User talk:Guerillero

To Do

Summarize Timeline Fact Check

The fourth round of the 2026 WikiCup ended on 29 August at 23:59 (UTC). Everyone who competed in round 4 will advance to round 5 unless they have withdrawn or been removed. Round 4 was competitive, though slightly less so than round 3. Three contestants scored more than 1,000 round points; six scored over 500; and nine scored over 300. Each of the top five competitors had hundreds of points accumulated from multiple GAs. The following competitors scored more than 800 round points:

• Generalissima (submissions) with 1,318 points, mostly from 13 good articles and 3 featured articles about creeks and Chinese and Japanese subjects
• Vanderwaalforces (submissions) with 1,208 points from 2 featured articles, 2 featured lists, and 12 good articles about African leaders, along with over two dozen reviews
• A.Cython (submissions) with 1,084 points from 16 good articles and a small good topic about warfare and Greek elections, along with over two dozen reviews
• Vestrian24Bio (submissions) with 955 points, mostly from 2 FLs, 2 featured topics, and 16 GAs about cricket, and almost two dozen reviews
• Bgsu98 (submissions) with 837 points from 4 FLs and 8 GAs about figure skating, along with two dozen reviews

The full scores for round 4 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 10 featured articles, 11 featured lists, 8 featured-topic articles, 103 good articles, 6 good-topic articles and more than 30 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 11 In the News articles, and they have conducted 170 peer reviews, FA and GA reviews. The tournament points table has been updated.

Remember that any content promoted after 29 August but before the start of Round 5 can be claimed in Round 5. 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) 02:43, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi there, looks like you were reviewing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Tel Aviv truck attack (3rd nomination) while I was. I was concerned by an WP:INAPPNOTE by the nominator, who pinged an editor who nominated it for deletion previously but not all participants in the two prior AfDs. This seems like a case of canvassing since the prior nominator can be expected to have a position. Do you think it needs to be reopened and all prior participants pinged to avoid any taint of canvassing in the discussion? I’m surprised this wasn’t noticed during the last relist. Thanks for your perspective. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:15, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

@Dclemens1971: Discounting the singular canvased vote doesn't change the outcome or shape of the conversation at all. The consensus is rather clear. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:29, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

I think the question is whether the outcome would have been different had the nominator pinged all participants in prior discussions. I don't disagree about the consensus as it stood last night, but the counterfactual suggests it might be worth a relist plus a notification to prior participants -- especially since earlier discussions ended differently. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't find a strong need to ping everyone who offered an opinion 2 years ago on the subject. I honestly think the practice gets in the way of finding a consensus at AfD where revealed preferences are an important sign. I also think that in a topic area like Israel-Palestine it leads to a cadre of editors who turn the AfD into an argument about the topic area rather than the article. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:50, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

OK; just asking about it since it seemed like the lack of pings to all interested parties something that could have swung the discussion when I was reading it last night. Thanks for your perspective! Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2026 (UTC)