Battle of Old Fort Wayne

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)

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, people's rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension. Happy Holidays to you and yours. Always a pleasure to see your work. ―Buster7 ☎

A logged-in user is adding BLP violations to this page, and I see that you removed content from it added by an IP a few minutes ago. Of course, I don't know if it's the same content, but I think it might be worth it to redact what the logged-in user is adding. Thanks. JeffSpaceman (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JeffSpaceman, it's the same content, from the same LTA, and it's been redacted. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely just User:Dynoblex block evading. Same type of edits to their userpages, and the same summary when adding hoaxes to deaths in 2024 ("I added (alive guy)" using sources anyone can edit). Not to mention he's now death hoaxed Mick Avory and Shi Ping (politician), which just suggests WP:!HERE even aside from puppetry. Nohomersryan (talk) 22:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nohomersryan, a sock? Can't say I'm surprised. I'll open an SPI since it seems its their first (noticed) sock. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Muboshgu. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Josh Mandelbaum, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 05:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey... I've been having a dispute with another editor regarding transactions.. Every time a player gets dfad he adds the player who replaces them on the roster.. such as with Nabil Crismatt.. he added "was designated for assignment the following day after the promotion of Dinelson Lamet"... my issue with this is that players are DFAd before the new player gets added not after... and I don't think Lamet is important to Crismatt's article.. as he was called up for one game to provide length and was sent out cause he wouldn't be available for a few days and they needed a new arm.. it wasn't about Lamet.. I try to fix these articles so they aren't just transaction porn... but this is a common issue with this particular editor... what do you think about this issue? should I just let it be? Spanneraol (talk) 22:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. It's sort of relevant, but sort of not at the same time? I generally don't add the player in the corresponding transaction. It definitely shouldn't be in a page where the player keeps getting called up and sent down repeatedly as then it would get overloaded. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are approaching the end of the 2024 WikiCup's second round, with a little over two weeks remaining. Currently, contestants must score at least 105 points to progress to the third round.

Our current top scorers are as follows:

• Sammi Brie (submissions) with 642 points, mostly from 11 GAs about radio and television;
• voorts (submissions) with 530 points, mostly from two FAs (Well he would, wouldn't he? and Cora Agnes Benneson) and three GAs;
• Generalissima (submissions) with 523 points, mostly from 11 GAs about coinage and history;
• SounderBruce (submissions) with 497 points, mostly from a FA about the 2020 season of the soccer club Seattle Sounders FC and two GAs;
• Tamzin (submissions) with 410 points, mostly from a FA about the drink Capri-Sun and three GAs;
• Kusma (submissions) with 330 points, mostly from a FA about the English botanist Anna Blackburne and a GA.

Competitors may submit work for the second round until the end of 28 April, and the third round starts 1 May. Remember that only competitors with the top 32 scores will make it through to the third round. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs. As a reminder, competitors are strictly prohibited from gaming Wikipedia policies or processes to receive more points.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please read Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. 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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm glad you discovered what happened. Regards, ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should have checked before reverting. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem and not a big deal. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720 (talk) 12:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have retitled the discussion as to how Wikipedia should treat Simpson in regards to the murders: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:O._J._Simpson#How_should_we_treat_Simpson's_“culpability”_in_the_murders;_neutral_or_adamant?

If is to be treated as it is, that's fine, this is just a discussion for a possibility in the future. 92.17.198.220 (talk) 19:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mike_Gilbert

I have starting a discussion as to whether Mike Gilbert is notable enough 92.17.198.220 (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you're an experienced editor and I wanted some advice if it isn't any trouble. I believe I may have found plagiarism in the "Oil spill" article. I believe it was copied from this page: http://oils.gpa.unep.org/facts/wildlife.htm.

Here's a side-by-side to demonstrate. The page on Wikipedia: "There is no clear relationship between the amount of oil in the aquatic environment and the likely impact on biodiversity. A smaller spill at the wrong time/wrong season and in a sensitive environment may prove much more harmful than a larger spill at another time of the year in another or even the same environment."

And the website in question: "There is no clear relationship between the amount of oil in the marine environment and the likely impact on wildlife. A smaller spill at the wrong time/wrong season and in a sensitive environment may prove much more harmful than a larger spill at another time of the year in another or even the same environment."

What should I do? Should I remove it myself, or put a message on a particular noticeboard...?

Thanks in advance! Professor Penguino (talk) 04:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. In the meantime, I'll add the website as a source on the page. Looks like I removed it as a citation by accident restoring a dead link (whoops). Professor Penguino (talk) 04:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Penguino, I say first thing to do is go through the article history to see who wrote the content in the wiki page. There's tools like WikiBlame that can help. Question is, did our page come first and UNEP set up a WP:MIRROR? I doubt it. If it is a copyvio, then slap {{copyvio}} on the page and one of our top copyright experts will be on it. There's more details at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems#Instructions – Muboshgu (talk) 05:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On it. Thanks a ton! Professor Penguino (talk) 05:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: I think I found the revision where it was added: [1]. I should have WikiBlame under my belt in the future! It was a big help. Professor Penguino (talk) 05:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANOTHER UPDATE: Sorry to keep bothering you, but I believe the original source was in fact this study here, not the website: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/296136247_Effects_of_crude_oil_pollution_in_the_tropical_rainforest_biodiversity_of_Ecuadorian_Amazon_Region. Professor Penguino (talk) 05:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Penguino, it's okay, it was my bedtime. It looks to go back to 2016? This one looks like it may be complicated to disentangle. I suggest posting on the talk page, and I'd ping Diannaa, who is great with copyright violation issues. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. I believe another editor deleted the sentence for the time being. Professor Penguino (talk) 01:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8Rs-5cMvcIM - Was watching this & his racial heritage was mentioned by Vin Scully. While not well-reported, there are several mentions of it & there is a photo of him from 2008 ASG festivities that shows his father of the same name who is African American Will120 (talk) 03:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will120, I just Googled "Grady Sizemore race" and found this article that says he's mixed race. I had no idea. And his page said nothing about it. And that's what we have to fix. The article needs to have sourced content that verifies that he has African American heritage before we categorize him that way. The content in articles covers the categories. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]