Archives
2014 Archives 2015 Archives 2016 Archives 2017 Archives 2018 Archives 2019 Archives

The third round of the 2019 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round needed to score at least 68 points, which is substantially lower than last year's 227 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

• Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with 500 points derived mainly from a featured article and two GAs on natural history topics
• Adam Cuerden, with 480 points, a tally built on 16 featured pictures, the result of meticulous restoration work
• SounderBruce, a finalist in the last two years, with 306 points from a variety of submissions, mostly related to sport or the State of Washington
• Usernameunique, with 305 points derived from a featured article and two GAs on archaeology and related topics

Contestants managed 4 (5) featured articles, 4 featured lists, 18 featured pictures, 29 good articles, 50 DYK entries, 9 ITN entries, and 39 good article reviews. 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, and it is imperative to claim them in the correct round; one FA claim had to be rejected because it was incorrectly submitted (claimed in Round 3 when it qualified for Round 2), so be warned! When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything 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). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Surreal Barnstar
	Giving this for your countless contributions to Indian film-related articles. You have been a valuable asset and an inspiration for your demographics. Please keep it up and good luck with Kal Ho Na Ho FAC! THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 11:24, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a surreal compliment indeed, coming from you, ImmortalWizard. Thank you so much. I also would like your inputs at the FAC if that's alright with you.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 14:38, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To prevent clutter and make the chronology of articles seem more linear, I've now decided to follow a new approach: chuck away all retrospective reviews when there are enough contemporary ones. Do you find this new approach good? I think this will also help in Mullum Malarum's FAC success since there are three contemporary reviews, all insightful enough. --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:42, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it's good with you then proceed, Kailash29792. If some of the retrospective reviews are insightful and in-depth enough, you can use them as well IMO.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 11:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the PR is closed, I'm gonna take it to FAC. But before that, can you just help with two scenes? I want this translated: "மங்காத்தாவில் நடிக்க மிரட்டப்பட்டாரா அஜீத்!" and you to complete the info I added about Sarath Babu trying to skip shooting the climax (read page 117 for more). --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I'll get back to you on it tomorrow.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 16:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well? Just a gentle reminder. --Kailash29792 (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kailash29792, the translation is "Ajith was forced to act in Mankatha". As far as Sarath Babu goes, it simply albeit roughly states that Mahendran was helping out Sarath Babu in understanding the dynamics and chemistry between his character and Rajini's character, Kaali.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 16:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've again nominated it for FAC with you as co-nominator. May the fourth be with us (no pun intended). --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ssven2. Just as an FYI, wanted to let you know that I am currently on vacation, but I am still checking Wikipedia. Just wanted to explain so if you leave any more comments in the GAN for Admiral Ackbar but I don't respond as quickly as usual, you know why. But I still anticipate being able to respond even while on vacation. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 02:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Hunter Kahn. I'll get to it today for sure. Been a bit busy outside of Wikipedia. I'm sorry if I've kept you waiting in any regard.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 06:28, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No worries at all, take your time. :) — Hunter Kahn 11:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry to be a pest, but I just wanted to make sure you were still able to do the review? — Hunter Kahn 02:54, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hunter Kahn: Today for sure, Hunter Hearst Helmsley. The prose quality is really well done. I will look in at the sources today and conclude my review. Sorry I took up so much time.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 04:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for The Legend of Bhagat Singh, "a 2002 biopic of the Indian freedom fighter Bhagat Singh. The film stars Ajay Devgn as the titular character and is known for its direction, story, screenplay, technical aspects and the performances of the cast members"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Great to see this on the main page today. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so so much, Krimuk2.0 and Gerda Arendt. Means a lot coz its my first TFA.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 09:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Surprised that it's the first! Enjoy!! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I hope you are having a great week so far. Apologies for the super random message, but I was wondering if you could help with my current FAC if you had the time. If not, then I completely understand. Either way, have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for reviewing Admiral Ackbar, and I hope I wasn't too much of a pest with my reminder messages about it. I know you are very busy. And thank you very much for the excellent work you do on Indian film-related articles! I very much enjoy Indian films (although I've watched more Hindi-language films than Tamil-language) and would love to work on getting articles about some Indian films and actors that I like to GA status, but as an American who only speaks English, I imagine there are a lot of sources that would be unavailable to me. Keep up the good work! — Hunter Kahn 13:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, and please feel free to sign my autograph book. Lol I used to ask people who I've had positive Wikipedia experiences with to sign it, but I've kind of forgotten about it until recently! lol — Hunter Kahn 13:34, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Done, Hunter. Yes, I would love your help on contributing to Indian articles. It would be nice if you also commented on my ongoing FACs, the links for which are here and here. Thank you too for being patient with me.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 13:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ssven for inviting another reviewer, but could you please reply here? --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! We've worked well together in the past. so I was wondering if you would review the article Robert E. Lee on Traveller for GA.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 01:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS[reply]

	The survivor award for featured content
	Bringing an article to FA status is no easy task. It needs a lot of physical and mental hardwork and huge amount of constructive judgement, all delivered in good faith. The pain it causes in the cerebrum needs to be recognised. For one such contribution you made to Kal Ho Naa Ho, i give away this to you. Regards, Veera Narayana 08:38, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on your second solo FAC pass! Now can you please update the 2000 challenge page? --Kailash29792 (talk) 09:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iam new to wikipedia vijay fan article declined heart broken please help improving the article--Andoster (talk) 15:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:IARA_Awards[reply]

Thank you very much for adding the archive links to the sources on Rose Tico! I have done this kind of thing with other articles in the past to avoid future WP:LINKROT, but I always did it manually. I see from the edit history you used a bot, but I don't know how it works. How did you do it? — Hunter Kahn 15:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This link will help you, Hunter Kahn. As for the 2000 challenge, I'll update it tomorrow definitely, Kailash29792.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 15:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler is still not responding to my comments, but do you think these comments have been resolved or need to be?

• Why is the sister's name, or his boss's, needed at this stage in the lead, when it appears again nowhere else in the lead, and when neither name is accompanied by the name of the actor who plays the part?

It looks alright. You can also follow Enthiran's style of summary of the plot in the lead if you like. That I leave to you.

• Why is a man's doting on his sister (i.e. lavishing uncritical affection on her) notable enough for mention in the lead but without further explanation of how this ties in with the story?

Maybe you can say why he dotes on her so much (make it crisp).

• The same goes for the protagonist's "clashing" (coming into constant conflict) with his boss; why is that, without further explication, notable for mention?

Probably say they have different points of view with respect to their work ethics.

• Since Mahendran had no previous directing experience, cinematographer Balu Mahendra, who was already an established director, assisted him with the screenplay, dialogue, camera angles, casting and editing.

This one looks good.

Additionally, I hope you can attract more editors. But he who must not be named (you know who, not him) should not be among them. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:09, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Earth to Ssven2! Did you see this post? --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did, Kailash29792. I'll get to you this evening for sure.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 04:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Independence Day Ssven. If you get back to work tomorrow, can you please see what to do with this large para by Fowler which begins with "Hello. I'm not sure what to say. You have been very earnest and prompt in your responses"? I'll take care of Pavan's Veera's comments tomorrow as I'm not too well today. --Kailash29792 (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jai Hind and Happy Independence Day to you too, Kailash29792. I saw Folwer's comments and it seems to be more of a copyediting matter. Why don't you elaborate the plot a little more and also get it copyedited? You can ask Vedant for it or another reviewer more proficient in English (like Tim riley or Midnightblueowl or Prhartcom to name a few).  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 15:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kailash29792: You loved my old name enough to remind me this way? Interesting.... I've replied to your comments there at the FAC. I want to hear from Ssven2 as well, how he feels about any particular change we both are discussing. Veera Narayana 11:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will do so tomorrow evening.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 11:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, what a tragedy! Fowler has given his vote as oppose (I wish there was something like the opposite of thank button). And that is one oppose versus three supports. But I'm not gonna force the support word out of his mouth, cause it isn't there and looks like it never will be no matter how I rewrite. Because he wasn't clear enough on which sentences needed rewriting. Forget him, is there any other friend of yours you'd be willing to invite? Please, I do not want to fail for the fourth time. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now ironically the same man who opposed the FAC because of the "confusing" plot has bloated the same section to beyond 1000 words (I wonder why he returned), making it look more like a screenplay. [holds back aanandha kanneers] Oh what an act of generosity! Although I thank him for correcting certain details, I can't find out what to remove (I re-watched the movie yesterday to help clean the plot but he beat me to it, I wonder which site apart from Prime Video has the film with subs). Have you or Dr. Blofeld got time for this? I hope he has seen the movie, but I don't want to risk pestering him. I'm pretty sure you had leave today because of... --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:36, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having plans in the evening today and damn that plot's long. Needs a little trimming. I've seen it but it was 10 years ago or something. I'll see what I can do tomorrow first thing.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 10:53, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ssven why are you not participating actively in the FAC? What is keeping you from doing so? If it is personal, I'm sorry and I'll stop bothering you (since I don't know I'm asking). If it was your PhD, you should have put {{wikibreak}}. Meanwhile Fowler is becoming even more pessimistic and unsupportive, and I am 99% powerless to combat him since my mental health has been affected by his many comments which are not easy to solve. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:17, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kailash29792, I just feel its pointless to please him no matter how hard either of us try. He always just seems to come up with something. In my eyes, I seriously can't find any major faults with the article to be honest. And his query about unreliable sources? Seriously? He seems to be taking us for fools.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 12:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gone! I tried so hard and got so far, but in the end it doesn't even matter. I believed that, with one intense PR and a trusted co-nominator, I could have succeeded this time, but there's always one cynic whose oppose/pessimism triumphs others' support. First it was Vensatry, then Tony1 and now fucking Fowler! I almost felt like crying because despite my hardest efforts I failed. I'll never give up because that is for the weak only. Since I could not please Fowler, I thought you could. When I re-open the FAC, maybe a month later, will you again accept? When will your exams end? Because I have proven that I'm not a powerful one-man army. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh goddamn it! It ends on October btw and I will stick around this time to see your efforts get paid off. First we'll slowly analyse all the recent FAC comments. Open up another PR again and go for ti again. We'll try and try until we succeed.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 18:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a courtesy notice that there is an ongoing RfC about adding an infobox to Stanley Kubrick at Talk:Stanley Kubrick. Since you are a previous participant in such discussions, you may be interested in participating. --Laser brain (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why use non-RS, just because it's "needed". Panda619 (talk) 09:53, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fourth round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 454 points being required to qualify for the final round. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants with over 400 points being eliminated, and all but two of the finalists having achieved an FA during the round. Casliber, our 2016 winner, was the highest point-scorer, followed by Enwebb and Lee Vilenski, who are both new to the competition. In fourth place was SounderBruce, a finalist last year. But all those points are swept away as we start afresh for the final round.

Round 4 saw the achievement of 11 featured articles. In addition, Adam Cuerden scored with 18 FPs, Lee Vilenski led the GA score with 8 GAs while Kosack performed 15 GA reviews. There were around 40 DYKs, 40 GARs and 31 GAs overall during round 4. 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 5, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. 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 14 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 Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). 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. 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) 18:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hope Fowler won't take part in the next FAC. But I intend to solve his comments so that no other asshole (sorry, not sorry) takes his place. Do you think Cinemavum Naanum violates WP:PRIMARYSOURCE in any way? (read more here). Fowler feels it does. Also pinging Dr. Blofeld since he is not docile and may understand WP:PRIMARYSOURCE better, and can tell me what to remove. --Kailash29792 (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]