User talk:GiftedIceCream/Archive 1

Citing is a little difficult if it's your first time. There's actually a template for the TCR though, to save time, check out Template:NHC TCR url, hope that's easy! Lemme know if you can't figure out how to use the template. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:07, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

😵‍💫 🥏FrizzBtalk🥏 18:07, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Wait, crap, I might've missed a step, so I'm just going to do it the proper way. First off, you'll be using template:Cite report. It should look like this for Erick's TCR:

{{cite report|author=Jon Jelsema|date=November 10, 2025|publisher=National Hurricane Center|accessdate=November 18, 2025|url=https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/tcr/EP052025_Erick.pdf|format=PDF}}

And that shows up like this:^[1]

Hope that helps! Sorry, I should've just written it all out from the get go, and provide the right template lol. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I was having trouble finding the author when it was clearly in the first page lol. 🥏FrizzBtalk🥏 15:37, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

No problem! Just make sure everything isn't in all capital letters lol ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:09, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

BTW, I'd like to formally welcome you to the WPTC! Cheers and happy editing. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:08, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I noticed that a message you recently left to HurricaneImelda2025 may have been unduly harsh. Please remember not to bite the newcomers. If you see others making a common mistake, consider politely pointing out what they did wrong and showing them how to correct it. It may take some time, but it helps us retain new editors. Thank you.

HurricaneImelda2025 joined a full three months before you did. The only way they will learn is continued participation. Jasper Deng (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Hurricane Erick is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Hurricanehink -- Hurricanehink (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hurricane Hone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Periphery. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Hurricane Hone is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of HurricaneZeta -- HurricaneZeta (talk) 02:42, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Hurricane Erick has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Hurricanehink -- Hurricanehink (talk) 23:46, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Hurricane Hone has been placed on hold, as the article needs some changes. See the review page for more information. If these are addressed within 7 days, the nomination will pass; otherwise, it may fail. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of HurricaneZeta -- HurricaneZeta (talk) 18:42, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2026 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor, we hope the WikiCup will give you a chance to improve your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here, and a bot will set up your submissions page within one day, ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page.

For the 2026 WikiCup, the highest-ranking contestants will receive tournament points at the end of each round, and final rankings are decided by the number of tournament points each contestant has. This is the same scoring system that we had last year. If you're busy and can't sign up in January, don't worry: Signups are open throughout the year. To make things fairer for latecomers, the lowest-scoring contestants are no longer eliminated at the end of each round.

The first round will end on 26 February. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), Epicgenius (talk · contribs · email), Frostly (talk · contribs · email), Guerillero (talk · contribs · email) and Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs · 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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Hurricane Hone has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of HurricaneZeta -- HurricaneZeta (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

hey I am really sorry for how abusive I was. Mastercane F X (talk) 15:35, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

@Mastercane F X I never accused you of anything. FrizzBTalk 15:36, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

I ment to @FourNoddlers. And you too. Mastercane F X (talk) 15:37, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

respond to my Jan 2026 topic. Mastercane F X (talk) 15:38, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your patrolling! Just so you know, a username is only promotional once they make promotional edits. A few of the users you reported haven't yet made an edit and can't be promotional. – LuniZunie_(talk) 15:13, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Hurricane Beryl is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Hurricanehink -- Hurricanehink (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Timeline of the 1996 Pacific hurricane season at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Hurricane Beryl. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. The4lines |||| (talk) 06:59, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Hurricane Beryl, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A dates error. References show this error when one of the date-containing parameters is incorrectly formatted. Please edit the article to correct the date and ensure it is formatted to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidance on dates. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 15:41, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hurricane Beryl, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Houston Public Media was added. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Editing your old user talk page is not an effective way to make a clean start. ~2026-39501-5 (talk) 00:18, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

funny GiftedIceCream 01:19, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Vtuber reincarnation moment. ~2026-83117-3 (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Hurricane Beryl has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Hurricanehink -- Hurricanehink (talk) 18:37, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

On 12 February 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Timeline of the 1996 Pacific hurricane season, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that two tropical cyclones in the 1996 Pacific hurricane season made the unusual move of crossing over from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Timeline of the 1996 Pacific hurricane season. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Timeline of the 1996 Pacific hurricane season), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

HurricaneZeta^C 00:02, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

The first round of the 2026 WikiCup ended on 26 February. As some of you may have noticed, good article nomination reviews now receive 10 points, an increase from 5 points in the previous year, as per a consensus at WT:CUP. This point increase has been retroactively applied to all good article reviews for which competitors have claimed points in this round. Peer reviews, which continue to be worth 5 points, are now listed in the same section as featured article candidate reviews, rather than with good article reviews. Everyone who competed in round 1 will advance to round 2 unless they have withdrawn or been banned. No other changes to the round-point system have been made for this year.

Round 1 was competitive. Three contestants scored more than 1,000 round points, and the top 16 contestants all scored more than 300 round points. The following competitors scored more than 800 round points:

• Bgsu98 (submissions) with 1,467 round points, largely gained from 1 featured article, 5 featured lists, 15 good articles, and 42 FAC and GAN reviews;
• Olliefant (submissions) with 1,246 round points, largely from 4 featured lists, 9 good articles, 2 featured topic articles, 4 did you know articles, and 75 FAC and GAN reviews;
• Generalissima (submissions) with 1,095 round points, largely from 3 featured articles, 6 good articles, and 5 did you know articles;
• MCE89 (submissions) with 848 round points, largely from 1 featured article, 8 good articles, 1 did you know article, and 32 FAC and GAN reviews; and
• Rollinginhisgrave (submissions) with 838 round points, largely from 1 featured article, 8 good articles, 1 did you know article, and 14 FAC, GAN, and peer reviews.

The full scores for round 1 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 7 featured articles, 16 featured lists, 2 featured-topic articles, 168 good articles, 13 good-topic articles and more than 50 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 14 In the News articles, and they have conducted nearly 700 reviews. The tournament points table will be updated within the next few days.

Remember that any content promoted after 26 February but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. 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. 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 Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges 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) 14:56, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Hurricane Hone at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! TarnishedPath^talk 09:59, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, GiftedIceCream. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Hurricane Hone.
Message added 02:26, 5 March 2026 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:26, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi. I'm curious about the reasoning behind this edit. Are you a clerk? Uhoj (talk) 04:55, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, the correct format for prelim statements is"Statement by X". I was making a bold edit by fixing the heading. GiftedIceCream 05:18, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Re: this edit, the party posted a statement saying they were busy IRL for the next week or so. Valereee (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah but they were still actively editing today and yesterday. GiftedIceCream 16:48, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Workers there undoubtedly are fully aware and absolutely are fully capable of dealing with a party who seems to be blowing them off. FWIW, unless you actually have something valuable to add because you have experience in the topic/with one or more of the parties, an ArbCom case is not a great place to stick one's nose in. Valereee (talk) 17:09, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Likely why I'm not editing that much anymore.GiftedIceCream 18:52, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I heard you wanna join HHW soon. 🌀 Mastercane F X 🌀 🌀 Talk Page! 🌀 12:25, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Femke. I wanted to let you know that your signature does not meet the requirements for signature appearances. Your signature may have too little contrast. You can use a tool to check the contrast to determine if your signature meets the minimum contrast ratio of 4.5. If you have any questions, feel free to reply or ask for help at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Fixed? GiftedIceCream 23:18, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Maghreb. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Maghreb/Evidence. Evidence of misconduct by parties but outside of Maghreb-related articles is welcome. All private evidence must be directed to arbcom-en-b@wikimedia.org. If you wish to add another party, please make a request on the case talk page within the first week of the case. Please add your evidence by April 7, 2026 at 23:59 UTC, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Maghreb/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, Sennecaster (Chat) 02:19, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Hey GiftedIceCream! I noticed you changed your signature to march with mine! Thx! And sorry for these many *!* signs or however you call it Mickomicks 01:06, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

I changed it because of the above thread. GiftedIceCream 11:09, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

We are matching signature buddies now Mickomicks 12:46, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Please do not interact with blocked users/sock accounts are you did here. There is no need at all to continually revert everything the blocked editor posts, and engaging them in this manner just feeds their need for attention. If you think talk page access needs to be revoked for some reason, just ask the blocking admin (in this case JBW (talk · contribs)). I've mentioned a similar concern here and your response, before blanking and not archiving my post, was subpar.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:29, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Sure. GiftedIceCream 17:46, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, GiftedIceCream. Per your request, your account has been granted temporary-account-viewer rights. You are now able to reveal the IP addresses of individuals using temporary accounts that are not visible to the general public. This is very sensitive information that is only to be used to aid in anti-abuse workflows. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer for more information on this user right. It is important to remember:

• You must not share IP address data with someone who does not have the same access permissions unless disclosure is permissible as per guidelines listed at Foundation:Policy:Wikimedia Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy.
• Access must not be used for political control, to apply pressure on editors, or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to investigate a temporary user. Note that using multiple temporary accounts is not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of policies (for example, block or ban evasion).

It is also important to note that the following actions are logged for others to see:

• When a user accepts the preference that enables or disables IP reveal for their account.
• Revealing an IP address of a temporary account.
• Listing the temporary accounts that are associated with one or more IP addresses (using the CIDR notation format).

Remember, even if a user is violating policy, avoid revealing personal information if possible. Use temporary account usernames rather than disclosing IP addresses directly, or give information such as same network/not same network or similar. If you do not want the user right anymore then please ask me or another administrator and it will be removed for you. You may also voluntarily give up access at any time by visiting Special:Preferences. Happy editing! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:51, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Following up on my previous comment: stop "clerking" arbitration cases, like you recent did; you are not an arbitration clerk. I'll reiterate what I said last time: I'd recommend you stick to other tasks for now; arbitration is both super complex and brings lots of heartache. You will have a much happier time editing if you stay away for as long as you can. You may be blocked if you continue disrupting the arbitration process. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:43, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Hurricane Rafael has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Please also consider reviewing somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of CapeVerdeWave -- CapeVerdeWave (talk) 07:03, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

We had a discussion about WPAC leads, and it ended without a consensus. I don’t know if a discussion will help, not when the leads are determined on a case-by-case basis. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 01:22, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Is GiftedIceCreamAlt you? – LuniZunie_(talk) 14:33, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes. GiftedIceCream 14:36, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. In the future, if you use Special:CreateAccount, the accounts can be linked so it doesn't look like impersonation. – LuniZunie_(talk) 14:37, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Oh thanks! GiftedIceCream 14:42, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi GiftedIceCream, in the open Maghreb arbitration case, which you have commented on, a proposed decision has been posted. You can review the proposed decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the proposed decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Proposed decision. For the Arbitration Committee, EggRoll97 ^(talk) 04:39, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

The second round of the 2026 WikiCup ended on 28 April. As a reminder for contestants who just joined or are unaware of recent changes to our round-points system, good article nomination reviews now receive 10 points, an increase from 5 points in the previous year, as per a consensus at WT:CUP. Peer reviews, which continue to be worth 5 points, are now listed in the same section as featured article candidate reviews, rather than with good article reviews. Everyone who competed in round 2 will advance to round 3 unless they have withdrawn or been banned. No other changes to the round-point system have been made for this year.

Round 2 was competitive. Three contestants scored more than 1,000 round points; nine scored over 500; and fourteen scored over 300. The top seven contestants had at least one featured article (two of them with two apiece). The following competitors scored more than 800 round points:

• MCE89 (submissions) with 1,333 points, mainly from good and featured articles about Australian people and geography
• Generalissima (submissions) with 1,169 points, mainly from good and featured articles related to shipping ethics controversy in fanfiction, waterways, and Gu Yanwu
• Bgsu98 (submissions) with 1,149 points, mainly from good articles, featured articles, and featured lists about figure skating, along with many article reviews and two good topics
• Olliefant (submissions) with 830 points, mainly from good and featured articles about television shows, episodes and media, along with nearly four dozen good and featured article reviews
• Gommeh (submissions) with 827 points, mainly from good and featured articles related to Genshin Impact and Honkai: Star Rail

The full scores for round 2 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 12 featured articles, 13 featured lists, 2 featured-topic articles, 106 good articles, 22 good-topic articles and more than 40 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 3 In the News articles, and they have conducted over 200 reviews. The tournament points table has been updated.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 April but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed in Round 3. 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. 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 Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges 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) 14:49, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Hey there GiftedIceCream. Here's a few notes about Beryl.

• Have you added all of the sources that were identified during Beryl's GAN?
• Has there been any new information that's come out in the last five months?
• There's a broken ref in the preps section under Greater Antilles
• "It is estimated that insurable losses across region from the hurricane will exceed US$1 billion, according to disaster projections by CoreLogic." - this is unsourced and seems like it was written while the storm was active, not with nearly two years of hindsight
• In general, look out for passive voice, and see where you can rewrite the sentences using active. If you're not sure what that is:

• "The most significant impacts occurred along the coast, which was pummeled severely by storm surge" --> "The storm surge pummeled the coast."

• Are there any more impacts for any of the Caribbean islands? For St. Vincent, you mention that 90% of the homes were damaged or destroyed, and you mentioned a few hotels. Surely other buildings were also damaged. Were any historic buildings damaged?
• How many damaged houses on Grenada?
• "Tourist infrastructure was without major damage." - stuff like isn't as useful as actual indications of storm damage. Even if it was minor stuff like roofs or trees.
• Can you go into further detail for Mexico?
• The article is only 5,700 words, not above the size limit, but it feels short enough that there's more to the story. Have you thought about merging the Texas sub-article?

Hopefully that helps. It might seem like a lot of work, but anything in life you put work toward, eventually it will happen! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Hurricane Lee (2023) is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Hurricanehink -- Hurricanehink (talk) 22:22, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Good article nominations | June 2026 Backlog Drive
June 2026 Backlog Drive: Do you want to become more experienced in the GA process? On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles reviewed. Mentors are available, and new reviewers (<6 reviews) get bonus points! Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talk page.
You're receiving this message because you have participated in a good article review this year or participated in the previous backlog drive.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

(This message was sent to User talk:FrizzB and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

Good article nominations | June 2026 Backlog Drive
June 2026 Backlog Drive: Do you want to become more experienced in the GA process? On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles reviewed. Mentors are available, and new reviewers (<6 reviews) get bonus points! Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talk page.
You're receiving this message because you have participated in a good article review this year or participated in the previous backlog drive.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Hurricane Cesar–Douglas is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Hurricanehink -- Hurricanehink (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Hurricane Lee (2023) has failed. See the review page for more information. If or when the reviewer's feedback has been addressed, you may nominate the article again. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Hurricanehink -- Hurricanehink (talk) 22:03, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

The third round of the 2026 WikiCup ended on 28 June at 23:59 (UTC). As a reminder, good article nomination reviews now receive 10 points, while peer reviews, which continue to be worth 5 points, are now listed in the same section as featured article candidate reviews, rather than with good article reviews. Everyone who competed in round 3 will advance to round 4 unless they have withdrawn or been banned. No other changes to the round-point system have been made for this year.

Round 3 was competitive. Three contestants scored more than 1,000 round points; eight scored over 500; and thirteen scored over 300. The top three contestants had at least one featured article (two of them with two apiece). The following competitors scored more than 800 round points:

• MCE89 (submissions) with 1567 points, mainly from good and featured articles about Australian people and geography, as well as some article reviews
• Bgsu98 (submissions) with 1547 points, mainly from good articles, featured articles, featured lists, and a good topic about figure skating, along with 20 article reviews
• Reconrabbit (submissions) with 1004 points, mainly from a high-multiplier featured article on European rabbit and several good articles, DYKs, and reviews
• A.Cython (submissions) with 1004 points, mainly from good articles about warfare, along with 22 article reviews
• Generalissima (submissions) with 859 points, mainly from good and featured articles about rivers and East Asian topics

The full scores for round 3 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 12 featured articles, 12 featured lists, 7 featured-topic articles, 117 good articles, 74 good-topic articles and more than 30 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 13 In the News articles, and they have conducted nearly 180 reviews. The tournament points table has been updated.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 June but before the start of Round 4 can be claimed in Round 4. 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. 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 Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges 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) 13:49, 29 June 2026 (UTC)