
• Courcelles, another first time contestant, with twenty-seven GARs

So far contestants have achieved twelve featured articles between them and a splendid 124 good articles. Commendably, 326 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2018 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met; most of the GARs are fine, but a few have been a bit skimpy.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in my edit summary, please start a talk page discussion if you believe this material should be split off. As of yet, there is not enough notability or a large amount of content to warrant a split. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You've reverted three times as of right now. Callmemirela 🍁 20:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Explorers Program, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages SES and NRO (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Exploration of Mars, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TMI (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:41, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hi, as maximum expert of falcon over wiki, i would to ask you something. for you, spacex, can make all future launch of 2018 or many will be shifted to 2019? in 5 months they make 9 launches, and in next 7 there are more 19. F9B5 will help, or they had so many delays that many will be shifted?--Dwalin (talk) 08:11, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wat? Nergaal (talk) 08:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

will spacex will be able to fly all missions with nwe B5? or many will be shifted to 2019?--Dwalin (talk) 12:14, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They said they'll do 30 this year. I am guesstimating they will to over 25. Nergaal (talk) 13:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tnx--Dwalin (talk) 13:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bangabandhu-1, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BTRC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Cathy Newman are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines, not for general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Marteau (talk) 11:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments about List of ecclesiastical parishes in the Diocese of Bath and Wells at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of ecclesiastical parishes in the Diocese of Bath and Wells/archive1 suggesting the inclusion of coordinates. I have now done this following your lead. I was wondering if you had a minute to take a look and see if there is anything else you think is needed to meet the FL criteria?— Rod 20:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MER-C: my account used to have IPBE until 2016. Not sure why was that revoked, but where do I apply to get it again? Currently pretty much all IPs provided by my ISP seem to be blocked and I had to use VPN to even edit my own talk page. Nergaal (talk) 18:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend you ask via UTRS. MER-C 18:33, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MER-C: is there a system where I can take care of this without having to deal with an email address? Nergaal (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only other venue for unblock discussions I know of is IRC, on the #wikipedia-en-unblock channel. It's not private, but you should be able to DM a CheckUser there to deal with it privately. IPBE is usually handed out by CheckUsers only. MER-C 19:37, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Nergaal (talk) 20:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Largest cities of Romania has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. --woodensuperman 15:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Template:2018 FIFA World Cup Group G table shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Hhkohh (talk) 09:11, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Template:FIFA World Cup group table sidebar shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Hhkohh (talk) 09:45, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Nergaal reported by User:Hhkohh (Result: ). Thank you. Hhkohh (talk) 09:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The third round of the 2018 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round had at least 227 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

• Courcelles, a first time contestant, with 1756 points, a tally built largely on 27 GAs related to the Olympics
• Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three GAs on natural history and astronomy topics
• SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with a variety of submissions related to transport in the state of Washington

Contestants managed 7 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 120 good articles, 1 good topic, 124 DYK entries, 15 ITN entries, and 132 good article reviews. Over the course of the competition, contestants have completed 458 GA reviews, in comparison to 244 good articles submitted for review and promoted. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process; several submissions, particularly in abstruse or technical areas, have needed additional work to make them completely verifiable.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk), Vanamonde (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Nergaal. I'm just posting to let you know that List of nearest exoplanets – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for August 10. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 21:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Giants2008: Thanks for the pick. I tweaked the blurb a bit to sound more interesting, and hopefully it is also grammatically correct. Nergaal (talk) 23:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. JC7V-constructive zone 22:14, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let the Sarah Deong thing go. She was mad at injustice like you are mad at perceived injustice and she fought back like you are ,in your mind fighting back. Anymore edit warring will result in an indef JC7V-constructive zone 22:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure if I start saying #cancel[insert_skin_color_here]people around talkpages I would get banned immediately. Meanwhile, under the guise of full protection, wikipedia is not even able to mention the main thing this person is known for. Nergaal (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When Deong's article gets a lot bigger and she gets more and more praise, then her retaliation against online harassment can be in her article, in proper context. Until then , leave it alone.JC7V-constructive zone 22:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Go to SuggestBot's page and follow the instructions to find topics you can edit where you won't edit war in. JC7V-constructive zone 03:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am posting this on your talkpage out of an abundance of caution solely because you recently edited Talk:Sarah Jeong and, as the message says, not suggesting any policy violation by you. Abecedare (talk) 01:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Calling people trolls and legitimate edits "vandalism" are personal attacks. Please stop. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unilaterally closing a debate when there is no consensus of a subject that is admin-level protected is wp:NPOV. Nergaal (talk) 08:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Jeong. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Kleuske (talk) 08:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from closing an AfD nomination that has no input from editors. Nergaal (talk) 09:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Jeong, you may be blocked from editing. Kleuske (talk) 09:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

− @Galobtter: @Kleuske: your current behaviors indicate that both of you intend to continue silencing any call to discussion from non-involved editors. This is an AfD to a fully protected article hastily closed by an involved editor that is not an admin. Nergaal (talk) 09:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: WP:Articles for Deletion discussions are not intendended to request page porotection. WIkipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX and [[WP:POINT|frivolous AfD nominations] are disruptive. I've reported you to WP:AIV. Kleuske (talk) 09:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sarah_Jeong:_Potential_disruption_and_potentially_inappropriate_(as_controversial_and_non-notable)_edits_to_a_protected,_contentious_page. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:BLANKING and stop adding that notice to Kleuske's talk page. Favonian (talk) 09:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: @NeilN: calling somebody a troll is a personal attack, but the stub in question is allowed to not mention EXPLICITLY racist remarks? You are driving good-faith contributors away. Enjoy the decline. Nergaal (talk) 11:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nergaal - You're taking your recent editing behaviors, then taking your thoughts regarding the article content in question, and then merging these two completely different discussions into one... and then you're attempting to argue that because you believe that the article contains racist content that your disruptive and tenacious editing as well as your uncivil personal attacks toward others should be viewed as justifiable and acceptable... that makes absolutely no sense at all.

I reiterate exactly what I said in my comment here at the ANI discussion. Your behavior was disruptive and was the reason behind the 24 hour block that was imposed upon you... ~Oshwah~ 11:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

{{delete|I am done with wikipedia. If the whiteknighting brigade is willing to ban me for requesting a simple AfD over a clearly NPOV stub article, then dissenting opinions are not welcomed here. Nothing has changed in the past few years, and the echochamber is increasingly getting stronger. If me trying to point out the echochamber results in me being banned just because I legitimately called somebody a troll, while the article in question fails to even mention the #cancelwhitepeople is allowed to stand as is, and all of this is furthermore enforced by two distinct admins that would rather ban me to silence any form of dissent. I am not welcomed so I would rather not contribute.}}

Insufficient reason to delete a user talk page – see WP:DELTALK Favonian (talk) 11:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Favonian: I am not allowed to move my own talk page. Please do me a favor and move this talk page to "user_talk:Nergaal/cancelwhitepeople" and then blank the remaining page. I am tired being punished for pointing the obvious ignorance towards blatant racism. See WP:RTV. Nergaal (talk) 20:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The second sentence of WP:RTV reads: A courtesy vanishing may be implemented when a user in good standing decides not to return, and for whatever reason wishes to make their contributions harder to find or to remove their association with their edits.. Additionally, I doubt any admin anywhere is going to be willing to move your talkpage to that title. I've renamed this section heading as well. SQL 22:26, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SQL: ah, so you hav no idea that I have been blocked for expressing my opinion on an article of a LP that has been whitefashing/hiding the fact that the person has explicitly stated "#cancelwhitepeople"? That at least three people have undone my own edits and an AfD that requested input from the larger community, and when I called those people imposing their views "trolls" I have been banned by one admin, and denied banning by another? My name has been smeared even at ANI, and I have been denied even defending myself by at least two admins. Meanwhile, the 3 editors that have undone and HIDDEN my own edits are free to denigrate my own name and push forth their own edits that include completely curating the BLP of the person in question of any mention of racism? Nergaal (talk) 05:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked for disruptive editing. Please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a WP:SOAPBOX. Kleuske (talk) 09:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Abecedare: what is this about? I am trying to format an AfD discussion and it's unclear to me what exactly is this. Nergaal (talk) 02:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Abecedare: editconflict thanks for taking your time to clarify the situation. I have had a few editors pushing my buttons on this topic and I am having trouble figuring those that are deliberately doing that and the cases where is misunderstanding on either end. Nergaal (talk) 02:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul Erik: why am I getting banned for trying to format an AfD? Am I missing something? Nergaal (talk) 02:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The previous AFD, also started by you, was closed just 7 hours back by admin User:Drmies, which a minimal amount of due-diligence would have shown. And yet you attempted to open a second AFD, with factual incorrect, not to mention uncivil and bad-faith, edit-summary repeated abusive, hasty push of personal agenda by editor who clearly is breaking WP:BADNAC. This is highly disruptive, and given that your recent block related to edit-warring at the same article had expired less than a day back, its clear your participation in this topic-area is not helpful.

I realize that you have also been indefinitely blocked by User:Paul Erik. Even if that block is lifted, this topic ban will still apply (you can appeal this AE sanction per the procedure outlined n the above notice). Abecedare (talk) 02:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Given the current AE sanction, you should probably stop using "#cancelwhitepeople" as an edit summary. Even without the sanction, it comes across as WP:POINT-y. 02:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ianthomson: I am having a hard time understanding how AE applies to edits made to non-topic places. Is there a TL;DR somewhere? Nergaal (talk) 02:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The exact words were "Topic-banned from any Sarah Jeong-related content or discussion (in any namespace) on wikipedia". Whether you can't or won't understand the bold part is your problem. Blocked indefinitely again. If you say anything about bad-faith besides apologizing for your own, your talk page access will be revoked. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.thomson: I was going to unwatch the pages on this topic before I saw the AfD a few hours ago. This is a dead horse. But I've never had to deal with AE. So please help me understand what is the rationale behind not being allowed to have personal opinions on my personal talkpage. Nergaal (talk) 03:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for Ian.thomson but I bet you were blocked for that edit summary, which is of course directly related to the topic area you were banned from, and which really isn't a "personal opinion". If I had to guess I'd say that Ian.thomson read it as a POINTy example of not dropping the stick, and I read it that way too. Drmies (talk) 03:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much. Plus talk pages are really for discussing user conduct, article improvement, so forth. There's no reason to discuss the topic anywhere on the site unless it's ultimately to influence the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Paul Erik, Abecedare, I was surprised to find that at some point in time I accepted this editor's good faith, though in hindsight their response to my simple question was as loaded as their comments four years later. Neergal, I assume you understand that you are still under an arbitration sanction. That edit summary of yours falls under that heading too. Drmies (talk) 02:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: my honest apologies. My problem with the original AfD was that it was closed by a non-admin, and in my annoyed mind, I genuinely thought you were one of the 3 guys from a few days ago. Your username sounded familiar. When I took a closer look later on I saw that it was actually closed by an actual admin. Again, this particular edit was 100% my own mistake by allowing my nerves getting ahead of myself. Nergaal (talk) 02:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but the AfD is now a bypassed station. I just wish you had stepped back a bit earlier: you've editing that article and associated pages exclusively since 4 August, some 70 edits... Drmies (talk) 02:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Ian.thomson, I guess they didn't understand that. Drmies (talk) 02:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

In case Nergaal comes back and reads this, there was a followup discussion of their sanction at User talk:Ian.thomson#Indef block of Nergaal. Worth taking into consideration before filing an unblock request. — JFG 13:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nergaal: In case you still get notifications or ever look in here, just one thing. Thank you for all your content work. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to echo Yngvadottir's sentiment. We may not always have agreed, but I have great respect for your work and am sorry to see you go. Double sharp (talk) 06:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

+1. Rest assured that your voice will never be #cancelled in the hearts and minds of many fellow Wikipedians. — JFG 10:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

yes --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		The Space Barnstar
		For your outstanding work and collaborative spirit at List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches‎ and other articles documenting space exploration. Hope to see you back! — JFG 10:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fourth round of the 2018 WikiCup has now come to an end. The eight users who made it to the final round had to score a minimum of 422 points to qualify, with the top score in the round being 4869 points. The leaders in round 4 were:

• Courcelles scored a magnificent 4869 points, with 92 good articles on Olympics-related themes. Courcelles' bonus points alone exceeded the total score of any of the other contestants!
• Kees08 was second with 1155 points, including a high-scoring featured article for Neil Armstrong, two good topics and some Olympics-related good articles.
• Cas Liber, with 1066 points, was in third place this round, with two featured articles and a good article, all on natural history topics.
• Other contestants who qualified for the final round were Nova Crystallis, Iazyges, SounderBruce, Kosack and Ceranthor.

During round four, 6 featured articles and 164 good articles were promoted by WikiCup contestants, 13 articles were included in good topics and 143 good article reviews were performed. There were also 10 "in the news" contributions on the main page and 53 "did you knows". Congratulations to all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck, and let the best editor win! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is Courcelles (submissions), who over the course of the competition has amassed 147 GAs, 111 GARs, 9 DYKs, 4 FLs and 1 ITN. Our finalists were as follows:

1. Courcelles (submissions)
2. Kosack (submissions)
3. Kees08 (submissions)
4. SounderBruce (submissions)
5. Cas Liber (submissions)
6. Nova Crystallis (submissions)
7. Iazyges (submissions)
8. Ceranthor (submissions)

All those who reached the final win awards, and awards will also be going to the following participants:

• Cas Liber (submissions) wins the FA prize, for three featured articles in round 2.
• Courcelles (submissions) wins the GA prize, for 92 good articles in round 3.
• Kosack (submissions) wins the FL prize, for five featured lists overall.
• Cartoon network freak (submissions) wins the topic prize, for 30 articles in good topics overall.
• Usernameunique (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 24 did you know articles in round 3.
• Zanhe (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 17 in the news articles overall.
• Aoba47 (submissions) wins the GAR prize, for 43 good article reviews in round 1.

Awards will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved much this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition.

Next year's competition begins on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; it is open to all Wikipedians, new and old. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2019 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email) and Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email).

Template:Infobox actinium has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zackmann (/_{What I been doing}) 00:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and Happy New Year!

Welcome to the 2019 WikiCup, the competition begins today. If you have already joined, your submission page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and we will set up your submissions page. One important rule to remember is that only content on which you have completed significant work during 2019, and which you have nominated this year, is eligible for points in the competition, the judges will be checking! Any questions should be directed to one of the judges, or left on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will make it to round 2. Good luck! The judges for the WikiCup are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Miss you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Special Barnstar
		For your nomination of File:Comparison satellite navigation orbits.svg, which includes certain military specific satellites, you are hereby awarded The Special Barnstar. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Space Barnstar
		For your nomination of File:Comparison satellite navigation orbits.svg you are hereby awarded The Space Barnstar. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Notsure has been nominated for merging with Template:Question. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.. See discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 April 27#Template:MoreInfo. Gonnym (talk) 13:24, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

... and again! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article List of elements by atomic properties has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Completely unsourced - no way of knowing if any of this is accurate. WP:TNT at its best.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Toddst1 (talk) 23:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Cornis and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 2#Cornis until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. A7V2 (talk) 06:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Multiplanetary systems list/Middle has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nigej (talk) 13:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Periodic Table by Radioactivity.PNG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned in mainspace, was not used to create the corresponding vector image and thus is not needed for attribution purposes.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. HouseBlaster 12:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent carbene has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quatermass 2 has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Spinixster (chat!) 01:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Cis-Neptunian object has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This classification is seldom used by researchers, does not appear to be a consensus classification, and is largely redundant. On NASA ADS, only one search result for "cis-Neptunian object" is relevant to the term, out of four total results.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical cyclone basins has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Sun for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. 750h+ 01:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zirconium has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 00:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Batman in film has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]