User talk:Carcharoth/Archive 51

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Carcharoth. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 45

←

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

→

Archive 55

I've brought this former Featured Article back to snuff as best as I can tell. I need more eyes, for obvious reasons, and you're listed as a volunteer in the history category. Equally obviously, if I can be of assistance of a similar nature, I assume you'll let me know. xD —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 09:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I hope you got the assistance you needed on this. When I get more time for such things, I will try and have a look as the topic looks interesting. Carcharoth (talk) 08:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The 2014 WikiCup is off to a flying start, with, at time of writing, 138 participants. The is the largest number of participants we have seen since 2010. If you are yet to join the competition, don't worry- the judges have agreed to keep the signups open for a few more days. By a wide margin, our current leader is newcomer Godot13 (submissions), whose set of 14 featured pictures, the first FPs of the competition, was worth 490 points. Here are some more noteworthy scorers:

• 12george1 (submissions) and TropicalAnalystwx13 (submissions) were the first people to score, for the good article Tropical Storm Bret (1981) and its good article review respectively. 12george1 was also the first person to score in 2012 and 2013.
• Sven Manguard (submissions) scored the first ITN points for 2014 North American polar vortex.
• WonderBoy1998 (submissions) scored points for an early good topic, finishing off Wikipedia:Featured topics/She Wolf.
• TheAustinMan (submissions) scored the first bonus points of the competition, for his work on Typhoon Vera.
• Igordebraga (submissions) has scored the highest number of bonus points for a single article, for the high-importance Jurassic Park (film).

Featured articles, featured lists, featured topics and featured portals are yet to play a part in the competition. The judges have removed a number of submissions which were deemed ineligible. Typically, we aim to see work on a project, followed by a nomination, followed by promotion, this year. We apologise for any disappointment caused by our strict enforcement this year; we're aiming to keep the competition as fair as possible.

Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may be interested to take part in The Core Contest; unlike the WikiCup, The Core Contest is not about audited content, but, like the WikiCup, it is about article improvement; specifically, The Core Contest is about contribution to some of Wikipedia's most important article. Of course, any work done for The Core Contest, if it leads to a DYK, GA or FA, can earn WikiCup 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. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 19:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Carcharoth,

I've left the message below the DS Review page [1], and hope you and all the other arbitrators will take a look and leave a note indicating that you've looked at the discussion of the important issues with DS, with indefinite bans, and with the phrase 'broadly construed' which have been raised throughout that page. NinaGreen (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Two arbitrators, AGK and Roger Davies, have added occasional comments to this page concerning the significant changes which have been suggested here, all of which are quick, easy and effective fixes which would (1) drastically reduce arbitrator and administrator workload; (2) permit the reduction in the incredibly high number of administrators (1400), as a result of (1), and allow for the elimination, almost entirely, of WP:AE; (3) improve Wikipedia's public image; (4) improve the general atmosphere on Wikipedia, making it more collegial and far less adversarial; (5) significantly improve editor retention. However are the other 13 arbitrators at all aware of these suggestions? The lack of any comments from them in this review suggests they may not be. Could the other arbitrators just drop a note here to indicate that they are aware of the suggestions? Obviously change can never take place if the people who can effect if aren't aware of the problems which have been identified in this discussion and the suggestions which have been made for fixing them.

I've placed the comment below on Roger Davies' Talk page under the heading 'Correction to collapsed discussion' and am copying it here because the point is obviously one of vital concern to all arbitrators. NinaGreen (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Roger,

Could you please correct this comment you made at [2]:

This is your fourth edit since you were asked to back off yesterday. Whatever benefit there might have been in your contributions has been lost in the - to put it mildly - freeranging nature and inquisitorial tone of your comments. You have singlehandedly provided about half the commentary over the last month, sometimes derailing discussions, stopping others in their tracks, and contributing greatly to bloat. Please now step right back.

Your statement is inaccurate. I made only a single comment after I was told my comments were unwelcome by AGK yesterday, and that comment was made in reply to a question asked of me by Robert McClenon. Can another editor no longer ask me a question, and receive a reply? The four 'edits' were merely 'fixes' to that single comment, as is obvious from the edit history. Please correct that inaccuracy by removing your statement which implies that I made four separate comments after being told my comments were unwelcome, and which fails to recognize the fact that I was replying to a question asked of me by Robert McClenon. Your statements that I have 'derailed discussions' or 'stopped others in their tracks' are also both inaccurate. I have never done that, nor have you provided an example of either. I have merely raised questions, and in almost every single case an administrator, either you, AGK, or Salvio has abruptly shut down any discussion of the questions I have raised. The questions I've raised are valid ones. Perhaps they seem 'inquisitorial' to you and to other administrators because you are committed to discretionary sanctions and you cannot look at them from the point of view of the vast majority of Wikipedia editors who find DS strange, unjust, and harmful to the project.

Also your own comments which you later added to that section directly contradict the information provided to me by Robert McClenon, so why has Salvio been permitted to collapse the discussion with the comment 'Asked and answered' when the question obviously hasn't been answered? You state unequivocally earlier in the discussion that I was the only one ('one notable exception') who didn't understand the difference between the powers exercised by administrators in DS and in non-DS situations, and Salvio rudely told me that my question had been answered before, and that I was exhibiting 'supine ignorance'. The discussion now shows I was clearly not the only one who didn't understand the difference, since your later comment completely contradicts the explanation of the difference given by Robert McClenon. It is not healthy for Wikipedia when even an experienced editor like Robert McClenon obviously doesn't understand the difference between the powers, and when you have to tell Robert that his explanation is completely wrong, and when no Wikipedia editor can find anywhere on Wikipedia a clear difference and distinction between the powers. The only way to fix this is to set out on the DS project page a clear explanation of the difference between the powers of arbitrators, the powers of administrators in DS situations, and the power of administrators in non-DS situations. At present the differences are completely blurred, and no Wikipedia editor has access to a clear statement of what an administrator is actually authorized to do in DS situations as opposed to non-DS situations, or how the powers of administrators differ from those of arbitrators. Robert McClenon stated that administrators in DS-sitations have been given 'arbitrator-like powers'. By what authority has this happened, since administrators were not elected to be arbitrators? This blurring of powers, the refusal to clearly set out for the benefit of all Wikipedia editors the differences between the powers exercised by arbitrators, administrators in DS situations and administrators in non-DS situations, and the handing over of arbitrators' powers to administrators who were never elected to exercise such powers is not healthy for Wikipedia, nor is it healthy for Wikipedia for you, AGK and Salvio to shut down discussion of such a vital point. Nor is it healthy for Wikipedia for you to shut it down on the basis of an inaccurate statement about my comments (see above).

At RfAr you say, "those asking for admin accountability need to not escalate needlessly." User:Future Perfect at Sunrise did use his admin tool while involved, and was exceedingly, exceedingly rude and ignorant to me, and - as someone at the RfAr pointed out - is incapable of or unwilling to cogently explain his actions - something I believe is a minimum requirement for adminship. But my qualms about automatic deletion of blocked users' comments also brought me to arbitration.

If you're referring to me in that quote, I did not needlessly escalate. And, so far, I am very disappointed by the committee's nonchalance regarding this admin. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed you're equating my (again, assuming you're addressing me) behaviour with FPaS's: you say, "but equally those asking for admin accountability need to not escalate needlessly." If you won't strike or delete the whole second clause, would you consider at least striking "equally"? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Clarification: you are missing an article, is it Infobox or Wikipedia:Infobox (other than a redirect)? We who like infoboxes find it amusing that the former doesn't have one ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I never realised we had an article infobox. That seems rather self-referential. Do we have an article on databoxes? I am sure that, or another term, is the more proper name for what you see on the side of trains. There is a fundamental difference between constructing a series of boxes to uniformly present data about planets across all eight articles for the solar system (or across many other articles for extrasolar planets) and simply using an infobox as a way to summarise in tabular form for an article (e.g. summarising a biographical article). When you have millions of articles about people, it makes less sense to have a box uniformly presenting the same information across all of them. It is the difference between picking up a 300-page biography of some famous person and reading that in condensed form (in an article) without an infobox in sight, and picking up a biographical dictionary with short 1500-word entries and having a box on each page as you flick through the collection (or a box for the longer articles). It ultimately comes down to editorial style and choice. Some encyclopedias use boxes, others don't (e.g. the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography). Some use boxes on some articles and not on others. There should be a way to separate the presentation and style issues from the technical issues (ensuring the data can be maintained and extracted). Carcharoth (talk) 23:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I've resisted until now -- I just gotta say that any Wikipedia editor who names their account after a fictional Tolkien character is clearly up to no good. NE Ent 03:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Rabaul in World War II and Australia in World War I

Hi Carch - I made a statement to this effect on the RFAR page, but seriously, please vote what you actually believe at this point, not what you think will make the case end faster. If this case had been handled properly, it would've been over literally a week ago (and quite possibly with me receiving an admonishment - as I've said elsewhere, that's not the biggest deal to me, although I think Tryptofish's latest comment has a point.) The way the case has been handled is bordering on vaudevillian, and another day or two to get any motions straight will do little additional harm at this point. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I am deeply disturbed at how this RfAr is turning out. The message to other administrators is clear: If you try to enforce civility, you won't get any support from the ArbCom, in fact you'll probably end up getting sanctioned. Kaldari (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The above editor (an employee of WMF) has yet to substantiate a serious allegation [3] against Eric Corbett. Let's have some answers to what is going on here.  Giano  19:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Added diffs of substantiation. The above editor has just personally attacked me and misquoted me, not that I expect anyone to care. Kaldari (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank-you for your comments. The request and motion has now been actioned and archived. As I've said elsewhere, the circumstances here made it difficult to fully explain things. It may have been best handled off-wiki to avoid public comments potentially inflaming what was already a sensitive situation. But what's done is done. It may seem incredibly important right now, but in the grand scheme of things it is not something that needs to be dragged out. Let's just move on and all resolve to be more careful when discussing or moderating (or indeed arbitrating) discussions on such topics. Carcharoth (talk) 06:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Carcharoth: would you be willing to elucidate on the mistakes you believe were made in arbitrating this case? I'm honestly not seeking to prolong drama, I just want to ensure that the same set of mistakes are not made in the future. Please feel free to direct them to me by private communication if it makes you feel more comfortable, I won't reproduce them elsewhere. And equally, if you'd like, I'd be happy to provide you with step by step analysis of how I think I screwed up. As I've said before, the admonishment doesn't really effect me, I just want to make sure that the same set of errors are not perpetuated in the future, either by me (which I feel comfortable guaranteeing on my own) or by the current arbitration comittee. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

As I said, what's done is done. It may seem incredibly important right now, but in the grand scheme of things it is not something that needs to be dragged out. You say you are comfortable guaranteeing on your own that the same set of errors are not perpetuated in the future. I'm comfortable that we (ArbCom) can do the same. Let's leave it there. Carcharoth (talk) 08:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

My reassurances were accepted after a ridiculously drawn out RFAR, not on the basis of my word alone. As the highest elected body of the English Wikipedia, I think that there's a reasonable expectation that arbcom explain their actions - good or bad - except in situations with privacy concerns. There are privacy concerns involved in this case, but none that have to reasonably do with this element of it. I messed this situation up badly, which I readily admit, and have described in detail how. Somewhat to my bewilderment, arbcom's handling of the RFAR actually managed to inflame the initial situation more than my own actions did - I don't think there's ever been an RFAR that went from people being mad at one of the parties involved to a situation where most of the last comments were literally just condemning arbcom's handling of the case. I expect and hope that arbcom-l currently has an after action review ongoing privately, but I feel pretty strongly that it is more than reasonable - and should be expected - for arbcom to describe what they view as their errors publicly. Do it on an arb only page, and leave a 48 hour comment window open on the talk page for interested parties. Vigorously remove comments that are not directly on topic. But I don't think it's appropriate for arbcom to engage in this series of actions and then not comment publicly on their mistakes in a way that reassures the rest of the project they won't recur. FWIW: I'm not intentionally singling you out, this was just the current arb's page that I had an active discussion section on. If the same set of mistakes had been made by anyone other than arbcom, there would already have been an RFAR demanding clarification of the situation. Kevin Gorman (talk) 14:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Please see my proposal to rename Category:Dam disasters (a category you created long ago) and its sub cats here. Opinions and comments welcome.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Carcharoth, I note that you have abstained on motion 2 relating to Kevin at the clarification, and as a consequence it now passes (as motion 1 has already done). Is that your intent? EdChem (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The three motions (I added a third one) are alternatives. The one that gets the most support will pass, so the fact that more than one is passing is not that important. It is somewhat ironic that I've proposed a third motion when I've consistently (like Brad) said it would be best to deal with this expeditiously, but this matter has been deliberately separated from the other (more incendiary) matter, in the hope that it can proceed more calmly. Hopefully that will be the case. I'll say more elsewhere, though I also happen to think that excessive commentary and post-request analysis won't be incredibly helpful either. Some of that is needed, but not too much. The way things spiralled out of control near the end was unfortunate and probably avoidable, but what's done is done. Carcharoth (talk) 05:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

And so ends the most competitive first round we have ever seen, with 38 points required to qualify for round 2. Last year, 19 points secured a place; before that, 11 (2012) or 8 (2011) were enough. This is both a blessing and a curse. While it shows the vigourous good health of the competition, it also means that we have already lost many worthy competitors. Our top three scorers were:

1. Godot13 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer whose high-quality scans of rare banknotes represent an unusual, interesting and valuable contribution to Wikipedia. Most of Godot's points this round have come from a large set of pictures used in Treasury Note (1890–91).
2. Adam Cuerden (submissions), a WikiCup veteran and a finalist last year, Adam is also a featured picture specialist, focusing on the restoration of historical images. This month's promotions have included a carefully restored set of artist William Russell Flint's work.
3. WikiRedactor (submissions), another WikiCup newcomer. WikiRedactor has claimed points for good article reviews and good articles relating to pop music, many of which were awarded bonus points. Articles include Sky Ferreira, Hannah Montana 2: Meet Miley Cyrus and "Wrecking Ball" (Miley Cyrus song).

Other competitors of note include:

• Hahc21 (submissions), who helped take Thirty Flights of Loving through good article candidates and featured article candidates, claiming the first first featured article of the competition.
• Prism (submissions), who claimed the first featured list of the competition with Natalia Kills discography.
• Cwmhiraeth (submissions), who takes the title of the contributor awarded the highest bonus point multiplier (resulting in the highest scoring article) of the competition so far. Her high-importance salamander, now a good article, scored 108 points.

After such a competitive first round, expect the second round to also be fiercely fought. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2, but please do not update your submission page until March (UTC). 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 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. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 00:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Sir;

What happend in Tetsuya Yamato article ?

What I do wrong to that IP ?

Is that IP correct ?

Best regards. --B20180 (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I see your question was answered elsewhere. Carcharoth (talk) 08:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

An Arbitration Clarification request motion passed. You contributed to the discussion (or are on the committee or a clerk)

The motion reads as follows:

• By way of clarification, the formal warning issued by Kevin Gorman was out of process and therefore has no effect. The provisions of WP:BLPBAN will be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee and where necessary updated.

For the Arbitration Committee, --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The Interior (Talk) 17:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for this. Carcharoth (talk) 08:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Carcharoth, thank you for suggesting to me quality improvement projects on "core" or "vital" type articles including freedom of speech and censorship.

I don't believe I've ever tried improving an article on a "core" topic before.

Perhaps you'd like to collaborate with me on a quality improvement drive to try to get freedom of speech to WP:GA quality together?

You're right, it would not be easy, but we could start by researching overview type article presentations of the topic in other tertiary works and see how they present the material.

What do you think, are you up for improving freedom of speech ?

No worries if not, I've got plenty of other potential freedom of speech and censorship related articles to improve and/or create from scratch !

(For example, most recently the article I created, Not in Front of the Children: "Indecency," Censorship, and the Innocence of Youth, was successfully promoted to WP:GA quality.)

I hope you are well,

— Cirt (talk) 13:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, Cirt. When I have more time to work in detail on content I'll think about it. Carcharoth (talk) 08:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the consideration. I just successfully got Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties to WP:FA. Not sure yet what my next FA project will be, but perhaps Not in Front of the Children: "Indecency," Censorship, and the Innocence of Youth. — Cirt (talk) 13:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Unless, Carcharoth, you have any suggestions as to which of the WP:GAs listed at User:Cirt/Contributions is next closest to being ready for WP:FAC consideration ? — Cirt (talk) 13:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Before drafting a formal motion, you may be interested in reviewing the format of this reminder to Dicklyon, involving this same user. IIRC, the user in question filed AE cases against four different editors, including myself. None of them ever gained any traction. This would be the second one filed against Dicklyon. In this instance, no record of this motion was left on the talk page for the purpose of "influencing future AE requests", and rightly so. It would be up to the editor in question to track this reminder if they want to file more AE requests. —Neotarf (talk) 04:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Apteva sure did stir up the worst in everyone, didn't he? Dicklyon (talk) 04:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Part of my ongoing concern is precisely this "influencing future AE requests" effect. Carcharoth, you yourself have made something of a big deal out of me being under restrictions from an old AE case. But if you read it, I'm simply, "[w]ith regard to pages or discussions related to WP:MOS...prohibited from making bad faith assumptions about other participants", a requirement that I follow WP:AGF just like everyone else is required to do. You make it sound like I have some kind of interaction, page, or topic ban or other unusual "you can't be trusted without supervision" restriction. I'm not grousing at you about this, but pointing out that the legalism and adversarial nature of RFARB and AE inevitably leads to things which are not particularly punitive being treated as smoking guns, and given undue weight in later proceedings. Neotarf demonstrated that it was happening to them with people dredging up Sandstein's accusations like they were court convictions.

Sandstein's procedurally wrong use of DS to censure me again for using AE dispute resolution (not well enough for his liking) came immediately upon on the heels of and is closely related to that "restrictions" decision (they're almost back-to-back on [same AE archive page]). I didn't appeal that 1-month content ban at the time because I was mired in tax preparation in real life, but I think we all know that it would have been overturned, and it should be voided from the ARBATC log.

It's extremely problematic to allow the application of content-dispute discretionary sanctions to prevent or in my case vindictively punish meta-discussion of editor conduct in dispute resolution; it undermines the very concept of DR and arbitration. That is also an underlying reason that the four of us have not dropped the accusations matter, since they were another attempt to "police" AE discussions wrongly as content disputes. AE (and AN) discussion cannot rationally be subject to DS for content disputes, except in the rare case that someone wrongly abuses a DR forum as a venue to continue a content dispute, which is precisely what happened when the now indef'd user filed that AE case in which Sandstein eventually issued us his accusations/warnings. Said user's tendentious path from RFC/U to AN to AE is a terrible wonder to behold. (I can point to an even more egregious case, of someone forum-shopping a mediation case as a venue to rant on and on about a content matter in the most personally-attacking terms. It does happen, just not often.) We certainly did not do that, and neither did I later, at AE.

I understand the desire to not punish Sandstein without there being a full-scale RFARB that finds him culpable of something. The most painless way to deal with the matter is to just clear the log of the problematic entries, simply because they're problematic, without being blamey about it. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 07:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, SMcC, it looks like they approve of you; they have given you what you asked for and voted you back on the island. And I'm afraid you're right that no one will act without accusing Sandstein of being guilty of some violation--they mentioned it at my RFAR as well. I have always disliked that bloodletting aspect of the arbcom. I have made a mess of the ANI request as well, I should have asked to overturn the AE thing. When they give you one of those warnings, they're supposed to tell you how to appeal it, but of course you have to figure it out on your own.

The observation about punishing meta-discussion is well founded, it was expressed here and there are many, many more examples buried in the DS review archives. There was particular vehemence expressed towards non-admins who contribute evidence--Sandstein said it was automatically "tainted". Perhaps that had something to do with the shelving of the planned Signpost article on the discretionary sanction review. —Neotarf (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Hawkeye7 on military command and Nick-D on F-111s in combat

The photos I took yesterday are now on Commons in Commons:Category:WMUK Royal Society Diversity editathon 2014. Thryduulf (talk) 16:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Thryduulf. I hope not too many people are trying to work out which one of those people is me! :-) There are some other pictures from earlier edit-a-thons. I should really pull together a bunch of links at some stage before I forget where they all are. Carcharoth (talk) 00:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

A quick update as we are half way through round two of this year's competition. WikiCup newcomer Godot13 (submissions) (Pool E) leads, having produced a massive set of featured pictures for Silver certificate (United States), an article also brought to featured list status. Former finalist Adam Cuerden (submissions) (Pool G) is in second, which he owes mostly to his work with historical images, including a number of images from Urania's Mirror, an article also brought to good status. 2010 champion (Pool C) is third overall, thanks to contributions relating to naval history, including the newly featured Japanese battleship Nagato. Cliftonian (submissions), who currently leads Pool A and is sixth overall, takes the title for the highest scoring individual article of the competition so far, with the top importance featured article Ian Smith.

With 26 people having already scored over 100 points, it is likely that well over 100 points will be needed to secure a place in round 3. Recent years have required 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) and 100 (2010). Remember that only 64 will progress to round 3 at the end of April. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page; 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 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. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 22:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)