User talk:Dank/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand ACR

Replied to your comment. I thought it already was translated? Buggie111 (talk) 03:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes it was. - Dank (push to talk) 03:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Stephens City, Virginia

Hello, I am working on the Stephens City, Virginia page in an effort to get it to GA status. I had a user working on the history section (which was very wordy) but he has lost interest in the project. I am aware you work on North Carolina pages and I was hoping you wouldn't mind helping a Virginian with page. :) Another user, User:JonRidinger, and I asked for Peer Review and one was done, which can be seen here. User:Parkwells, the user who lost interest, was working primarily on the history section. You can see some of his work in the page history. What needs the most work is the history section. It needs to be more encyclopedic and my writing skills, well, they aren't the best. If you wouldn't mind taking a look at the page and seeing if you could help, I would appreciate it. I really feel with a couple of minor improvements, this page is GA quality. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I won't have time for this, sorry. - Dank (push to talk) 12:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Okie Dokie....Thanks. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 17:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Planning Discussions Now Underway Regarding DC Meetup #10

• You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here.
  
• Please be advised that planning is now underway (see here) for DC Meetup #10. --NBahn (talk) 15:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Problems with a disruptive rollbacker

It seems that user:Colin Gleen is now using a sockpuppet identity, user:Michael Peer, to restore his horrendous, antiwikipedic version of Ferrol. Can you stop him? By the way, this user is easily recognizable for he's dedicating himself only to Ferrol, with articles full of useful stuff but full of POV and amateurish digressions (for example, in an article about a journal published in that Spanish city, 75% of the text spoke about Ferrol's economic crisis...). Let me know and thanks in advance for help... --'''Attilios''' (talk) 13:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The only blocks I do are username blocks. - Dank (push to talk) 13:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI

You might be interest in this discussion Gnevin (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Raleigh Meet

Because there are very few people able to attend, it seems as if we may be cutting the weekend down to one meeting, a Saturday dinner. I've edited the page down for the time being, but feel free to join in on the talk page as nothing is definite at this point. Lara 13:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Lara. - Dank (push to talk) 13:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:SHIPA, etc.

Hi, thanks for your note and the invitation. I added WP:SHIPA to my watchlist, but I doubt I'll get to it much. I'm focusing mainly on Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons, and I recently got more work in real life.

By the way, I see the above note about a Raleigh meet. Sorry I didn't get to meet you while I was in Raleigh for eight years. I moved in July to Albuquerque. Maurreen (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I like your archive cartoon. Maurreen (talk) 17:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I stole it from someone a long time ago. I first noticed your work when I saw that you were a professional copyeditor who actually kept up with style guidelines and AP Stylebook and lived in my state ... sorry to see you've gone, but I look forward to collaborating all the same. Gratz on being busy. - Dank (push to talk) 19:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Onecubicle.com

Hello, I'm working on the Onecubicle.com page and am still unsure of exactly why the page was deleted. Just looking for some specific details to look at for fixing. Thanks!

User:Tnxman307 deleted the page; WP:WHYNOT should be helpful. - Dank (push to talk) 19:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 99 support, 9 oppose, and 2 neutral. Your support was much appreciated.

Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 16:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

WT:OMT discussion

Hello, Dank! I am informing you that there is a discussion at WT:OMT#Moving forward on whether or not to implement a reward called the Titan's Cross. As you list yourself as a member of the project, I suggest you vote in it. Have fun! Buggie111 (talk) 20:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

London Times Cartoons CSD

Hi Dank. I've written a few times about Londons Times Cartoons. It is flagged under "spam"....and I can understand; it seems that way but it has some elements that others have not.

1. Only independent cartoon to pass an inventory of 4500 images www.londonstimes.us 2. Recognized by Wikipedia (I am on your Hattiesburg, Ms page) but not given my own page. 3 Recognized by the Ms. Library Assn (see top of my main site page) 4. Only offbeat cartoon to be on USPS postage stamps (over 200) for resale (not stamps.com private usage) 5. 1st and only offbeat cartoon to "go green" dedicating an entire shop to 100% organic cotton T-shirts. 6. I was actress/author Mariel Hemingway's designer for 2 years.

There is more but, again, it seems spammy. I believe part of it is newsworthy but I can't distinguish between what you prefer (and what is spam).

Please help!

Sincerely,

Rick London info@LondonsTimes.us

I get nothing at London Times Cartoons or Londons Times Cartoons. - Dank (push to talk) 22:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Appropriate Use of Tables in Ships Articles

Dank thanks for the pointer. It's much appreciated. I'm planning on opening a discussion topic at WT:GAN based on your recommendation. On the Ships WikiProject, one fellow seems to be contending that there isn't any appropriate place for table information in a ship article and has begun reversing previously editor approved content based on that contention. His theme seems to be that only narrative is appropriate. I think that's a overreach so I'm seeking resolution on the matter. Ussrangercv4 (talk) 12:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

WT:GAN people deal with this all the time, I'm sure they'll be helpful. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 13:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Advance (blockade runner)

I noticed that in November you worked on this article - there's already a page for that ship, so I've redirected yours to the longer existing one. If the references you listed had unique content you could incorporate it into the existing page. Hope I'm not treading on your toes! 203.217.150.69 (talk) 08:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

That's fantastic, thanks. I wasn't looking under "USS" because, when it was named Advance, it was a Confederate ship. - Dank (push to talk) 11:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that puzzled me, but I wasn't sure what the correct way to resolve it would be. (I redirected solely based on the length / detail... maybe I should have gone the other way and shifted the more detailed page onto the more accurate page title. I don't know the conventions around these things though! 203.217.150.69 (talk) 02:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, it's a tough call what the proper title should be, I'll ask some day when I'm merging the stuff I have in my sandbox to that article. - Dank (push to talk) 02:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Reliable Source

Replied there. Buggie111 (talk) 14:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Not a dictionary

Please check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady. Thanks.Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

advice on conversions and weapon name linking in Indiana class battleship

Thanks for your recent copy-editing (again!). The last edit you did was removing the unit conversions inside the red links to weapon articles in the infobox. Although I agree with the change, this does mean that in the current article the 13-inch and 6-inch guns are only converted once, both of them hidden in the design section. Is this acceptable or do I need to add additional conversions in the armament section?

Secondly, while I am bothering you anyway: the wikilinking of the 13 and 6-inch guns was done by a random editor a while ago. I thought it was weird he did not do all of them, but assumed he would come back later. He obviously never did and your recent edit has reminded me of this. IMHO either all gun sizes should be linked, or none of them. I personally don't like red links, but what is your expert opinion? Yoenit (talk) 20:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I can only give an expert opinion in the sense of pretending to be an expert, so here goes. The recent edits to MOS and MOSNUM, and the unanimous consent in the discussion, suggest that the conversion shouldn't be inside the link; instead, we prefer to create the article on the actual gun so that people can read the converted units there (if you have information on the gun, great, if not, I don't see how you could get denied at FAC because of the red link). However, Sturmvogel and others are insistent on adding conversions when there's no link, so anywhere guns are referred to as "13-inch guns", you can insert a conversion. Some writers do the conversion everywhere "13-inch" appears, some do it the first time, some do it occasionally ... I've seen all 3 styles pass FAC at one time or another. - Dank (push to talk) 21:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Only one conversion it is than and red links for all the weapons. Thanks for the quick reply Yoenit (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 May newsletter

We are half way through round 3, with a little under a month to go. The current overall leader is Sasata (submissions), who has 570 points. He leads pool C. Pools A, B and D are led by Hunter Kahn (submissions), Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) and White Shadows (submissions) respectively. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Two of last year's final 8, Theleftorium (submissions) and Scorpion0422 (submissions), have dropped out of the competition, saying they would rather their place went to someone who will have more time on their hands than them next round. On a related note, a special thank you goes to White Shadows (submissions) for his help behind the scenes once again. There is currently a problem with the poster, perhaps caused by the new skin- take a look at this discussion and see if you can help. The competition has continued to tick over well with minimal need for judge intervention, so thank you to everyone making that possible. Good luck to all! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 20:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for everything

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		Thank you for your efforts in copyediting HMAS Australia (1911). Your contributions and advice improved the article immeasurably, and helped it in the climb through A-class and to FA status. -- saberwyn 01:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I also have the impression that I've caused you trouble and/or grief during the process. If this is the cause, I apologise. -- saberwyn 01:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I need to do a better job, you caused me no problems at all. I was shocked when someone said you weren't a regular in our project; you seemed to know exactly what you were doing, and I'll be happy to copyedit for you any time. - Dank (push to talk) 01:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

SS Ernst Brockelmann

Hi, could you sort out the issue with an editor removing source imperial measurements from this article. I've already reverted once but have been reverted myself. I did raise the issue at WT:SHIPS and notify the editor but he hasn't reverted himself. Mjroots2 (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

My standard disclaimer when copyediting notes that I don't handle unit conversions because I don't think I have anything useful to add to that endless argument. Britain is a particular problem because there are solid arguments both ways concerning Imperial units. Sorry. - Dank (push to talk) 20:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Benea has reverted as being against the WP:MoS. Mjroots2 (talk) 21:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Special Air Service

Hi - The Special Air Service article is going through a GA review and it has been suggested by User:Parsecboy who is doing the review that I contact yourself to copy edit the prose. Which I admit is not my strong point. If you could help I would be grateful. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh he did did he? I'll have a look. - Dank (push to talk) 13:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm going to decline, I'm limiting copyedits to WP:SHIPS articles that show up at A-class review or FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 14:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks anyway --Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you!

Dank - Thank for your participation and support in my RfA.

I can honestly say that your comments and your trust in me are greatly appreciated.

Please let me know if you ever have any suggestions for me as an editor, or comments based on my admin actions.

Thank you!  7  22:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

FAC

Hi Dank. Since Helgoland passed the other day, I have an open slot for another FAC. I was wondering if you were ready to do Blücher with me, or if you'd prefer I put another one through to give you more time to read through things. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 01:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I gave Blücher another run-through and I'm happy, we can do it now if you like. - Dank (push to talk) 02:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. The nomination is up, we should be ready to go. Parsecboy (talk) 11:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

another fine job

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		for another fine copyedit, this time of Kongo class battlecruiser. Cam (Chat) 03:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for the long turnaround time; it's been a crazy month and a bit. Cam ^(Chat) 03:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, don't apologize for giving me a barnstar :) I'll be happy to copyedit and mine the references I have here for ship articles for you anytime, Cam. - Dank (push to talk) 04:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The Gore Effect AfD

You previously commented on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Marknutley/The Gore Effect. A new version of the article has been created in article space at The Gore Effect and has been nominated for deletion. If you have any views on this, please feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gore Effect. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Grab some glory, and a barnstar

Hi, I'd like to invite you to participate in the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. In May, about 30 editors helped remove the {{copyedit}} tag from 1175 articles. The backlog is still over 7500 articles, and extends back to the beginning of 2008! We really need your help to reduce it. Copyediting just a couple articles can qualify you for a barnstar. Serious copyeditors can win prestigious and exclusive rewards. See the event page for more information. And thanks for your consideration. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 14:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for signing up for the July Backlog Elimination Drive! The copyedit backlog stretches back two and a half years, all the way back to the beginning of 2008! We're really going to need all the help we can muster to get it down to a manageable number. We've ambitiously set a goal of clearing all of 2008 from the backlog this month. In order to do that, we're going to need more participants. Is there anyone that you can invite or ask to participate with you? If so, we're offering an award to the person who brings in the most referrals. Just notify ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! or Diannaa ^TALK of who your referrals are. Once again, thanks for your support! --Diannaa ^TALK 22:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit

Hey Dank, if you have a little time, a copyedit of my almost-completed User:The ed17/Sandbox/Rivadavia class battleship would be appreciated. Many thanks! :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I can get that right after Iowa class battleship. - Dank (push to talk) 21:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay doing it now, it looks like people are working on Iowa class battleship. - Dank (push to talk) 03:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, hope the prose isn't too bad. :-) I only have to write the service histories, but RL is intruding severely, plus I have to go to a class for work (last step before becoming a manager!) from Sun to Wed, so it probably won't be finished and moved into the mainspace until late next week. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I find that I'm fiddling with prose less than I used to, because there are several other people who like to do it and do a reasonable job, and I don't want to get in their way. If the writer or reviewers do something awful that doesn't work, I twiddle it, otherwise I leave it alone. - Dank (push to talk) 13:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of the Iowas GAR, might either of you be able to hit that final outstanding hurdle about armor references? bahamut0013^words_deeds 03:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I see Sturm deleted the problematic source and its remaining paragraph in the Armor section. Your edit summary says "don't think I can find that source" ... was that the source, or are you talking about Garzke & Dulin? I put all the G & D info on the talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 04:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Nimitz class aircraft carrier

I was wondering if you or someone else could finish off the few points made on this FAC - it's not an enormous amount (mostly a bit of tidying/ref copyediting), but I really don't have time to do it at the moment (I thought it would be finished by now). Fourth ventricle (talk) 12:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the guy to ask ... I have a good handle on copyediting and some technical details, but people are asking for something more than I can give. Sorry. - Dank (push to talk) 12:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I have marked you as a reviewer

I have added the "reviewers" property to your user account. This property is related to the Pending changes system that is currently being tried. This system loosens page protection by allowing anonymous users to make "pending" changes which don't become "live" until they're "reviewed". However, logged-in users always see the very latest version of each page with no delay. A good explanation of the system is given in this image. The system is only being used for pages that would otherwise be protected from editing.

If there are "pending" (unreviewed) edits for a page, they will be apparent in a page's history screen; you do not have to go looking for them. There is, however, a list of all articles with changes awaiting review at Special:OldReviewedPages. Because there are so few pages in the trial so far, the latter list is almost always empty. The list of all pages in the pending review system is at Special:StablePages.

To use the system, you can simply edit the page as you normally would, but you should also mark the latest revision as "reviewed" if you have looked at it to ensure it isn't problematic. Edits should generally be accepted if you wouldn't undo them in normal editing: they don't have obvious vandalism, personal attacks, etc. If an edit is problematic, you can fix it by editing or undoing it, just like normal. You are permitted to mark your own changes as reviewed.

The "reviewers" property does not obligate you to do any additional work, and if you like you can simply ignore it. The expectation is that many users will have this property, so that they can review pending revisions in the course of normal editing. However, if you explicitly want to decline the "reviewer" property, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC) — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Carl, although I believe admins are reviewers automatically. Always nice to get recognition though :) - Dank (push to talk) 13:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they are. Some combination of errors led me to give you the redundant permission. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

RfA

Thank you very much for your contribution to my Rfa. I have made a comment about it at User talk:JamesBWatson#Your Request for Adminship which you are, of course, very welcome to read if you wish to. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Please give me rollback

Hey, Ed gave me rollback a while ago, which promptly caused me to revert all kind of things when using my android phone on wiki. As I wasn't planning on using it anyway I asked Ed to get rid of it again. However recently I spent some time on recent changes patrol and now I want to try Huggle for patrolling, which requires rollback to work. So, would you be so kind to give me back the rollback feature? (I case you are wondering why I am not asking Ed, you have this nice traffic light showing you are currently active and I wanna give it a try right away). Thanks Yoenit (talk) 14:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand that you're rather ask a friend, but WP:PERM is the best place to ask for user rights. I don't expect you'll have a problem there; let me know if you do. - Dank (push to talk) 16:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I asked you because I thought it would be faster than requesting permission on the page, but no problem. Just means I will test it tomorrow. Yoenit (talk) 18:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

North Caronlina revert

I am somewhat piqued at your decision to revert all the revisions I had made simply because I replaced the entities. Though I somehow expected some response for it, a revert a cease and desist section was most unexpected as the replacement of entities was not the primary revision. The entity usage was inconsistent in the article as a whole, some sections with and some without, it makes parsing through the text more difficult (at least for me), and I was just trying to use either all or none of one style. I cleaned up the infobox for readability too. I was simply editing in good faith.

I humbly request a reconsideration regarding the reversion and your insight as to said reversion. SpellingGuru (talk) 14:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You haven't answered the question I asked on your userpage; has there been any suggestion that most or all non-breaking spaces should be replaced by regular spaces? If you're making changes without consensus, and you do them all in one edit, it shouldn't come as a shock if you get reverted. - Dank (push to talk) 14:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Also ... you're right that I don't know the best way to handle this, and I've asked at Wikipedia_talk:SHIPS#SpellingGuru. - Dank (push to talk) 14:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

To the former, as far as I can ascertain, not as yet. To the latter, I spent an hour or two looking for a similar precedent in the MOS, and came up empty. I was trying to follow the pattern used in most battleship articles, and that may have contributed to my surprise on the revert. I desire a consensus so I can edit uniformly across OMT as well. SpellingGuru (talk) 15:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

PS: I've been a Wikipedian for several years, but am still kinda new to using talk pages for conversing. SpellingGuru (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Brad has weighed in at Wikipedia_talk:SHIPS#SpellingGuru; he's been working on ship articles longer than I have. - Dank (push to talk) 17:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm mixed. On the one hand, the bullets in the infobox were ridiculously helpful in delineating between different lines (the problem is that they made the box even longer than it already is). On the other hand, I did not like the addition of "p." and "pp." simply because I have a citation style that I have been trying to keep up with most of my articles (unless it doesn't conform to the other articles in the series, like Japanese battleship Tosa). I've added the mdash and ndash changes into the article again with Advisor.js. We'd love to have you continue to help out OMT—we're not an exclusive clique, after all!—but please heed some of our advice. :-) Kind regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 18:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

That seemed like a lot of bullets to me. Here's a method I've used from time to time: the infobox for SMS Sachsen (1877). Parsecboy (talk) 23:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, sirs. Will try to watch my contribs a little more tightly. SpellingGuru (talk) 11:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Parsec, I like that bolding, I think I might start formatting my longer infoboxes that way. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Crat chat

So, do you still want that crat chat? If so, I'm up for it. I think it would be useful to have it regardless of the outcome, if nothing else than to sort out how we want to handle these unorthodox not-really-an-RfA-but -masquerading-as-one issues. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Glad to see your question, I'll reply at WP:BN. - Dank (push to talk) 12:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Indefatigable pics

Could you take a look at the Indefatigable article and let me know if the Jutland diagram overpowers that section? I'm tending to think that it does, but I'd like another set of eyes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

What would look best to me would be to reduce it by 25%; that would give readers enough of a clue so that they could make their own decision whether they want to click to see the details. But I'm really bad with FAC image issues, and I've seen images rejected at FAC if the writing wasn't legible, so I don't know. - Dank (push to talk) 03:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps put it at the end of the section in a {{gallery}} box? Think North Carolina class battleship#The "escalator clause" with only one picture. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject U.S.Public Policy

Dank, welcome to WikiProject U.S. Public Policy! If you're looking for something to do, just drop me a line sometime.--Sross (Public Policy) (talk) 11:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 June newsletter

We're half way through 2010, and the end of the WikiCup is in sight! Round 3 is over, and we're down to our final 16. Our pool winners were Ian Rose (submissions) (A), Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) (B, and the round's overall leader), ThinkBlue (submissions) (C) Casliber (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions) (D, joint), but, with the scores reset, everything is to play for in our last pooled round. The pools will be up before midnight tonight, and have been selected randomly by J Milburn. This will be the toughest round yet, and so, as ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Though unaffiliated with the WikiCup, July sees the third Great Wikipedia Dramaout- a project with not dissimilar goals to the WikiCup. Everyone is welcome to take part and do their bit to contribute to the encyclopedia itself.

If you're interested in the scores for the last round of the Cup, please take a look at Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Round 3 and Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Full/Round 3. Our thanks go to Stone (submissions) for compiling these. As was predicted, Group C ended up the "Group of Death", with 670 points required for second place, and, therefore, automatic promotion. This round will probably be even tougher- again, the top two from each of the two groups will make it through, while the twelve remaining participants will compete for four wildcard places- good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17