This is an archive of past discussions. 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.
The second round one has all wrapped up, and round three has now begun! Congratulations to the 34 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our second round. Leading the way overall was Cas Liber (submissions) in Group B with a total of 777 points for a variety of contributions including Good Articles on Corona Borealis and Microscopium - both of which received the maximum bonus.
Special credit must be given to a number of high importance articles improved during the second round.
Coemgenus (submissions) was one of several users who worked on improving Ulysses S. Grant. Remember, you do not need to work on an article on your own - as long as each person has completed significant work on the article during 2015, multiple competitors can claim the same article.
The points varied across groups, with the lowest score required to gain automatic qualification was 68 in Group A - meanwhile the second place score in Group H was 404, which would have been high enough to win all but one of the other Groups! As well as the top two of each group automatically going through to the third round, a minimum score of 55 was required for a wildcard competitor to go through. We had a three-way tie at 55 points and all three have qualified for the next round, in the spirit of fairness. The third round ends on June 28, with the top two in each group progressing automatically while the remaining 16 highest scorers across all four groups go through as wildcards. Good luck to all competitors for the third round! Figureskatingfan (talk·contribs·email), Miyagawa (talk·contribs·email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk·contribs·email) 16:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Spencer. I'd be interested in your rationale for reopening and posting this ITNC, now a week old – which I closed 6/17 for that reason. Such tardy, belated postings make WP look amateurish, IMO. Sca (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
If an article is still eligible (not older than the oldest item) on the template, I see no reason it can't be posted if it's suitable for posting. I have posted "late" items before. I also don't think nominations should be closed on the basis of being "stale"; they should be closed if there is consensus not to post the item, IMO. But perhaps this is a discussion for WT:ITN. Best, SpencerT♦C 14:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
And to be clear, Spencer didn't reopen the nomination, I did as there was clearly still interest in it. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Clearly? Well, Zanhe noted on 6/15 that it had five supports and three opposes, and said, "I guess it's the admin's call." No one posted any further votes, and no admin did anything with it for two days.
From a news standpoint – and we are talking about In the News – it was clearly an outdated story. Although I supported posting (on 6/12), it seemed obvious by 6/17 that its time had past, and indeed it was no longer in the news.
Oh well. Soon it will slough off ITN anyway. Yawn. Sca (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
As of 15:56 it was already gone. So it was on ITN for 10 hours. Rather a futile bureaucratic exercise, IMO. Sca (talk) 17:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Is your purpose coming back here to post this to mock me? I'm sorry for posting and offending you if that's what this has come to. SpencerT♦C 18:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
See WT:ITN if you have a genuine interest in this. Otherwise, addressing consensus seriously is far from amateurish. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Spencer, TRM recommended asking you for help. Could you please take a look at this ITN item which I believe has consensus for posting? It's a bit old, but he did die the same day as Ron Moody, who is currently in the RD section? -- Scorpion0422 17:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, now the oldest item in the ITN section is from 6/13, and thus RDs after that point are removed/no longer posted. I'm sorry for not noticing the nomination earlier Scorpion, but please feel free to ping me if you have other nominations that need attention. SpencerT♦C 18:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to request closure of this discussion, which is going nowhere. I'm tired of engaging in futile arguments and being accused of base motives. Unfortunately, I found instructions at WP:ANRFC confusing (which, alas, I often do). Can you just close it and put us all our of our misery? Thank you. Sca (talk) 18:55, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree, please close the discussion whereby editors summarily attempt to change language to attack others. Better that it's put to bed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
The user continues to reinsert non-compliant content [1] and will not engage at the talk page [2] thread where secondary sources are being discussed. They have received warnings on their user talk page but to no avail. Can you help? Or if you are an involved editor than can you suggest another Admin? Many thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello, could you please post Roddy Piper to the RD ticker at ITN? I'd rather not have a repeat of the Dusty Rhodes fiasco. It's been several days and the discussion has stalled. There is overwhelming consensus to post, and the article has improved markedly. ITN is not GAC, and while the article is far from perfect, I think 134 references is more than enough. -- Scorpion0422 12:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, User:Scorpion0422; I just saw this message and I see that this was already posted to RD. I'm currently traveling so my Internet access has been intermittent, so my apologies for not being able to address this sooner. Best, SpencerT♦C 10:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The finals for the 2015 Wikicup has now begun! Congrats to the 8 contestants who have survived to the finals, and well done and thanks to everyone who took part in rounds 3 and 4.
In round 3, we had a three-way tie for qualification among the wildcard contestants, so we had 34 competitors. The leader was by far Casliber (submissions) in Group B, who earned 1496 points. Although 913 of these points were bonus points, he submitted 15 articles in the DYK category. Second place overall was Coemgenus (submissions) at 864 points, who although submitted just 2 FAs for 400 points, earned double that amount for those articles in bonus points. Everyone who moved forward to Round 4 earned at least 100 points.
The scores required to move onto the semifinals were impressive; the lowest scorer to move onto the finals was 407, making this year's Wikicup as competitive as it's always been. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:
Cas Liber (submissions), who is competing in his sixth consecutive Wikicup final, again finished the round in first place, with an impressive 1666 points in Pool B. Casliber writes about the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. A large bulk of his points this round were bonus points.
Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points), second place both in Pool B and overall, earned the bulk of his points with FPs, mostly depicting currency.
Cwmhiraeth (submissions), first in Pool A, came in third. His specialty is natural science articles; in Round 4, he mostly submitted articles about insects and botany. Five out of the six of the GAs he submitted were level-4 vital articles.
West Virginian (submissions), from Pool A, was our highest-scoring wildcard. West Virginia tends to focus on articles about the history of (what for it!) the U.S. state of West Virginia.
Rationalobserver (submissions), from Pool B, came in seventh overall. RO earned the majority of her points from GARs and PRs, many of which were earned in the final hours of the round.
Calvin999 (submissions), also from Pool B, who was competing with RO for the final two spots in the final hours, takes the race for most GARs and PRs—48.
The intense competition between RO and Calvin999 will continue into the finals. They're both eligible for the Newcomers Trophy, given for the first time in the Wikicup; whoever makes the most points will win it.
Good luck to the finalists; the judges are sure that the competition will be fierce!
Hi ShakespeareFan00, you may want to consider reporting this to WP:AN to ask about options for a global block. But thanks for bringing this to my attention--I won't change the block settings for now, I'll keep an eye on the editor and adjust if necessary (if you could keep me posted as well, that would be great). Best, SpencerT♦C 21:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
You might want to keep an eye on DEADS9. I'm guessing that they were trying to recreate The Newbie, an article created by Wepon12. They don't really have a lot in common other than that, although both like to edit children's shows. If they are the same person, they'll likely try to do something similar elsewhere and try to add more hoax articles. I'm going to put both on my watch list. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
So noted, will also keep my eyes on this. SpencerT♦C 23:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Spencer. You have new messages at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. Message added 23:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I really have to thank you, Spencer, for taking the time to give ITN credits. Most admins don't, and I think it is a shame and disincentive that they do not do so. In any case, I appreciate it. μηδείς (talk) 03:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again, an I am sorry, but
Hello, Spencer. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I have a feeling, with the way they add urls in the editsummary, it could be this long term offender. He wil be back again with another Ip at some stage. Murry1975 (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
If you think a rangeblock is the way to go, go ahead and request but there's not much more I can do that keep an eye on this particular IP. If there's future issues, go ahead and re-report at AIV. SpencerT♦C 21:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. A range block was placed before and it didnt help unfortunately. Murry1975 (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
The Herald (submissions) during the second round.
Cas Liber (submissions) in Group B with a total of 777 points for a variety of contributions including Good Articles on Corona Borealis and Microscopium - both of which received the maximum bonus.
Coemgenus (submissions) was one of several users who worked on improving Ulysses S. Grant. Remember, you do not need to work on an article on your own - as long as each person has completed significant work on the article during 2015, multiple competitors can claim the same article.
Cwmhiraeth (submissions) took Dragonfly to Good Article for a 3x bonus - and if that wasn't enough, they also took Damselfly there as well for a 2x bonus.
LeftAire (submissions) worked up Alexander Hamilton to Good Article for the maximum bonus. Hamilton was one of the founding fathers of the United States and is a level 4 vital article.
Casliber (submissions) in Group B, who earned 1496 points. Although 913 of these points were bonus points, he submitted 15 articles in the DYK category. Second place overall was 
Coemgenus (submissions) at 864 points, who although submitted just 2 FAs for 400 points, earned double that amount for those articles in bonus points. Everyone who moved forward to Round 4 earned at least 100 points.
Cas Liber (submissions), who is competing in his sixth consecutive Wikicup final, again finished the round in first place, with an impressive 1666 points in Pool B. Casliber writes about the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. A large bulk of his points this round were bonus points.
Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points), second place both in Pool B and overall, earned the bulk of his points with FPs, mostly depicting currency.
Harrias (submissions), second in Pool A, took fourth overall. He tends to focus on articles about cricket and military history, specifically the 1640s First English Civil War.
West Virginian (submissions), from Pool A, was our highest-scoring wildcard. West Virginia tends to focus on articles about the history of (what for it!) the U.S. state of West Virginia.
Rationalobserver (submissions), from Pool B, came in seventh overall. RO earned the majority of her points from GARs and PRs, many of which were earned in the final hours of the round.
Calvin999 (submissions), also from Pool B, who was competing with RO for the final two spots in the final hours, takes the race for most GARs and PRs—48.
