User Talk: Stikkyy

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

Your GA ↗ nomination of USS Windham Bay ↗

The article USS Windham Bay ↗ you nominated as a good article ↗ has passed 20px ↗; see Talk:USS Windham Bay ↗ for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a '''bold link''' under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it ↗ within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 19:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Your GA ↗ nomination of USS Casablanca ↗

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article USS Casablanca ↗ you nominated for GA ↗-status according to the criteria ↗. 20px ↗ This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.  Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 20:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Your GA ↗ nomination of USS Sitkoh Bay ↗

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article USS Sitkoh Bay ↗ you nominated for GA ↗-status according to the criteria ↗. 20px ↗ This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.  Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 17:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Your GA ↗ nomination of USS Sitkoh Bay ↗

The article USS Sitkoh Bay ↗ you nominated as a good article ↗ has been placed on hold 20px ↗. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria ↗, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:USS Sitkoh Bay ↗ for issues which need to be addressed.  Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 03:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Your GA ↗ nomination of USS Sitkoh Bay ↗

The article USS Sitkoh Bay ↗ you nominated as a good article ↗ has passed 20px ↗; see Talk:USS Sitkoh Bay ↗ for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a '''bold link''' under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it ↗ within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Your GA ↗ nomination of USS Casablanca ↗

The article USS Casablanca ↗ you nominated as a good article ↗ has passed 20px ↗; see Talk:USS Casablanca ↗ for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a '''bold link''' under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it ↗ within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 07:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Your GA ↗ nomination of USS Shamrock Bay ↗

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article USS Shamrock Bay ↗ you nominated for GA ↗-status according to the criteria ↗. 20px ↗ This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.  Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Neopeius -- Neopeius (talk) 20:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Your GA ↗ nomination of USS Shamrock Bay ↗

The article USS Shamrock Bay ↗ you nominated as a good article ↗ has passed 20px ↗; see Talk:USS Shamrock Bay ↗ for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a '''bold link''' under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it ↗ within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Neopeius -- Neopeius (talk) 18:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Admin sir

Perumal one of the quit india movement big leader tamilnadu, Perumal has played a major role in the freedom struggle. He has compiled this in a very special book, History and Life of Piramalai Kallar. I have shown it as evidence
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perumal_Vannar Rajathi 123 (talk) 08:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
:{{re|Rajathi 123}} You have to realize that at the time, there were exactly four ↗ hits on Google search for the name, none of which were in English. I mean, judging from the wording from the article and the dates of the sources, I thought that the article was referencing a contemporary figure, rather than someone relating to the historical Indian independence movement. If you can find enough to provide adequate sourcing though, well, go for it. Stikkyy t/c ↗ 16:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Your GA ↗ nomination of USS Petrof Bay ↗

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article USS Petrof Bay ↗ you nominated for GA ↗-status according to the criteria ↗. 20px ↗ This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.  Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 19:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Your GA ↗ nomination of USS Petrof Bay ↗

The article USS Petrof Bay ↗ you nominated as a good article ↗ has been placed on hold 20px ↗. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria ↗, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:USS Petrof Bay ↗ for issues which need to be addressed.  Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 05:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Your GA ↗ nomination of USS Petrof Bay ↗

The article USS Petrof Bay ↗ you nominated as a good article ↗ has passed 20px ↗; see Talk:USS Petrof Bay ↗ for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a '''bold link''' under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it ↗ within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 04:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Your GA ↗ nomination of USS Kasaan Bay ↗

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article USS Kasaan Bay ↗ you nominated for GA ↗-status according to the criteria ↗. 20px|link= ↗ This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.  Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA ↗ nomination of USS Kasaan Bay ↗

The article USS Kasaan Bay ↗ you nominated as a good article ↗ has passed 20px|link= ↗; see Talk:USS Kasaan Bay ↗ for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a '''bold link''' under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it ↗ within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA ↗ nomination of USS Thetis Bay ↗

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article USS Thetis Bay ↗ you nominated for GA ↗-status according to the criteria ↗. 20px|link= ↗ This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.  Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 13:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA ↗ nomination of USS Thetis Bay ↗

The article USS Thetis Bay ↗ you nominated as a good article ↗ has been placed on hold 20px|link= ↗. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria ↗, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:USS Thetis Bay ↗ for issues which need to be addressed.  Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA ↗ nomination of USS Solomons (CVE-67) ↗

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article USS Solomons (CVE-67) ↗ you nominated for GA ↗-status according to the criteria ↗. 20px|link= ↗ This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.  Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA ↗ nomination of USS Thetis Bay ↗

The article USS Thetis Bay ↗ you nominated as a good article ↗ has passed 20px|link= ↗; see Talk:USS Thetis Bay ↗ for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a '''bold link''' under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it ↗ within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA ↗ nomination of USS Solomons (CVE-67) ↗

The article USS Solomons (CVE-67) ↗ you nominated as a good article ↗ has been placed on hold 20px|link= ↗. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria ↗, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:USS Solomons (CVE-67) ↗ for issues which need to be addressed.  Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 09:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA ↗ nomination of USS Solomons (CVE-67) ↗

The article USS Solomons (CVE-67) ↗ you nominated as a good article ↗ has passed 20px|link= ↗; see Talk:USS Solomons (CVE-67) ↗ for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a '''bold link''' under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it ↗ within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA ↗ nomination of USS Hoggatt Bay ↗

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article USS Hoggatt Bay ↗ you nominated for GA ↗-status according to the criteria ↗. 20px|link= ↗ This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.  Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Your GA ↗ nomination of USS Hoggatt Bay ↗

The article USS Hoggatt Bay ↗ you nominated as a good article ↗ has passed 20px|link= ↗; see Talk:USS Hoggatt Bay ↗ for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a '''bold link''' under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it ↗ within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Your GA ↗ nomination of USS Marcus Island ↗

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article USS Marcus Island ↗ you nominated for GA ↗-status according to the criteria ↗. 20px|link= ↗ This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.  Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 15:20, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Your GA ↗ nomination of USS Marcus Island ↗

The article USS Marcus Island ↗ you nominated as a good article ↗ has been placed on hold 20px|link= ↗. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria ↗, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:USS Marcus Island ↗ for issues which need to be addressed.  Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Your GA ↗ nomination of USS Marcus Island ↗

The article USS Marcus Island ↗ you nominated as a good article ↗ has failed 20px|link= ↗; see Talk:USS Marcus Island ↗ for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article.  Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 13:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Your GA ↗ nomination of USS Kitkun Bay ↗

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article USS Kitkun Bay ↗ you nominated for GA ↗-status according to the criteria ↗. 20px|link= ↗ This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.  Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kges1901 -- Kges1901 (talk) 22:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Your GA ↗ nomination of USS Kitkun Bay ↗

The article USS Kitkun Bay ↗ you nominated as a good article ↗ has passed 20px|link= ↗; see Talk:USS Kitkun Bay ↗ for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a '''bold link''' under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it ↗ within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kges1901 -- Kges1901 (talk) 18:22, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;flex-basis: 40px">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2025 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2025|end}}-1 day}}. All '''eligible users ↗''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee ↗ is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process ↗. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2025 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2025|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

</div>
</div>

Your nomination of USS Anzio (CVE-57) ↗ is under review

Your good article nomination ↗ of the article USS Anzio (CVE-57) ↗ is 20px|alt=|link= ↗ '''under review'''. See '''Talk:USS Anzio (CVE-57)/GA1{{!}}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 MWFwiki -- MWFwiki (talk) 20:06, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Your nomination of USS Anzio (CVE-57) ↗ has passed

Your good article nomination ↗ of the article USS Anzio (CVE-57) ↗ has 20px|alt=|link= ↗ '''passed'''; congratulations! See '''Talk:USS Anzio (CVE-57)/GA1{{!}}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 MWFwiki -- MWFwiki (talk) 20:06, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

{| style="border:1px solid gray; background-color:#fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | {{#ifeq:alt|alt|100px ↗|100px ↗}}
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size:x-large; padding:0 0.5em 0; vertical-align:middle; height:1.1em;" |'''The Military Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align:middle; border-top:1px solid gray;" | Thank you for all your exceptional contributions to articles about the United States Navy ↗! Your hard work and dedication have greatly improved Wikipedia's coverage of naval history! MagnesiumCube (talk) 02:17, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
|}

Your nomination of USS Marcus Island ↗ is under review

Your good article nomination ↗ of the article USS Marcus Island ↗ is 20px|alt=|link= ↗ '''under review'''. See '''Talk:USS Marcus Island/GA2{{!}}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 Tokeamour -- Tokeamour (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of USS Marcus Island ↗ has passed

Your good article nomination ↗ of the article USS Marcus Island ↗ has 20px|alt=|link= ↗ '''passed'''; congratulations! See '''Talk:USS Marcus Island/GA2{{!}}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 Tokeamour -- Tokeamour (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I am restarting this review please put a new review in.

Thank you. Tokeamour (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of USS Marcus Island ↗ has passed

DYK for USS Anzio (CVE-57)

{{ivmbox
|image = Updated DYK query.svg
|imagesize=40px
|image class=skin-invert
|text = On 31 January 2026 ↗, '''Did you know ↗''' was updated with a fact from the article '''''USS Anzio (CVE-57) ↗''''', which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ''... that the ''Casablanca''-class escort carrier '''USS ''Anzio'' ↗''' once took the place of an entire fleet?'' The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/USS Anzio (CVE-57) ↗. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, USS Anzio (CVE-57) ↗), 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 ↗.
}}  — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

DYK for USS Marcus Island

{{ivmbox
|image = Updated DYK query.svg
|imagesize=40px
|image class=skin-invert
|text = On 18 February 2026 ↗, '''Did you know ↗''' was updated with a fact from the article '''''USS Marcus Island ↗''''', which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ''... that a rear admiral was wounded while flying on a combat mission off the escort carrier '''USS ''Marcus Island'' ↗'''{{-?}}'' The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/USS Marcus Island ↗. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, USS Marcus Island ↗), 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 ↗.
}} '''Hurricane''''''Zeta'''C ↗ 00:03, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

"it doesn't back your maximalist claim that..." ↗

thumb|Austronesian migration ↗
Since you took a very cursory interest in this dispute and made a judgement that I was being hysterical, I ask you to take a look at the map on the right. Polynesians reached Hawaii, Rapa Nui, New Zealand, etc. long before colonial contact. The seaborne migrations of Austronesians began 5000 years ago. Long before Arabs, Vikings, Phoenicians, or Europeans. This is FACT, from so many different academic studies in various fields (archaeology, linguistics, genetics, botany, etc.).

Polynesians (and Micronesians), in particular, were isolated from mainland Asia and had zero chances of ever meeting Arabs throughout those thousands of years. Even if they, as Anderson claimed, copied lateen sails from Europeans (who did NOT use lateen sails on their galleons) I have a simple question for you, since you seem to think ThoughtIdRetired makes so much sense:

HOW DID THEY REACH THOSE ISLANDS WITHOUT SAILS?

Do you understand why it's so absurd to claim that Austronesias had no sails before Europeans arrived? It is impossible to reach Hawaii or Rapa Nui by drifting alone. The currents ''and'' the wind go the ''opposite'' way. The designs of sails and traditional watercraft are consistent throughout Austronesian cultures. He is literally, thus, claiming we SWAM to our islands.

There are multiple other sources on Austronesian sails, including ones used in the Lakana ↗ article (Doran, Mahdi, Hornell, etc.). Out of all that, ThoughtIdRetired picks Anderson as his guiding source in his edits, even though Anderson is the only one who puts forward a HYPOTHESIS that Austronesians in Polynesia acquired lateen designs from Europeans. Read the paper. At no point did Anderson suggest his viewpoint is the CONSENSUS among his peers, and at no point did he even give solid evidence of his hypothesis. He explicitly says his viewpoint is NOT shared by other academics. WP:DUE ↗ is the relevant policy here, which ThoughtIdRetired is blatantly ignoring. Like in his edits in Lateen ↗.

And yet consistently, all of you think that his crusade to strip us of our seafaring heritage is justified. And none of you even try to understand why I'm furious at that. He has an agenda and he is following all my edits on Austronesian-related articles. How is that not obvious for you?  OBSIDIAN†SOUL 09:17, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

:Actually. Ignore all that. I'm gonna block Wikipedia for a while. I can't stand any of this anymore. Even after the article was kept, he'll still fuck that article up and so many more anyway. And you'll all let him, because he's so nice and civil about it. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 09:28, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
::Sorry you've been dragged into this. If you wanted to see an independent summary of the differing views over the origins of various bits of maritime technology in the Indo-Pacific region, the section titled ''Canoes and Voyaging in Prehistoric Oceania'' in this paperhttps://www.sav.sk/journals/uploads/0114084002_PETRIK_web_NEW.pdf ↗ sums it all up pretty well. The key point of the overall subject (early seafaring) is that there were two "nursery" areas of the world for seafaring, the Mediterranean and Island Southeast Asia. (Seán McGrail discusses this in more than one of his books.) With the first settlement of Australia, 50 or 60 thousand years ago, ISEA was obviously traversed by watercraft, as even with lowered sea levels, there were still some significant stretches of water to cross. An earlier debate than that in the linked paper is when sails were invented. The inter-visible islands of ISEA could be populated before the arrival of Austronesians by paddle-power, though some feel that primitive sails were needed. McGrail suggests "On present evidence, open-sea (out-of-sight-of-land) passages were first undertaken in the mid-second millennium BC, when propulsion by sail was widespread..." McGrail, Seán. ''Early Ships and Seafaring: Water Transport within Europe'' (p. 67). Austronesians made their first water crossing (into an already populated ISEA) about 3000 BCE. It is interesting that the Caribbean, despite having all the characteristics of the "nursery" areas, did not use sail until after Columbus's arrival there.
::My own personal take on maritime technology is that there were probably sails of some sort in ISEA before Austronesians spread out across the region, with some sort of stepwise leap in that technology before the Pacific was explored/settled. But the uncertainties are so great, my ideas are (nearly) as good as anyone else's. I'd guess that is a middle path between Anderson and Irwin/Horridge etal. What I have been frustrated in doing is making clear the uncertainties of the subject in Wikipedia articles. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 20:51, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

WikiCup 2026 March newsletter

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:

{{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant17|Bgsu98}} with 1,467 round points, largely gained from 1 featured article ↗, 5 featured lists ↗, 15 good articles ↗, and 42 FAC and GAN reviews;

{{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant17|Olliefant}} 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;

{{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant17|Generalissima}} with 1,095 round points, largely from 3 featured articles, 6 good articles, and 5 did you know articles;

{{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant17|MCE89}} with 848 round points, largely from 1 featured article, 8 good articles, 1 did you know article, and 32 FAC and GAN reviews; and

{{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant17|Rollinginhisgrave}} 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)

Source review

Stikky, could I trouble you for a source review of the Savannah River Site ↗ at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Savannah River Site ↗? Hawkeye7 (discuss) ↗ 04:17, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

WikiCup 2026 May newsletter

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:

{{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant17|MCE89}} with 1,333 points, mainly from good and featured articles about Australian people and geography

{{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant17|Generalissima}} with 1,169 points, mainly from good and featured articles related to shipping ethics controversy in fanfiction ↗, waterways, and Gu Yanwu ↗

{{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant17|Bgsu98}} 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

{{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant17|Olliefant}} 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

{{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant17|Gommeh}} 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)

June 2026 GAN Backlog Drive

{| style="border: 5px solid #ABCDEF ; background-color: #FFF; padding:10px 15px 0; color: black"
|style="padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em; font-size:130%" |'''Good article nominations ↗ |''' June 2026 Backlog Drive
|rowspan=3|right|75px ↗
|-
|'''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 ↗'''.
|-
|colspan=2|'''Other ways to participate:'''

Join the conversations on our talk page ↗.

|-
|colspan=2 style="font-size:85%; padding-top:15px;"|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) 21:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

WikiCup 2026 July newsletter

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:

{{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant17|MCE89}} with 1567 points, mainly from good and featured articles about Australian people and geography, as well as some article reviews

{{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant17|Bgsu98}} with 1547 points, mainly from good articles, featured articles, featured lists, and a good topic about figure skating, along with 20 article reviews

{{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant17|Reconrabbit}} with 1004 points, mainly from a high-multiplier featured article on European rabbit ↗ and several good articles, DYKs, and reviews

{{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant17|A.Cython}} with 1004 points, mainly from good articles about warfare, along with 22 article reviews

{{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant17|Generalissima}} 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)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

{| style="border: 2px solid lightsteelblue; background-color: whitesmoke;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | 75px ↗
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | &ensp;'''''Military history reviewers' award ↗'''''&ensp;
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid lightsteelblue;" | On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (2 stripes) for participating in 6 reviews between April and June 2026 {{user0|Hawkeye7}} via MilHistBot (talk) 02:46, 3 July 2026 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{tlx|WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space
|}

Promotion of USS Anzio (CVE-57) ↗

{{ivmbox
|image = Cscr-featured.svg
|imagesize=60px
|extracss=font-size:1.25em; font-family:Georgia;
|text = Congratulations, Stikkyy! The article you nominated, '''USS Anzio (CVE-57) ↗''', has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The '''nomination discussion ↗''' has been archived.{{parabr}}This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it ↗ to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, {{user0|David Fuchs}} via FACBot (talk) 11:06, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
}}