User talk:Janosabel

Hi, I moved the page that you created, Janosabel(section)/first/second to User:Janosabel(section)/first/second. That type of personal use page belongs in User Space rather than in Article Space. First Light (talk) 21:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Same goes for Janosabel(section)/first ---> User:Janosabel(section)/first, and any others that I find. Please read those lings on Article Space and User Space. First Light (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Please read the links I provided above, and stop creating pages in Article Space that belong in your own User Space. Your subpages should always begin with "User:Janosabel", rather than with just "Janosabel". Thanks, First Light (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Welcome...

Hello, Janosabel, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.  Again, welcome! First Light (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Janosabel, Regarding LVT, I think the work of Dr. Michael Hudson is excellent on these issues. Both monetary and LVT and other tax reforms need to be part of a theory in order to put everything in context. The Labour Theory of Value and Rent theory of Price are key parts of this. See: The Theory of Rent Needs a Theory of History Take Care, Sincerly, William WjtWeston (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment acknowledged.

Janosabel (talk) 14:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Janosabel,

I read an interesting article by Michael Hudson concerning the failure of Georges reforms to be enacted.

Henry George's Political Critics WjtWeston (talk) 20:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Wikimedia Australia will holding Language Camp 2012 at the University of Indonesia on 6-7 December 2012.

The workshop has two streams: Indigenous Languages and OER (Open educational resources).

If you are interested to come and would like to ask more information please contact the committee: committee@wikimedia.org.au

For further information please visit: v:LangCamp_2012

FFernando.02 (talk) 10:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Factors of production, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Land and Labour (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. JMHamo (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Asset-based egalitarianism, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 16:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I was pleased to meet you just now at the London meetup. To find more such meetups, including the wub's online monthly meetings, please see the sidebar at the London meetup page. I also recommend the monthly online meetings organised in Edinburgh. They provide training for new editors and opportunities for experienced editors to network. And, of course, you can just chat with other editors like myself here at any time. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:40, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Andrew,

Thanks so much for these helpful pointers.

It was great to meet you all.

Thinking about the experience afterwards, I should have made a list of the names of you all. But there is next month. Is the meetup on the same Sunday of a month?

I no longer feel a lone researcher using Wikipedia. Janosabel (talk) 10:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

It's usually the second Sunday of each month. There's a page for the next one: meta:Meetup/London/185 where you can sign-up to indicate interest.

There's an online event this week for the annual Wiki Loves Monuments activity. I suppose it will be run via Zoom but the sign-up is being managed by Eventbrite.

Andrew🐉(talk) 11:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Good to see you both too... thanks Jan for ping on my talk page and I will surely have a read of your user page. Whispyhistory (talk) 06:53, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Janosabel, I heard you were interested in following along with Wikipedia's coverage of anarchism, so I wanted to say hi and pass along an invite to watch our noticeboard/project page. It's a great place to ask questions, collaborate, discuss style/structure precedent, and stay informed about content related to anarchism. Take a look for yourself!

And if you're looking for other juicy places to edit, consider expanding a stub, adopting a cleanup category, or participating in one of our current formal discussions.

Feel free to say hi on my talk page and let me know if these links were helpful (or at least interesting). Hope to see you around. czar 01:44, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello Czar,

Many thanks for contacting me.

Only a few years ago I realised that I was an anarchist. But definitely anarchist of the social type a la Murray Bookchin .

By pure coincidence your note appeared as I was wondering if I should read the biography of William Godwin I must have bought decades ago.

I expect there is a page on him in Wikipedia. Will head to it as well as looking up the links you suggest above.

Thanks again for the guidance. Janosabel (talk) 11:17, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Of course! That wouldn't happen to be the Peter Marshall biography, would it? czar 17:39, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes! How do you rate it? Janosabel (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Haven't read it yet :) but somehow have two copies czar 21:22, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I have been a user of Wikipedia for well over a decade... Have been trying latterly to become a "editor-in-improvement" but the explanation on every "how-to" link I try seems incomprehensible to me.

At the same time, I have an ambition which might seem ridiculous: start a project to establish a "Free school" using Wikipeda articles as Curriculum (or is it "curricula"?)... Janosabel (talk) 12:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you would be interested in improving some of the existing materials here: Help:Getting started? czar 17:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I should learn to walk before... Janosabel (talk) 18:35, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

A "Free school" using Wikipedia resources sounds like a great idea to me. Perhaps you would also be interested in the curriculum(s) being developed at Wikiversity ( https://www.wikiversity.org/ ) or Wikibooks ( https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Department:Standard_curricula ) or Open Circuits ( https://www.opencircuits.com/index.php?title=Basic_Electronics ). --DavidCary (talk) 18:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

How do I propose a new wikiproject? ... please see the last section below... Bottom section — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janosabel (talk • contribs) 17:33, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

That information can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject § Creating and maintaining a project. If you want more help, change the {{help me-helped}} back into a {{help me}}, stop by the Teahouse, or Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. What is the etiquette? Should one acknowledge these helpful replies or is it enough to mark them as red? Janosabel (talk) 18:54, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

-----------------------------------------------------------

There is no requirement to respond. You don't need to do anything to indicate even that you have read the message. Using the Thank button is a low-key possibility, but also not required. For some people's opinion, see Wikipedia:Thankspam. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:44, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I think I can use the above title on account of having mastered the insertion of simple missing links to existing pages. However, when the same linkable word or phrase occurs several times in an article should all instances be linked?

Thanks to all for their helpful responses.

Now I think the next step is this NPOV (value-free... can, or even should, knowledge be value-free?) business. Janosabel (talk) 12:21, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I think the answer to your question is covered at WP:OVERLINK and WP:LINKONCE. You do not link a term in every place it occurs. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:42, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and "neutral point of view" is a rather different term than "value-free". — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:43, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Janosabel. You have new messages at Talk:Philosophical anarchism.
Message added 21:15, 23 October 2022 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I've moved the discussion to the bottom. If you can't find it, click on the link. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 21:15, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi, per our discussions yesterday, https://edwardbetts.com/page_patrol is the typo finding tool I use to follow words like planing, pubic and preform that generate lots of new typos. It has the facility to add safe phrases as well as marking false positives as "safe pages". I don't use it for words or phrases that are always typos, those go into AWB for example Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos#at_the_at_the. But it is good for following words and phrases where there are enough false positives that we need a human to make a decision. ϢereSpielChequers 19:48, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the info.

Interesting to hear about the ins and outs of spelling error patrol.

I need to find people interested in a possible Wikipedia based free school. Have a draft Self-Curriculum by an eight year old aspiring to be a philosopher. Janosabel (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, can't help you with educating eight year olds via Wikipedia - way outside my areas of expertise. ϢereSpielChequers 23:15, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not clear enough...

Is anyone interested in considering a Wiky:Project to establish a Summerhill type free school using Wikipedia knowledge base?

The reference to an "eight year old" was the draft-example of a self-designed curriculum. Janosabel (talk) 12:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Janosabel. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:States not serving the best welfare or their people, 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) 13:02, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Janosabel. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "States not serving the best welfare or their people".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:34, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Janosabel. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "States not serving the best welfare or their people".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, Liz and apologies. I will stop messing up wikipedia spaces with my half baked stubs.

Does this have to apply to my user page? Janosabel (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Jobcentre Plus#Role of Jobcentre Plus According to information here 71,000 employees distributed £1,408 benefits to claimants. Assuming only minimum salary of £14,000 per employee and that staffing levels have not gone up, is this a really rational way of dealing with the impoverishment of a large section of the population of a wealthy country? Janosabel (talk) 10:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The article we were discussing at the meetup on Sunday now exists. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Janosabel

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username FULBERT, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I’ve proposed an article that you started, Capital as power, for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. To prevent the deletion, please add a reference to the article. You may remove the deletion tag yourself once the article has at least one reliable source.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|FULBERT}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

FULBERT (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Janosabel

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username FULBERT, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've proposed an article that you started, Capital as power, for deletion because it meets one or more of our deletion criteria, and I don't think that it is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The particular issue can be found in the notice that is now visible at the top of the article.

If you wish to contest the deletion:

1. Edit the page
2. Remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. Click the Publish changes button.

If you object to the article's deletion, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on the article's talk page and improve the page to address the issues raised in the deletion notice. Otherwise, it may be deleted later by other means.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|FULBERT}}. And remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

FULBERT (talk) 12:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Capital as power. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources and page is poorly formatted. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

The article now exists. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

The second round of the 2025 WikiCup ended on 28 April at 23:59 UTC. To reiterate what we said in the previous newsletter, we are no longer disqualifying contestants based on how many points (now known as round points) they received. Instead, the contestants with the highest round-point totals now receive tournament points at the end of each round. These tournament points are carried over between rounds, and can only be earned if a competitor is among the top 16 round-point scorers at the end of each round. This table shows all competitors who have received tournament points so far. Everyone who competed in round 2 will advance to round 3 unless they have withdrawn or been banned.

Round 2 was quite competitive. Four contestants scored more than 1,000 round points, and eight scored more than 500 points (including one who has withdrawn). The following competitors scored at least 800 points:

• BeanieFan11 (submissions) with 1,233 round points from 24 good articles, 28 Did you know articles, and one In the news nomination, mainly about athletes and politicians
• Thebiguglyalien (submissions) with 1,127 round points, almost entirely from two high-multiplier featured articles on Black Widow (Natasha Romanova) and Grace Coolidge, in addition to two GAs and two reviews
• History6042 (submissions) with 1,088 round points from four featured lists about Michelin-starred restaurants, nine good articles and a good topic mostly on Olympic-related subjects, seven ITN articles, and dozens of reviews
• Gog the Mild (submissions) with 1,085 round points from three FAs, one GA, and four DYKs on military history, as well as 18 reviews
• Arconning (submissions) with 887 round points, mostly from four FLs, six GAs, and seven DYKs on Olympic topics, along with more than two dozen reviews

In addition, we would like to recognize Generalissima (submissions) for her efforts; she scored 801 round points but withdrew before the end of the round.

The full scores for round 2 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 13 featured articles, 20 featured lists, 4 featured-topic articles, 138 good articles, 7 good-topic articles, and more than 100 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 19 In the News articles, and they have conducted nearly 300 reviews.

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) 01:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Janosabel. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:The-Corruption-of-economics, 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) 01:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Janosabel. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Eugene H. Peters, 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) 08:10, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Janosabel. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Eugene H. Peters".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission, and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions here. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 14:25, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

The third round of the 2025 WikiCup ended on 28 June. This round was again competitive, with three contestants scoring more than 1,000 round points:

• BeanieFan11 (submissions) with 1,314 round points, mostly from articles about athletes and politicians, including 20 good articles and 48 did you know articles
• Gog the Mild (submissions) with 1,197 round points, mostly from military history articles, including 9 featured topic articles, two featured articles, and four good articles
• Sammi Brie (submissions) with 1,055 round points, mostly from television station articles, including 27 good articles and 9 good topic articles

Everyone who competed in round 3 will advance to round 4 unless they have withdrawn. This table shows all competitors who have received tournament points so far, while the full scores for round 3 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 4 featured articles, 16 featured lists, 1 featured picture, 9 featured-topic articles, 149 good articles, 27 good-topic articles, and more than 90 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 18 In the News articles, and they have conducted more than 200 reviews.

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) 14:49, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

The fourth round of the 2025 WikiCup ended on 29 August. The penultimate round saw three contestants score more than 800 points:

• BeanieFan11 (submissions) with 1,175 round points, mainly from sports-related articles, including 17 good articles, 27 did you know articles, and 9 in the news articles
• Arconning (submissions) with 1,090 round points, mainly from articles about athletes and politicians, including a featured article on Philippines at the 1924 Summer Olympics, 9 good articles, 28 did you know articles, and a wide assortment of featured and good article reviews
• AirshipJungleman29 (submissions) with 854 round points, mostly from a high-scoring featured article on the Indian leader Rani of Jhansi and two good articles, in addition to 13 featured and good article reviews

Everyone who competed in Round 4 will advance to Round 5 unless they have withdrawn. This table shows all competitors who have received tournament points so far, while the full scores for Round 4 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 9 featured articles, 12 featured lists, 98 good articles, 9 good topic articles, more than 150 reviews, nearly 100 did you know articles, and 18 in the news articles.

In advance of the fifth and final round, the judges would like to thank every contestant for their hard work. As a reminder, any content promoted after 29 August but before the start of Round 5 can be claimed in Round 5. In addition, note that Round 5 will end on 31 October at 23:59 UTC. Awards at the end of Round 5 will be distributed based on who has the most tournament points over all five rounds, and special awards will be distributed based on high performance in particular areas of content creation (e.g., most featured articles in a single round).

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 – Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), Frostly (talk · contribs), Guerillero (talk · contribs) and Lee Vilenski (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) 00:48, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

The 2025 WikiCup has come to an end. Our top scorers, based on the tournament point rankings (which can be seen here), are:

1. BeanieFan11 (submissions) with 1,604 tournament points, will receive the 1st place award.
2. Gog the Mild (submissions) with 1,075 tournament points, will receive the 2nd place award.
3. Arconning (submissions) with 860 tournament points, will receive the 3rd place award.
4. History6042 (submissions) with 804 tournament points
5. Sammi Brie (submissions) with 635 tournament points
6. TheDoctorWho (submissions) with 386 tournament points
7. AirshipJungleman29 (submissions) with 373 tournament points
8. Thebiguglyalien (submissions) with 362 tournament points

Our high scorers in the final round were:

• BeanieFan11 (submissions) with 1,035 round points, mostly from 19 good articles and 21 did you know articles about athletes
• vigilantcosmicpenguin (submissions) with 819 round points, mostly from 13 good articles and 11 did you know articles about a wide range of topics from abortion topics to African cities
• TheNuggeteer (submissions) with 508 round points from 9 good articles, 4 good topic articles and 6 did you know articles mainly about Philippines topics, along with 19 good article reviews

The final round was very productive, and contestants had 2 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 106 good articles, 5 good topic articles, 178 article reviews, 76 did you know articles, and 9 in the news articles. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!

The top eight scorers will receive awards shortly. The following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. These prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field during the competition.

• Gog the Mild (submissions) wins the featured article prize, with 12 featured articles total, and the featured topic prize, with 9 featured topic articles in total
• Hey man im josh (submissions) wins the featured list prize, with 10 featured lists total
• AirshipJungleman29 (submissions) wins the featured picture prize, submitting the only featured picture in the entire contest during round 3
• History6042 (submissions) wins the featured content reviewer prize, with 127 featured content reviews. He will also share the ITN prize, with 20 in the news articles in total.
• BeanieFan11 (submissions) wins the good article prize, with 100 good articles total, and the DYK prize, with 147 did you know articles in total. He will also share the ITN prize, with 20 in the news articles in total.
• TheDoctorWho (submissions) wins the good topic prize, with 16 good topic entries in total
• Arconning (submissions) wins the good article reviewer prize, with 68 good article reviews in total

A special mention also goes to these users who scored the highest in a particular category in a single round:

• Sammi Brie (submissions), with 27 good articles in round 3, and 45 good article reviews in round 1
• Tails Wx (submissions), with 10 in the news articles in round 3

Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate. The WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2026 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement!

On behalf of the judges, Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), Epicgenius (talk · contribs · email), Frostly (talk · contribs · email), Guerillero (talk · contribs · email) and Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs · email):

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:24, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.

Hello, Janosabel. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "The-Corruption-of-economics".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission, and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 22:25, 15 November 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)

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) 14:57, 27 February 2026 (UTC)