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)

Guild of Copy Editors 2023 Annual Report Our 2023 Annual Report is now ready for review. Highlights: Introduction Membership news, obituary and election results Summary of Drives, Blitzes and the Requests page Closing words – Your Guild coordinators: Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Wracking. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Hi Vanamonde, I know that you have little time for J.K Rowling (and probably want to have nothing to do with it) but after having it off my watchlist for a few weeks I looked in tonight to find that the criticism section has been hollowed out. I've reverted but can't spend time on the talk page (and honestly am not one of the main contribs/authors) and so am dumping this here, to be blunt. Feel free to ignore. Hope all is well, Victoria (tk) 02:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Victoriaearle: Thanks for the note...I haven't had the time or stamina to engage with the transgender views debate. I'm not happy with these removals, though, and I'd missed them in the flurry of other edits, so thank you for bringing them to my attention (I have also made a further revert). I don't know if I can engage in extensive discussion about them, but I will attempt to stop by. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I missed the edit to the reception section. I hear you regarding not having time of stamina. I really only barely have energy for another article that needs work at the moment. Once I'm done there, I'll put Rowling back on watch, but don't want the distraction until later. All that said, in my view the literary criticism section is worth keeping. Be well, Victoria (tk) 21:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I quite understand. I'm hopeful the literary discussion will be constructive. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would like to specify that I added Zoroastrians instead of Parsis as not all Zoroastrians are Parsis (I understand that is what Zoroastrians are called in India as well as a specific group of Zoroastrians in India). Firekong1 (talk) 14:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Firekong1: I'm well aware of the distinction, but Wikipedia is written based on reliable sources say, not what editors believe to be true. The text currently in the article - which says that the CAA applies to Parsis - is supported by multiple sources. Do you have a source saying that the law distinguishes between Parsis and Zoroastrians? That it gives eligibility to Zoroastrians but not to non-Zoroastrian Parsis? Until you find such a source, we can't change the text. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I thought to made the distinction just in case as not all Zoroastrians are Parsis. Firekong1 (talk) 18:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would be reasonable to do elsewhere, but on Wikipedia you do need a source. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Technical news

• Global blocks may now target accounts as well as IP's. Administrators may locally unblock when appropriate.
• Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via Special:GlobalVanishRequest. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee appointed the following administrators to the conflict of interest volunteer response team: Bilby, Extraordinary Writ

---

hello, A pretty bad edit was made on Bird-of-Paradise, as seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bird-of-paradise&diff=prev&oldid=1239026637. I think it's worth a revdel. Gaismagorm (talk) 23:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thank you. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no problem! Gaismagorm (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]