User talk:Abductive/Archive 2

User Columbia1 on Columbia, SC page
Looking over this guy's incessant, unwarranted edits, it truly appears as though this guy is being a vandal. You've stated that secondary sources need to be given for his edits, yet he continues to provide none for his very dubious and irrelevant edits. Seems like something should be done about this. Akhenaton06 (talk) 04:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It may be beyond my ability to mediate. But I'll take a look...  Abductive  (reasoning) 04:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

User Columbia1 consistently deletes information on the Columbia page for a supposed "lack of citation." Isn't the correct way to handle this is to use the "citation needed" tag and not just delete information? Akhenaton06 (talk) 04:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The easiest solution is to provide citations. Don't forget that there are other users watching the page. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, then the page would be full of citations as Wikipedia in general is a secondary source of information. I mean where does it stop? Seems to me that things are getting a bit excessive here. Akhenaton06 (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Find one book, use it many times. See how I reused citations in 1770 Port-au-Prince earthquake? Abductive  (reasoning) 17:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * How is that even possible? I mean Columbia1 is removing words like "major" and "thriving" and "unique" simply stating they are subjective and shouldn't be in the article. Some things are just common knowledge for anyone actually familiar with the city and at some point, it gets ridiculous to provide a reference in print to something that's pretty evident or common knowledge. I mean seriously, it's a major disservice to the article at this point. Also, why is it that User:Columbia1 can make whatever edits he wants to without warrant, but I (or others) have to be put on the defensive? Should he not be required to initiate a discussion about proposed edits on the talk page or something? Akhenaton06 (talk) 04:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Another user, Lime in the Coconut, seems to agree with us. Abductive  (reasoning) 07:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

E3 2010
Hi there, I saw you removed the "current event" tag from the E3 2010 article. I've no intention to undo it, but I did take issue with your rationale; just because it's related to pop culture instead of politics and the environment, that doesn't make it any less of a current event. Pretty much everything Michael Jackson was labeled as a current event when he died, and no one disputed that. Anyway, my point is that what may seem trivial to you is important to a lot of other people, and you shouldn't continue such a line of thinking that just because something isn't an enormous disaster, it's not a current event. The Mach Turtle (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So chastened. I did not mean to suggest that the Expo is trivial, more that its currentness is trivial. I'll have to find a better word. Abductive  (reasoning) 21:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * But how is it its currentness trivial? It is to gamers what the Oscars is to some people, for lack of a better analogy. The Mach Turtle (talk) 22:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I should have used "passing". An article on the Oscars might sport the tag during the ceremony, but only because of the edit load. The tag is basically only for two things; to alert readers that the information might be out of date, and to prevent editors from losing their work due to edit conflicts. Abductive  (reasoning) 02:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I see. Well, in that case, good day to you, then! The Mach Turtle (talk) 04:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 02:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Masanao Takazawa
An article that you have been involved in editing, Masanao Takazawa, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. jmcw (talk) 13:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

AfD
FYI -- I've improved the article at the AfD here. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Indianapolis Men and Women's Work Release Program
Hello Abductive. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Indianapolis Men and Women's Work Release Program, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Please read the page history and the Talk page; this redirect is the result of an AfD. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

A guideline or policy is the preferable item to cite
In the long run, it is counterproductive to compare two articles, since all articles have temporal change in editor interest. And you may receive responses like "The X article that you mentioned had 10 editors today, and my Y article has 12 editors in a day, so I'm putting the tag back." The Deepwater article is, for example, not presently appropriate for the current tag, as editors are not stepping on each others' edits. It is merely actively edited.
 * That's why I cite the guide with this text: "Removed Current, intended for articles edited by many on the same day. Template:Current." -- Yellowdesk (talk) 14:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. Abductive  (reasoning) 18:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Re DRV on Spanish stuff
Abductive Reasoning. While I respect your right to take the position you did in this DRV your comment  Counting votes and calling it no consensus is improper, begs the following question: What evidence do you have that I counted votes. It is neither explicitly stated in the close nor in my immediate comments to the nom here Closure on: List of words having different meanings in Spain and Latin America (2nd nomination). Although nom alleged that I counted votes, he presented no evidence that I used that methodology. I did not rebut his comments, nor will I yours since that would violate the intent of DRV as stated here: ''Deletion review is explicitly a drama-free zone. Listings which attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias, or where nominators do any of these things in the debate, may be speedily closed''. I am just interested in whatever evidence you believe you have that supports the statement you made. If you were just parroting the supported accusation made by the nom, thats fine. If something different, please let me know. Thanks.--Mike Cline (talk) 22:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not even notice that the nominator said that. I feel very strongly that WP:NOT as a policy, is not subject to loose interpretation the way that WP:NOTE sometimes is evaluated by closers in AfDs. No matter what other people said in favor of keeping, they should have been completely ignored. The additional argument that the list does not distinguish between various Latin American versions of Spanish should also have rung the death knell for the article. Abductive  (reasoning) 23:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Appreciate your position, but Why do you think I counted votes?. --Mike Cline (talk) 00:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The weight of the "keeps" should have been zero. Since you chose to keep the article, you must have weighed those keeps more than zero. Since none of the arguments they made were valid, you could only have weighed them by counting them. Abductive  (reasoning) 03:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Foot odor
I have proposed that Smelly socks be merged to Foot odor. Since you contributed to the recent AfD on Smelly socks, you might be interested in participating in the discussion to merge at Talk:Foot odor. Snotty Wong  spill the beans 05:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

2010 Albuquerque, New Mexico office shooting
Based on the news coverage over two weeks' time, I think this is notable. I removed your prod. Bearian (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 July newsletter
We are half-way through our penultimate round, and nothing is yet certain. Pool A, currently led by has ended up the more competitive, with three contestants (,  and ) scoring over 500 points already. Pool B is led by, who has also scored well over 500. The top two from each pool, as well as the next four highest scorers regardless of pool, will make it through to our final eight. 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 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.

Planning has begun for the 2011 WikiCup, with open discussions concerning scoring and flags for next year's competition. Contributions to those discussions would be appreciated, especially concerning the flags, as next year's signups cannot begin until the flag issue has been resolved. Signups will hopefully open at some point in this round, with discussion about possible changing in the scoring/process opening some time afterwards.

Earlier this round, we said goodbye to, who has bowed out to spend more time on the book he is authoring with his wife. We wish him all the best. In other news, the start of this round also saw some WikiCup awards sent out by. We appreciate his enthusiasm, and contestants are of course welcome to award each other prizes as they see fit, but rest assured that we will be sending out "official" awards at the end of the competition. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 22:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply to your comment
Did shooting a bunch of wage-slave Nazi soldiers help defeat Nazi Germany? Probably.  Tisane  talk/stalk 10:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The Germans fought on well past the point of certain defeat, making them fanatics rather than wage slaves. The Italians surrendered, as they should have. Abductive  (reasoning) 20:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:DASH and spaces
Page move WP:DASH does, in fact, mention spacing around ndashes. I don't know what to tell you. If you need to respond, please do so on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hyphens and dashes That's exactly the function of a manual of style: to impose conformity on naming conventions. Other manuals of style are different and so it's natural for some of them to have variation. You wrote, "In this particular case, one of the two terms on either side of the dash is made of two words, but the other is not. Therefore Enriquillo–Plantain Garden fault zone is more appropriate..." which is exactly like the example given in the manual of style: "the New York – Sydney flight" At this point, I'm honestly struggling to understand your point and it seems like you haven't read the relevant section. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * MoS WP:DASH can't be "wrong" as it's arbitrary. If you want to propose changes to it, that's fine, but my talk page is hardly the place to do it. I'm "ignoring" the fact that there are different style manuals only to the extent that it's irrelevant; this is what Wikipedia's says and this is how things are done here. Of course (as I wrote before), there will be different typographical conventions in different sources. I don't see why that should matter. The New York Times write all abbreviations in this form "C.I.A." or "N.F.L."—nobody else does that. It's irrelevant that the Washington Post writes them "CIA" and "NFL" as they are two different publications. Again, this is a totally legitimate perspective if you want to change WP:DASH and if this is really important to you, I suggest you post to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dashes. Otherwise, I am clearly in the right and I don't see why you keep on posting to my talk about this. You were ignorant of Wikipedia's style guidelines and now that I've informed you of them, you want to argue with me about them; what's the point? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No The examples you cite are the name of one person (which is hyphenated, that is the function of a hyphen) and a part of a word ("Sino-") which has no lexical independence as a separate term. Neither of those things apply here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus I understand consensus; that is exactly what the MoS is. How do you think the text of it was made in the first place? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine I'll write this one more time: if you have a problem with WP:DASH, please go to the appropriate forum for changing it. I honestly don't care. If the standard gets changed, I'll change my editing accordingly. I have no idea why you keep on posting this to my talk. On the one hand, you claim that no one cares and then you insist on posting to my talk about this over and over again; that's nonsense. You've made your point and you were demonstrably ignorant about your claims. Now that you haven't gotten your way, you've posted to Talk:Enriquillo – Plantain Garden fault zone and anything meaningful can happen there. If you have something new to post to my talk that actually has to do with me or my edits, please feel free. Otherwise, you can save your gripes about the Manual of Style for its talk page. Since this is Wikipedia and it operates on consensus, you can have the MoS changed by posting to its talk (but not on mine.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

DuPage County, Illinois
On the DuPage County, Illinois article, I'd ask that you either write in a neutral fashion and provide references for what you are adding, or else please don't add it. You need to support your statements; it's not up to others to find references to support what you write. Just above the "Save page" button when you are editing, it says that "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable". In Truth we read, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." Particularly with controversial subjects, if a statement has no sources, it is liable to be removed; that's just the way Wikipedia works. It's not censorship, and it's not white-washing. Furthermore, what you say may very well have a basis in fact, but it's written in an emotionally-charged manner. Finally, simply reverting the removal of the material again and again is not productive. In a nutshell, do it right and it's likely to remain; do it wrong and it's not. Omnedon (talk) 02:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not add that material. I am not the only one returning it. The material is not POV, it is easily sourceable, and in fact the story is much worse than presented on the page. Abductive  (reasoning) 02:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In looking through the history, I see that you did not write it, so that was my error; but by restoring it you are giving support to it. If it's easily sourceable, then source it.  Since you support it being there, and since you are restoring the material, you bear some responsibility for seeing that it meets Wikipedia guidelines.  Otherwise you'll have to accept that other editors will wish to remove it.  Omnedon (talk) 02:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As for POV, you would say that opening a paragraph with "DuPage County government is most infamous for..." is neutral? Omnedon (talk) 02:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you think of anything else they are known for at all? Abductive  (reasoning) 02:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't live in the area and was not aware that this situation had taken place in DuPage County. It doesn't really hit my radar.  The simple fact is that statements, especially statements about controversial subjects, have to be sourced.  One of the tags which you continue to restore states, "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed."  The editors who challenge it are not required to support it by digging up sources; you seem to indicate that you have easy access to the sources, so just provide them and the verifiability concern will be addressed.  I would also question your statement that "the story is much worse than presented on the page", as this would indicate that the statements are not true or accurate. Omnedon (talk) 02:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll get to it later. Abductive  (reasoning) 02:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Peter Stephens (pioneer)
I noticed your edit on the Peter Stephens (pioneer) article. Is there a page for the famous William Tell? Seems like we would have one, I thought I had the right article. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 05:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The William Tell involved with sending ships to the new world cannot be the William Tell of legend, since he "lived" in the 1300s. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, gotcha. So I take it Wikipedia doesn't have an article for the ship-sending William Tell? -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 06:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, and I couldn't find any evidence for him. What was your source? Are you sure it wasn't the name of the boat? Abductive  (reasoning) 08:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Source was added, apparently I had an incorrect source, I corrected that. You can see it on the page now. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 22:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * On what page does the name William Tell appear in that book? I can't find it. Abductive  (reasoning) 08:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 August newsletter
We have our final eight! The best of luck to those who remain. A bumper newsletter this week as we start our home straight.


 * Pool A's winner was . Awarded the top score overall this round, Sturmvogel_66 writes primarily on military history, favouring Naval warfare.
 * Pool B's winner was . Awarded the top score for featured articles this round, Casliber writes primarily on natural sciences, especially botany and ornithology.
 * Pool A's close second was . Awarded the top score for featured pictures this round, Sasata writes primarily on natural sciences, favouring mycology.
 * Pool B's close second was . Awarded the top score for good articles and topics this round, ThinkBlue primarily writes content related to television and film, including 30 Rock.
 * The first wildcard was . Awarded the top score for did you knows and valued pictures this round, TonyTheTiger writes on a number of topics, including baseball, American football and Chicago.
 * The second wildcard was . Someone who has helped the Cup behind the scenes all year, White Shadows said "I'm still in shock that I made it this far" and writes primarily on Naval warfare, especially U-boats.
 * The third wildcard was . Awarded the top score for featured lists and topics this round, Staxringold primarily writes on sport and television, including baseball and 30 Rock.
 * The fourth wildcard was . Entering the final eight only on the final day of the round, William S. Saturn writes on a number of topics, mostly related to Texas.

We say goodbye to the six who fell at the final hurdle. only just missed out on a place in the final eight. was not far behind. was awarded top points for in the news this round. contributed a variety of did you know articles. said "I'm surprised to have survived so far into the competition", but was extactic to see Finland in the semi-finals. did not score this round, but has scored highly in previous rounds. We also say goodbye to, who withdrew earlier this month after spending six weeks overseas. Anyone interested in this round's results can see them here and here. Thank you to for these.

Signups for next year's competition are now open. Planning is ongoing, with a key discussion about judges for next year open. Discussion about how next year's scoring will work is ongoing, and thoughts are more than welcome at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring. Also, TonyTheTiger is compiling some information and statistics on the finalists here- the final eight are encouraged to add themselves to the list.

Our final eight will play it out for two months, after which we will know 2010's WikiCup winner, and a variety of prizes will be awarded. 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 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. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 23:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Web presence
Template:Web presence has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. 68.35.13.81 (talk) 23:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Jcolomba
I find it rather amusing that you just welcomed a user whose only two edits were over five years ago. J I P &#124; Talk 05:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The proposed-deletion-notify template does that automatically if the person's talk page has never been edited. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I didn't know that, thanks. J I P  &#124; Talk 05:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

List of bridges over the Rhine
I have split the railway crossings to List of bridges over the Rhine. You can trim down the section Rhine. I will not do it as long as you are editing. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I won't be editing for a while, got to go get something to eat. Abductive  (reasoning) 00:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Show Cats: The Standard of Perfection
With respects... how could you miss the full-length review in The New York Times? I found it in about ten seconds. With respects, I'll give it some major expansion and sourcing before opining my keep at the AFD. Just thought I'd let you know that the "A Team" is on it. Best.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * A surprising success... as my using "Mark Lewis" +"Show Cats", as a diffferent set of parameters than that offered by somewhat limiting "Find sources" offered by the deletion template, I was indeed able to find multiple in-depth reviews and commentary on this dumb film. Go figure. As documentaries go, it seems to meet the inclusion criteria of WP:NF.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Good catch on the title. The Find sources at the bottom of the AFD is a bit more positive in its results.  I blame the article's creator (chuckle), as I know you did your BEFORE.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * And not that you need to after your gracious comment at the AFD page, but sometimes... and to perhaps stress that outstanding delete votes have not revisted a discussion... a nominator does something like THIS to emphasize his agreements with improvements. Again, Thank you.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Its now at the proper The Standard of Perfection: Show Cats per reliable sources toward the title. Nice catch.  Good night and have a great tomorrow.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 September newsletter
We are half-way through our final round, entering the home straight. leads at the time of writing with 1180 points, immediately followed by with 1175 points. closely follows in third place with 1100 points. For those who are interested, data about the finalists has been compiled at WikiCup/History/2010/finalists, while a list of content submitted by all WikiCup contestants prior to this round has been compiled at WikiCup/History/2010/Submissions. As ever, anything contestants worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at 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.

Despite controversy, the WikiCup remains open. Signups for next year's competition are more than welcome, and suggestions for how next year's competition will work are appreciated at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring. More general comments and discussions should be directed at the WikiCup talk page. One month remains in the 2010 WikiCup, after which we will know our champion. Good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 23:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

M.P. Smith
Take another look at the article before nominating for deletion. He's Professor & Head of Dept. at his university, which is notability by WP:PROF. All it took was finding his CV. I usually try that before placing a PROD tag.  DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There are hundreds of thousands of Professors and tens of thousands of Chairs in the world. Wikipedia is not a directory of everybody who has advanced in their adminstrative careers to some arbitrary point. The University of Birmingham is "is ranked nationally between 10th (The Times HES) and 23rd (The Independent), and internationally between 59th (QS); The Times HES[16]) and 94th (ARWU[19]) in the latest respective rankings. The Sunday Times' composite ranking placed the university 19th from 1998-2007." So what we have is a guy who has not contributed diddly-squat to our understanding of conodonts, an unbelievably obscure branch of the fossil record, at an above average university. How do I know he is not important? In addition to having very low citations relative to his peers in conodont research, he has not been awarded the Pander Medal, the prize given out to conodont workers. Abductive  (reasoning) 20:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Hounding accusation?
Why did you ask me to look at the Hounding rule? Green Cardamom (talk) 04:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

speedy deletion
I'm planning to expand the article September 2010 Minnesota/Wisconsin Flood. Discussion continues here Talk:September 2010 Minnesota/Wisconsin Flood. Joseph507357 (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Clerkenwell Cinema Fire
I'm not quite sure how you arrived at the idea that this article was worthy of deletion. Certainly when compared with other fires on Wikipedia from the same period, particularly those of the US, this incident has 1) a higher death toll than many which are deemed acceptable and 2) raises more social and cultural concerns. I will therefore not abide any attempts of your to remove the article. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AbrahamCat (talk • contribs) 21:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I have nominated it for deletion by the community. It's out of our hands now. Abductive  (reasoning) 21:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

If you don't mind the question
What is your field of research? I notice you bringing a lot of academic biographies to AFD, and it'd be helpful to know where you have particular insight into citation patterns and rates in a particular field. No obligation to answer, if you don't want to. Cheers, Ray  Talk 00:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Biological sciences. But my "insight" into citation patterns is just to look at the h-index and to make comparisons to either similar researchers and/or check for other papers on the same topic. WP:PROF is largely correct, but I like to read about some important discovery or other major contribution made by the subject. Abductive  (reasoning) 03:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Bicycle Quarterly
Please clean up the tag you placed on the Bicycle Quarterly page. It did not format correctly. Ebikeguy (talk) 17:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * They always look like that. Abductive  (reasoning) 18:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Your WP: UNDUE judgement
Dear Abductive, on 5 Sept 09 you removed the link (and accompanying sentence) to Potentially all pairwise rankings of all possible alternatives that I'd added to Pairwise comparison because of WP: UNDUE. The first article was also removed by other editors because it failed notability. Recently, the article has been reinstated (notability has been satisfied - due to 6 recently published sources referring to the method discussed in the article). Hence do you still consider that WP: UNDUE disqualifies the first article from being referred to in the Pairwise comparison article? The first article describes a method that is 100% based on pairwise comparisons. That is, would you consider reversing your original judgement? (I have also raised this issue - in a more general sense - on the discussion page of the second article.) Best wishes, Paul Hansen Paulwizard (talk) 20:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The underlying paper by Hansen and Ombler has only 3 citations since 2008. How do you explain that? Abductive  (reasoning) 20:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your quick reply. The underlying article by Hansen & Ombler was published in 2009 (contrary to Scholar reporting 2008). Since then, as well as the 3 citations you found in Scholar, the article is cited in:

Smith, C (2009), "Revealing monetary policy preferences", Reserve Bank of New Zealand Discussion Paper Series, DP2009/01

In addition, the software that implements the method described in the Hansen & Ombler (2009) article is cited in the following 3 journal publications. These publications and the 4 others referred to above all describe studies conducted using the software (and thus that used the method).

Fitzgerald et al (2010), “Relative urgency for referral from primary care to rheumatologists: The priority referral score”, Arthritis Care & Research Oct 1 [Epub ahead of print]

Noseworthy et al (2009), “Priority-setting tools for improving access to medical specialists”, poster presentation, 6th Health Technology Assessment International Annual Meeting, Singapore, 2009, Annals, Academy of Medicine, Singapore, 38: S78

Fitzgerald et al (2009), “WCWL Rheumatology Priority Referral Score reliability and validity testing” abstract, The 2009 ACR/ARHP Annual Scientific Meeting, Arthritis & Rheumatology, 60 Suppl 10: 54

Finally, in addition to the above-mentioned 7 citations, the following 12 conference papers (most are verifiable from the conference programs) report on studies conducted using the method and the software that implements the method. (Sorry about the length of this post.)

RAH Stewart et al. “Comparison of a clinical score with individual clinician judgement for assigning priority for heart valve surgery”, European Society of Cardiology Congress, Stockholm, 2010

P Herbison, “A last attempt to rank studies for risk of bias using 1000Minds”, Joint Colloquium of the Cochrane & Campbell Collaborations, Colorado, 2010

O Golan & P Hansen, “A new decision-support framework for prioritization of new health technologies: the ‘Value for Money’ Chart”, The 8th Biennial Conference of the International Society on Priorities in Health Care, Boston, 2010

R Morgan & N Fletcher, “Evaluating software to capture value preferences”, 29th Meeting of the International Association for Impact Assessment, Ghana, 2009

De Coster & T Noseworthy, “Improving wait times in the referral-consultation process: WCWL priority referral scores”, Taming of the Queue VI: Improving Patient Flow, 6th National Invitational Conference on Wait Time Measurement, Monitoring & Management, Ottawa, 2009

O Tal & O Golan, “Criteria for priority setting in health – Are there universal criteria for allocating resources for publicly funded healthcare?”, 7th Annual Health Policy Conference, Tel Aviv, 2008

C De Coster et al. “Developing priority-setting referral tools for medical specialities”, Canadian Association for Health Services & Policy Research Conference, Gatineau, 2008

A Fitzgerald et al. “Priority-setting for referrals from primary care providers to rheumatologists”, American College of Rheumatology, 2008 Annual Scientific Meeting, San Francisco

P Herbison, “Can 1000Minds be used to provide a valid ranking of studies by risk of bias?”, Joint Meeting of the Cochrane Statistical Methods Group & the UK Meta-Analysis in Medicine Group, Freiburg, 2008 N Fletcher & R Morgan, “Characterising value preferences in impact assessment: Evaluation of the 1000Minds software package”, NZ Association for Impact Assessment Conference, 2008

R Naden et al. “Assigning clinical priority: a systematic methodology”, 6th International Conference on Priorities in Health Care, Toronto, 2006

A Barber et al. “Prioritisation for coronary artery bypass surgery: can the process be improved?”, 5th International Conference on Priorities in Health Care, Wellington, 2004

Thanks for your consideration. (And so that it is clear, as I have acknowledged elsewhere, I am the co-inventor of the method and the software referred to.) Best wishes, Paul Hansen Paulwizard (talk) 02:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

You removed Koch's response to criticism from the David H. Koch page
It strikes me that it is appropriate to include his response to the criticism, no? Just curious about your thinking here. MBMadmirer (talk) 20:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I felt the whole section was too polemic. Why is reporting on the giving of money to promote the dismantling of government considered criticism? Why were there so many quotes in the section? Best to just remove it. Abductive  (reasoning) 20:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it is a pretty ideological debate. When a White House staffer says that the two brothers are "campaigners you can't see", it strikes me that they deserve a response. And given that David did go on record with Elaine Lafferty, I thought that would be pretty reasonable. Do you think that any rebuttal from David is appropriate? If not, is it ok if I take this back to the talk page for the article? I had discussed it there. MBMadmirer (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have an ideological gripe with giving the names of all these reporters and newspapers inline (other than Jane Mayer) and using quotes all over the place. It would be better to just say things and use refs for backup. I see now that David's denial is missing. Since David has been videotaped at a Tea Party function, and has given money to many PACs, perhaps it would be best to just say that he denies giving money directly to Tea Parties. Abductive  (reasoning) 21:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * These are really sensible points. How about this solution? "Others have noted that David Koch and Koch Industries have also given to Democrats in 2010 and earlier, and Koch Industries has specifically denied giving to any specifically Tea Party groups." with references to Elaine Lafferty's piece in the Daily Beast and one of the recent stories about the denial. MBMadmirer (talk) 12:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Nearly everyone gives piddling amounts to both parties. By WP:UNDUE, this should not be mentioned. People keep removing reference to Koch Industries from the article, yet you want to use the company's denial? Abductive  (reasoning) 13:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 75k to Andrew Cuomo is piddling? So far you want to remove David Koch's denial and Koch Industries denial. What would you suggest, specifically? MBMadmirer (talk) 15:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A tiny fraction of his total giving. By all means put in David Koch's denial, using the language he used without quotes and putting all the ref info in the ref. Abductive  (reasoning) 18:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikihounding
Why would you send me that link? Ebikeguy (talk) 14:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

December 30, 2009 pro-government rally in Iran
I have removed the prod tag from December 30, 2009 pro-government rally in Iran, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! VER Tott  11:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

User Columbia1 on Columbia, SC page
You should check his recent activity on the Columbia, SC page. The guy is being a troll and is re-adding info that was already deemed irrelevant and info without linking to sources. I commented about these issues on the discussion page. Something needs to be done about that guy. Akhenaton06 (talk) 02:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Oldafd
Hi, this has been nominated before, closed as no consensus (see here). --Crusio (talk) 09:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 October newsletter
The 2010 WikiCup is over! It has been a long journey, but what has been achieved is impressive: combined, participants have produced over seventy featured articles, over five hundred good articles, over fifty featured lists, over one thousand one hundred "did you know" entries, in addition to various other pieces of recognised content. A full list (which has yet to be updated to reflect the scores in the final round) can be found here. Perhaps more importantly, we have our winner! The 2010 WikiCup champion is, with an unbelievable 4220 points in the final round. Second place goes to, with 2260, and third to , with 560. Congratulations to our other four finalists –, , and. Also, congratulations to, who withdrew from the competition with an impressive 2685 points earlier in this round.

Prizes will also be going to those who claimed the most points for different types of content in a single round. It was decided that the prizes would be awarded for those with the highest in a round, rather than overall, so that the finalists did not have an unfair advantage. Winning the featured article prize is, for five featured articles in round 4. Winning the good article prize is, for eighty-one good articles in round 5. Winning the featured list prize is, for six featured lists in round 1. Winning the picture and sound award is, for four featured pictures in round 3. Winning the topic award is, for forty-seven articles in various good topics in round 5. Winning the "did you know" award is, for over one hundred did you knows is round 5. Finally, winning the in the news award is, for nineteen articles in the news in round three.

The WikiCup has faced criticism in the last month – hopefully, we will take something positive from it and create a better contest for next year. Like Wikipedia itself, the Cup is a work in progress, and ideas for how it should work are more than welcome on the WikiCup talk page and on the scoring talk page. Also, people are more than welcome to sign up for next year's competition on the signup page. Well done and thank you to everyone involved – the Cup has been a pleasure to run, and we, as judges, have been proud to be a part of it. We hope that next year, however the Cup is working, and whoever is running it, it will be back, stronger and more popular than ever. Until then, goodbye and happy editing! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 03:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Pittsburgh Undergraduate Review
You might be interested in this one. See also the long discussion on the talk page. --Crusio (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have seen it many times. It may pass the GNG. Abductive  (reasoning) 12:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Hero Corp


The article Hero Corp has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable cable channel program.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kugao (talk) 19:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Anushka Wirasinha
You may remember this article which was deleted at AfD in June. A new, fuller version has been prepared and, being asked for advice, I have decided that the best thing to do is to post it and relist at AfD for the community's opinion. I am notifying everyone who was involved before: your views are welcome at Articles for deletion/Anushka Wirasinha (2nd nomination). Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Fish diseases and parasites
Hi Abductive. Fish diseases and parasites is an article I wrote, mainly because I was trying to fill gaps in the aquaculture articles. Fish diseases and parasites are of particular interest in aquaculture. You then removed Category:Aquaculture from the article with the cryptic comment: "Categories are not to be used to cobble together a how to guide". I'm curious. What does this mean? --Epipelagic (talk) 10:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The category system links topics to topics contained by it, and topics it contains. For example Fish diseases and parasites should be in the Category:Fish diseases, and made the main topic by use of the "| ]]". It is fine (and necessary) that the Aquaculture and Fish diseases and parasites have wikilinks to each other, but Fish diseases and parasites is not a subtopic of Aquaculture. Possible additional categories are Category:Veterinary parasitology and Category:Animal diseases. Abductive  (reasoning) 10:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So where does cobbling together "a how to guide" come into this? --Epipelagic (talk) 10:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If one makes a list of topics someone might need to build and run a fishfarm, Fish diseases and parasites would be on it. I saw an article with only two categories and thought that someone was "reaching" to find more. Abductive  (reasoning) 10:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh.... thanks. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:59, 27 November 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 (A),  (B, and the round's overall leader),  (C)  and  (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 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 WikiCup/History/2010/Round 3 and WikiCup/History/2010/Full/Round 3. Our thanks go to 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 WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17

—Preceding unsigned comment added by EdwardsBot (talk • contribs) 21:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:Articles_for_deletion/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes_(3rd_nomination) exists
neutral notification —Preceding unsigned comment added by Collect (talk) 12:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

John C. McAdams article, Your February, 2010 Notability Tag
I am referencing the article with link to its history page.: []

Isn't it past time to escalate your Notability Tag to a nomination for deletion of the John C. McAdams article on the grounds that he is a political partisan pursuing a non-notable agenda of self-promotion and a non-academic right wing political POV that is not objective?

The person who is the subject of this article seems to be mainly engaged in a politically slanted and self-promoting agenda. He has made numerous edits and does not register as a wikipedia.org user, or does not sign in. See the discussion page for said article.[]:

Well. . . I would not in fact claim to be eminent. I do have 20 plus articles published in scholarly outlets -- including some in top political science journals, including five in the AJPS, and two in the Journal of Politics. Then there are a bunch of others in decent outlets. But this just makes me a journeyman political scientist, not "eminent."

My only real claim to fame is my JFK assassination web site. The current article (thanks to whoever did it) has three cites on that. Let me add one more:

“it appears to me that McAdams’s site is the premier JFK assassination Web site, clearly superior in depth and scholarship to that of his peers.” (Vince Bugliosi, in Reclaiming History. [on supplemental CD])  Note that I also have a book on the assassination coming out.

Mr. McAdams exhibits in his wikipedia edits, an extremely partisan right political orientation, certainly not that of an unbiased academic, especially a concern because he is vehemently pushing a strictly establishment POV in very specific area of U.S. history.: []

John C. McAdams, as [] Made several edits in the discussion linked here, on 27 February, 2010. [] The following is text of an example of the content of Mr. McAdam's argument in his series of 27 February edits on that talk page. []: +
 * The only reason you would not seem them as mirror opposites is if you tend to agree with the liberal bias of one, and reject the conservative bias of another. Again, Newsbusters virtually always has primary source text and/or videos to back up what they say. Their opinion doesn't mean much (neither does Media Matters opinions) but the sources they provide should not be banned from Wikipedia. I see no way to explain this but naked ideological bias.

Mr. McAdams views are troubling because he "sees" a "liberal bias" and is repeatedly defending the newsbusters website as a legitimate supporting source for wikipedia article segments. Newsbusters is a right wing slanted "information" site, founded and still published by L. Brent Bozell III. Bozell's public statements mesh well with Mr. McAdam's agenda of promoting a certain version of the Kennedy Assassination narrative and official reports.: Why Conservatives Should Be Optimistic About the Media http://www.heritage.org/Research/PoliticalPhilosophy/HL380.cfm by L. Brent Bozell, III Heritage Lecture #380 January 21, 1992

....And what was "newsworthy?" According to Leslie Midgley, Walter Cronkite's long-time producer at CBS, "In the print media, news is what the editor says it is... In television, news is what the producer says it is."..

...Imagine, if you will, a future wherein the media willfully support the foreign policy objectives of the United States.... ...A time when someone, somewhere in the media can be counted on to extol the virtues of morality without qualifications. When Betty Friedan no longer qualifies for "Person of the Week" honors. When Ronald Reagan is cited not as the "Man of the Year," but the "Man of the Century." Ruidoso (talk) 23:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The only reason to nominate an article for deletion is that the topic is not "notable". Notability in Wikipedia, as explained in WP:N, is a controversial subject, and even if the person has a WP:Conflict of interest on their own article it has little to do with the outcome of the WP:AFD. I suggest that you place a "Prod-nn" template on the article to see if it can be deleted without an AFD first. Click on Prod-nn and follow the instructions. If that doesn't work, then get back to me. Abductive  (reasoning) 01:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Abductive, please explain how Gamaliel could "undo" the changes you initiated in the last 48 hours on the article on this bio of a living person? I am attempting to follow SOP and my prior experience is that SOP seems to be in flux when it comes to defending the continuation of an existing bio article or parts of it. The article on Hillary Clinton's mother is permitted to stay up, while articles on more notable persons are not. John McAdams is "notable" only for a controversial agenda. He is certainly no more notable than John Simkin, whose site and bio article have been deleted.[] Are the current edits, undoing your recent edits, part of the SOP around here? My interests in contributing new articles and adding to and editing existing ones are entirely in the area of biographies. I became a member of the WikiProject Biography because I thought the SOP was a process of reaching a consensus about what stays up and what does not. Please clarify what went down in this case, and thank you for your prior response and cooperation. Ruidoso (talk) 05:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyone can "deprod" an article. The next step is to nominate the article for deletion using the WP:AFD process. Now, I would have to do some careful research to determine just how likely it would be for the article to be "kept" at the end of the AfD discussion. Abductive  (reasoning) 10:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Blue crab
Hi, now that Blue crab is a disambiguation page, please help fix misdirected links per WP:FIXDABLINKS. Navigation popups with the popupFixDabs flag set to true is a big help. Cheers, -- Ja Ga  talk 16:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, I'll get to that soon. Abductive  (reasoning) 22:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

On the same subject, it might have been worthwhile flagging up the move request at the relevant WikiProject. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Moribund. Abductive  (reasoning) 09:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, is that one-word reply attempting to say that the project is moribund? It is not. There are 63 people watching that page, probably the 63 people you would most want to participate in the discussion. It is impractical for people like me to watch all the articles we have an interest in (in my case, all crustaceans, for instance), so the project pages act as invaluable noticeboards for alerting interested parties in events they might otherwise be unaware of. Even writing a note on a "moribund" talk page does no harm, and I can see no reason for not doing so. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Since the move request was well-attended, mostly by people who care about Maryland blue crabs, and they agreed that the move was a good idea, I don't see a problem. Yes, it was a bit of work to install the pipe (and sorry about the Abductive  (reasoning) 09:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong: I'm not complaining about the outcome, or about the cleanup work. I was trying to suggest that, in general, alerting WikiProjects may be a good idea (even if they don't appear to be very active). --Stemonitis (talk) 10:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess I figured that Blue crab was popular enough that there was no need to boost participation. But I didn't actually think that to myself at the time. Had nobody responded to the move request after a few days I prolly would have advertised. Abductive  (reasoning) 10:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Levien DYK
Hi Abductive, assuming that DYK isn't on your watchlist, I have replied to your comment on the Joseph Levien nomination. Notability is outlined on the article's talk page. I hope this helps. Thanks for the review and the feedback. Your user page is not on my watchlist, so if there's further discussion necessary here, please give me a talkback.  Schwede 66  22:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of University of Birmingham Debating Society for deletion
The article University of Birmingham Debating Society is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/University of Birmingham Debating Society until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. andy (talk) 00:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Skanderbeg
Your edit, "Skanderbeg is (now majority Muslim) Albania's greatest hero..., implies that Skanderbeg, a deceased person, is now majority Muslim. I therefore reverted it, treating your edit as one done in Good Faith. Now, you want to lecture me about WP:OWN? I copyedit thousands of articles, and watch hundreds of them. If you see what I do, it will be very clear to you that I do not claim to own any articles. Clearly, you made a mistake. A deceased person can't suddenly be "majority Muslim". If you imply that Albania is now majority Muslim, you need a comma after "is". But this is probably not the best way to cast the sentence. If it is that important, it should have its own sentence. Let's treat it as an innocent mistake and move on. Let's not start accusing senior editors of owning articles. Cheers. – SMasters (talk) 11:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What you do was revert, rather than integrate. The fact that a Catholic who resisted the Muslim Turks centuries ago should be revered by the modern Albanians is remarkable. Perhaps my attempt to include this was inelegant, but you made no attempt to fix it. Also, unless you too have had other accounts, I have more edits than you. Abductive  (reasoning) 11:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely, it's not about who has more edits. This is not kindergarten. Fair enough, I have to shoot out now. Integrate it better if you like. If not, I will see what I can do later. And no, I do not have other accounts. Cheers, and thanks for being civil about this. – SMasters (talk) 11:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

 * Interesting. This account's first edit was May 19. Abductive  (reasoning) 23:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's funny. You're listed here. Logan Talk Contributions 20:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Please respect the established referencing style of an article
I am amazed at how you can refer to the normal division of referencing into a footnote section and a separate list of references as "poor referencing style". That is how I was taught to do it at university, and it remains my preferred style. It allows for relatively short references in the footnotes while putting most of the bibliographic details at the bottom of the page. In Wikipedia this way of doing referencing is explained at Citing sources, so it obviously isn't considered "poor style" in general. "Bundling" references, i.e. including several in one footnote, is covered in Citing sources. (It is also normal style outside Wikipedia, although I don't know if the term "bundling" is known to the outside world.) I can't understand how you can feel that it is better style to end a sentence with three superscripted bracketed numbers rather than a single footnote with all sources bundled.

In this article my preferred style also happens to be the established style. Please see Citing sources: "'You should follow the style already established in an article if it has one; where there is disagreement, the style used by the first editor to use one should be respected.'"

Any particular reason why you feel that your preferred style should prevail in this particular article that you have never touched before? --Hegvald (talk) 01:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That was not a style, that was a mess. I thought Green Cardamom was on the right track. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2011 WikiCup!
Hello, happy new year and welcome to the 2011 WikiCup! Your submissions' page can be found here and instructions of how to update the page can be found here and on the submissions' page itself. From the submissions' page, a bot will update the main scoresheet. Our rules have been very slightly updated from last year; the full rules can be found here. Please remember that you can only receive points for content on which you have done significant work in 2011; nominations of work from last year and "drive-by" nominations will not be awarded points. Signups are going to remain open through January, so if you know of anyone who would like to take part, please direct them to WikiCup/2011 signups. The judges can be contacted on the WikiCup talk page, on their respective talk pages, or by email. Other than that, we will be in contact at the end of every month with the newsletter. If you want to stop or start receiving newsletters, please remove your name from or add your name to this list. Good luck! J Milburn and The ed17 12:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Re:GA reviewing for the Cup
Nope, any article's fine. There are lots of ways to do a GA review- I did one earlier this evening if you want to take a look. Don't be scared to be critical, but the most important thing is to be constructive- say what needs to be improved (make minor changes yourself, if you like) and remember that our primary objective is not to hand out shiny stars, but make sure our articles are worthy of those shiny stars. J Milburn (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

your edit to Tuscon shooting
In this edit you reverted to an earlier version of the article that I had removed because it was not supported in the citation, I have opened a thread on the talkpage to discuss thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello, Abductive. Why'd you remove this? Per WP:Verifiability, this type of material is perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia. This is why I reverted you on that matter. If I am in the wrong on this, let me know why. Flyer22 (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV. Look at the language, "insinuating" that it was a cause, which nobody said. Abductive  (reasoning) 20:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining. Due to your edit summary, I figured you were simply unaware that some types of blogs/opinion pieces are allowed as sources on Wikipedia, as a lot of experienced Wikipedia editors are unaware of this and cite all blogs as unreliable. I'm not sure it was WP:UNDUE or WP:NPOV, but this edit by you seems to have taken care of your problem with the line. Thanks again for working this out. Flyer22 (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey again, Abductive. I'm not sure what you meant by this edit. Primary sources are acceptable in cases like this, per WP:PRIMARY. But, considering the source was Fox News reporting about something that took place on another network, I'm not sure how much of a primary source it is. Anyway, just so you know which editor I was trying to compromise with, here is the sort of discussion: User talk:NYyankees51#2011 Tucson shooting -- Loughner's best friend.


 * Basically, it fits there to me, because the section is about the general public's response, is already discussing the possible political motive, and Loughner's reportedly best friend weighs in on the debated political motive. Flyer22 (talk) 15:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

And they are not even Americans
Hi Abductive. Citing lack of American citizenship as justification for removing a pundit's views doesn't really fly. Your assertion that nobody has heard of these authors presumably means that you have never heard of them. By all means argue that a particular pundit is not a RS, or that inclusion would represent undue weight, or that there is no need to name him, but it's not really on to remove quotations on the grounds that the author is a not a well-known American. The ones you classified as "Random extra Brit guys", btw, are American. Cheers, MoreThings (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That was shorthand for WP:UNDUE. Some people are better known than others. Any mistake on my part is the result of them being liitle known. Abductive  (reasoning) 22:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What does their nationality have to do with WP:UNDUE? MoreThings (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It had to do with me not recognizing them. Abductive  (reasoning) 22:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You can't discount sources simply because you personally don't recognize the names, Abductive. What was the point you were making when you wrote "And they are not even Americans" in the edit summary as part of your rationale for the edit? MoreThings (talk) 22:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That edit summary is in the past, let it go. I'm discounting those sources as redundant. You can't list every conservative columnist saying the same thing, per WP:UNDUE. Abductive  (reasoning) 23:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll let it go, Abductive. I'm not here to make a big thing out of it, but do the project a favour and keep the fundamental policies in mind. Cheers, MoreThings (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I did nothing wrong, and I always follow the fundamental policies. You are not welcome on my talk page anymore. Abductive  (reasoning) 00:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Toby Harnden is the US Editor of The Daily Telegraph. You removed a quotation cited to him on the grounds that 1) he was not born in North America, and 2) you've never heard of him. That's terrible editing, as you must know. Instead of owning that unpalatable truth, you claim "I did nothing wrong", while in the same breath closing down discussion by excluding me from your talk page. As I said, do the project a favour and try to keep the fundamental policies in mind. MoreThings (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Harrassment is a blockable offense. Abductive  (reasoning) 22:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for The Concord Review
HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   12:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Please read the ref before making changes
The ref says "Up to 10% of total cancer cases may be induced by radiation (64), both ionizing and nonionizing, typically from radioactive substances and ultraviolet (UV), pulsed electromagnetic fields." Cheers Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Then at the very least UV and ionizing radiation should be mentioned separately. Abductive  (reasoning) 14:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Chinese Ghost Town
Hiya mate, I can see you removed my written piece about a ghost town in China for a possible copyright infringement. Can you please explain why? I made sure I posted the references. Thanks Andiio 15:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andiio (talk • contribs)
 * Did a search, text matched too closely. Please paraphrase the material better. Abductive  (reasoning) 16:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The Off Hours
Hi, you reviewed this article at DYK. I believe any issues have been cleared up. The hook is sourced to the film's official website, the Sustainable Style Foundation website, and "indieWire" - independent to both organizations. Thanks.  Jujutacular  talk 02:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Boops boops
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   18:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:
 * This permission does not give you any special status or authority
 * Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
 * You may wish to display the Autopatrolled top icon and/or the User wikipedia/autopatrolled userbox on your user page
 * If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
 * If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Courcelles 21:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Peter M. Rhee
Thank you for your suggestion to look at WP:PROF, though I was also searching for older sources to satisfy BLP1E. I have posted a response to your comment and updated the article accordingly. KimChee (talk) 07:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 January newsletter
We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. Signups are now closed, and we have 129 listed competitors, 64 of whom will make it to round two. Congratulations to, who, at the time of writing, has a comfortable lead with 228 points, followed by , with 144 points. Four others have over 100 points. Congratulations also go to, who scored the first points in the competition, claiming for Talk:Hurricane King/GA1, , who scored the first non-review points in the competition, claiming for Dognapping, and who was the first in the competition to use our new "multiplier" mechanic (explanation), claiming for Grigory Potemkin, a subject covered on numerous Wikipedias. Thanks must also go to Jarry1250 for dealing with all bot work- without you, the competition wouldn't be happening!

A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round two is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 22:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Added template for SuggestBot
Hi,

Thanks for being one of SuggestBot's users! I hope you have found the bot's suggestions useful.

We are in the process of switching from our previous list-based signup process to using templates and userboxes, and I have therefore added the appropriate template to your user talk page. You should receive the first set of suggestions within a day, and since we'll be automating SuggestBot you will from then on continue to receive them regularly at the desired frequency.

We now also have a userbox that you can use to let others know you're using SuggestBot, and if you don't want to clutter your user talk page the bot can post to a sub-page in your userspace. More information about the userbox and usage of the template is available on User:SuggestBot/Getting Recommendations Regularly.

If there are any questions, please don't hesitate to get in touch with me on my user talk page. Thanks again, Nettrom (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 10:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Leroy Milton Kelly
Leroy Milton Kelly is a perfectly good article --- sourced, verifiable, referenced, and encyclopedic in contents and tone. The article is useful to anyone who runs across the name "L. M. Kelly" in other articles (such as Sylvester–Gallai theorem) and wants to know who the guy was. There are several people named "Kelly" mentioned in mathematics articles, and ideally every occurrence of the name (indeed, every person named in Wikipedia) should be linked to the proper bio article. Deleting a perfectly good article, just because it does not fit some totally arbitrary definition of "important enough", is vandalism, pure and simple. Sigh. Wikipedia is dying --- since 2006, old editors have been steadily leaving, and new editors have stopped coming in. Most edits these days are purely bureaucratic robot-wielding poke-arounds, like tagging and formatting tweaks, that contribute absolutely zero value to the encyclopedia. Well, do you realize that it is deletionists like you who are killing Wikipedia? Do you have any idea of how an editor feels when, having spent several hours digging up and sifting through references and writing an article that satisfies all rules in the books, comes back the next day to find that all his work has been thrown away --- just because the subject did not fit someone else's bizarre notion of "important enough"? Does the idea of deeply offending and upsetting a hard-working fellow editor bother you at all? Or do you actually enjoy that idea? Do you think that killing articles somehow makes you "superior" to the editors who created them --- sort of a "cop" disciplining a mob of "unruly civilians"? In the case of this article, I was fortunate enough to read the vandalism notice before it was consumed. I can only edit WP during school vacations; I shudder to think of how many of my articles have been deleted over the past six months. Finding one's hard work labeled "trash fit for deletion" and having to defend it before a gang of arrogant self-appointed "keepers of Wikipedia's purity" is such a stressful and disgusting experience that the mere thought of it almost makes me turn away from Wikipedia for good. Count the editors of articles that you have deleted: many of them are probably editors that you have turned away from Wikipedia. Oh, please don't bother pointing out WP:PROF or some other "rule" that supposedly justifies your actions: those guidelines were written by a handful of like-minded deletionists, and were never, in any way a consensus among Wikipedia editors or readers. In fact, they were implicitly disapproved by the thousands of good editors who have been turned away by the deletionists' actions. No one compels you to enforce those deletionist "rules": if you choose to do so, you bear all the responsibility for the stress and harm that ensues. So, please, if you want to help Wikipedia, get out of that sick deletionist mindset, and stop destroying other people's work. Surely you can find some positive way to contribute to the world --- either in WP, or outside of it. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 06:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There are millions of professors in the world. Reading a resume of a professor that made (as they all did) some minor contribution to human understanding does nothing to further that understanding. His mention in a reference in an article on the topic he contributed to is sufficient acknowledgement. Abductive  (reasoning) 08:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Poinsett State Park
Materialscientist (talk) 06:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Single migration
Just to say that 'single migration' normally is talking about one original migration before the Inuit, rather than several. I don't think anyone using the phrase thinks the Inuit didn't migrate much later to North America. Dougweller (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

COI
I've acknowledged my position on the Kochs, and nobody other than trolls has believed that I have a conflict. If I removed "alleged" from the Koch's (undoubtedly accurate) claims that Mayer's sources had COI's, I apologize. Some disclaimer is required because it is only Koch Industries' position. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * People with COIs shouldn't be editing articles. Can you not see how slanted you have made that article? Abductive  (reasoning) 09:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No. I removed BLP violations.  Mayer is not adequate for claims of illegal actions, even if it were a reliable source (which I haven't verified), and if she really said that (which I also haven't verified).  The paragraph was also removed from another article by another editor.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 10:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You made up the notion that Mayer said Koch was doing anything illegal, and you were told this on the talk page long ago. Your COI means you can't hear that. Abductive  (reasoning) 10:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No. The statement, as written, stated that Koch Industries was making political contributions, which would be illegal.  I don't think Mayer actually said that, but, even if she did, it would have to be written as "Mayer alleges...."  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 10:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I see I did remove "alleged". My apologies.  Everything else the anon wrote was polemic and unsourced.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 10:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that was the anon's other edit. On this article, there weren't accusations of illegality, but there were unsourced polemical controversial statements about living persons.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 10:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Eagle School
Please change or withdraw your close of Articles for deletion/Eagle County Charter Academy. Longstanding consensus is that elementary schools are not notable in the extreme. The "award" that the school won is nowhere near important enough. Abductive (reasoning) 15:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you read my /FAQs? Your question was answered there.
 * You are of course welcome to (a) go to DRV, or (b) merge and/or redirect the article to the school district or place where it's located, per WP:BB. I recommend the latter :) Stifle (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 February newsletter
So begins round two of the WikiCup! We now have eight pools, each with eight random contestants. This round will continue until the end of April, when the top two of each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers of those remaining, will make it to round three. Congratulations to (first, with 487 points) and  (second, with 459), who stormed the first round. finished third with 223. Twelve others finished with over 100 points- well done to all of you! The final standings in round one can be seen here. A mere 8 points were required to reach round two; competition will no doubt be much more fierce this round, so be ready for a challenge! A special thanks goes, again, to for dealing with all bot work. This year's bot, as well as running smoothly, is doing some very helpful things that last year's did not. Also, thanks to for some helpful behind-the-scenes updating and number crunching.

Some news for those who are interested- March will see a GAN backlog elimination drive, which you are still free to join. Organised by WikiProject Good articles, the drive aims to minimise the GAN backlog and offers prizes to those who help out. Of course, you may well be able to claim WikiCup points for the articles you review as part of the drive. Also ongoing is the Great Backlog Drive, looking to work on clearing all of the backlogs on Wikipedia; again, incentives are offered, and the spirit of friendly competition is alive, while helping the encyclopedia is the ultimate aim. Though unrelated to the WikiCup, these may well be of interest to some of you.

Just a reminder of the rules; if you have done significant work on content this year and it is promoted in this round, you may claim for it. Also, anything that was promoted after the end of round one but before the beginning of round two may be claimed for in round two. Details of the rules can be found on this page. For those interested in statistics, a running total of claims can be seen here, and a very interesting table of that information (along with the highest scorers in each category) can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 08:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI
I just restored Broomfield Academy, which you PRODded a while ago after the author emailed me to contest the PROD. I'd suggest giving it a little while, since they seem sincere in their desire to improve the article, before doing anything else. Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   12:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 08:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Casualties of the 2011 Libyan uprising
I wanted to discuss the points you say the article is in violation of. I think you should have discussed it on improving it before rushing and proposing it for deletion but whatever here goes.

WP:CONTENTFORK - Was moved to this article so the main article on the war would be shortened. Wikipedia promotes this, and 90 percent of what is in this article is not in the main article on the conflict, so no violation there.

WP:NOT#NEWS - Wouldn't call this non-notable and not news since most of the diplomatic wrangling for the no-fly zone is based on the high number of dead in the conflict, which is every day mentioned and cited and is the hallmark of this war. So it is notable and not violating that rule there.

WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:No original research - Now, for this, 95 percent of everything in the article is cited. However, the only thing that comes to my mind that you were probably thinking of not being cited is the combined death toll beneath the table. Which may constitute Original research. For the sake of the posibility it is not verifiably it was noted in the article the combined numbers were not confirmed. However, if you think it's such a big problem we will remove that sentance and all should be good and 100 percent cited. Ok? :) EkoGraf (talk) 10:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 10:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 March newsletter
We are half way through round two of the WikiCup, which will end on 28 April. Of the 64 current contestants, 32 will make it through to the next round; the two highest in each pool, and the 16 next highest scorers. At the time of writing, our current overall leader is with 231 points, who leads Pool H.  (Pool G) also has over 200 points, while 9 others (three of whom are in Pool D) have over 100 points. Remember that certain content (specifically, articles/portals included in at least 20 Wikipedias as of 31 December 2010 or articles which are considered "vital") is worth double points if promoted to good or featured status, or if it appears on the main page in the Did You Know column. There were some articles last round which were eligible for double points, but which were not claimed for. For more details, see WikiCup/Scoring.

A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round three is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

2010–2011 Ivorian crisis
I'm afraid there has been some confusion over exactly what has been proposed with regard to a possible merger of the 2010–2011 Ivorian crisis article with Second Ivorian Civil War, on which you commented recently. To clarify this, I've relisted the merge request at Talk:2010–2011 Ivorian crisis. Grateful if you could state what your preference is. Prioryman (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 07:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 08:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 April newsletter
Round 2 of the 2011 WikiCup is over, and the new round will begin on 1 May. Note that any points scored in the interim (that is, for content promoted or reviews completed on 29-30 April) can be claimed in the next round, but please do not start updating your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. Fewer than a quarter of our original contestants remain; 32 enter round 3, and, in two months' time, only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. , who led Pool F, was our round champion, with 411 points, while 7 contestants scored between 200 and 300 points. At the other end of the scale, a score of 41 was high enough to reach round 3; more than five times the score required to reach round 2, and competition will no doubt become tighter now we're approaching the later rounds. Those progressing to round 3 were spread fairly evenly across the pools; 4 progressed from each of pools A, B, E and H, while 3 progressed from both pools C and F. Pools D and G were the most successful; each had 5 contestants advancing.

This round saw our first good topic points this year; congratulations to and  who also led pool H and pool B respectively. However, there remain content types for which no points have yet been scored; featured sounds, featured portals and featured topics. In addition to prizes for leaderboard positions, the WikiCup awards other prizes; for instance, last year, a prize was awarded to (who has been eliminated) for his work on In The News. For this reason, working on more unusual content could be even more rewarding than usual!

Sorry this newsletter is going out a little earlier than expected- there is a busy weekend coming up! A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 19:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Death of Osama bin Laden
Thanks for keeping it clean. Drmies (talk) 21:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Too many edit conflicts, gotta stop now. Abductive  (reasoning) 21:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, a busy topic. BTW, I think your "Abductive reasoning" signature is great. Nice font too. Later! Drmies (talk) 21:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Welcome message
Thanks for the welcome but I've had an account since 2005. I refuse to use it any more while anon IPs are allowed to edit. The amount of time and energy I have wasted rvv or deleting fancruft or other bollocks instead of improving articles is... well, wasteful. It also means that I don't have nutjobs hounding my Talkpage or my edits on other articles. And don't get me started on petty wiki-politics! So, thanks but no thanks. Mark 124.169.43.46 (talk) 10:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 08:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Welcome and user name
Thanks for the welcome. However, I already have a user name. I just don't sign in when I am using my girlfriend's computer. 110.136.161.112 (talk) 06:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I cannot fault you for the logic; just felt like letting you know. I prefer not getting many messages at the IP talk page. 110.136.161.112 (talk) 08:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

ORGANIZATIONAL DECISION - MAKING MODELS
This seems to have been re-created - you might like to see whether it's still/again copyvio. PamD (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 May newsletter
We're half way through round 3 of the 2011 WikiCup. There are currently 32 remaining in the competition, but only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. , of pool D, is our overall leader with nearly 200 points, while pools A, B and C are led by, and  respectively. The score required to reach the next round is 35, though this will no doubt go up significantly as the round progresses. We have a good number of high scorers, but also a considerable number who are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. Also, an important note concerning nominations at featured article candidates: if you are nominating content for which you intend to claim WikiCup points, please make this clear in the nomination statement so that the FAC director and his delegates are aware of the fact.

A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 10:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 08:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Question

 * Clementi Police Division
 * Hi there, can you please explain to me what this edit of yours is all about? Best. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 17:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Cheers
On Talk:2011 you mention the "very respected User:Fences and windows". Ah, shucks. Fences &amp;  Windows  18:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Assassination of Osama bin Laden


The article Assassination of Osama bin Laden has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * The redirect title contains the word assassination, so it gives too much weight to a minor interpretation of the raid.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Glrx (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 June newsletter
We are half way through 2011, and entering the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; the semi-finals are upon us! Points scored in the interim (29/30 June) may be counted towards next round, but please do not update your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. 16 contestants remain, and all have shown dedication to the project to reach this far. Our round leader was who, among other things, successfully passed three articles through featured article candidates and claimed an impressive 29 articles at Did You Know, scoring 555 points. Casliber led pool D. Pool A was led by, claiming points for a featured article, a featured list and seven good article reviews, while pool C was led by , who claimed for two good articles, ten articles at Did You Know and four good article reviews. They scored 154 and 118 respectively. Pool B was by far our most competitive pool; six of the eight competitors made it through to round 4, with all of them scoring over 100 points. The pool was led by, who claimed for, among other things, three featured articles and five good articles. In addition to the four pool leaders, 12 others (the four second places, and the 8 next highest overall) make up our final 16. The lowest scorer who reached round 4 scored 76 points; a significant increase on the 41 needed to reach round 3. Eight of our semi-finalists scored at least twice as much as this.

No points were awarded this round for featured pictures, good topics or In the News, and no points have been awarded in the whole competition for featured topics, featured portals or featured sounds. Instead, the highest percentage of points has come from good articles. Featured articles, despite their high point cost, are low in number, and so, overall, share a comparable number of points with Did You Know, which are high in number but low in cost. A comparatively small but still considerable number of points come from featured lists and good article reviews, rounding out this round's overall scores.

We would again like to thank and  for invaluable background work, as well as all of those helping to provide reviews for the articles listed on WikiCup/Reviews. Please do keep using it, and please do help by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup.

Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here, for those interested, though it appears that neither are completely accurate at this time. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 July newsletter
We are half way through the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; there is less than a month to go before we have our final 8. Our pool leaders are (Pool A, 189 points) and  (Pool B, 165 points). The number of points required to reach the next round is not clear at this time; there are some users who still do not have any recorded points. Please remember to update your submissions' pages promptly. In addition, congratulations to PresN, who scored the first featured topic points in the competition for his work on Thatgamecompany related articles. Most points this round generally have, so far, come from good articles, with only one featured article (White-bellied Sea Eagle, from ) and two featured lists (Hugo Award for Best Graphic Story, from PresN and Grammy Award for Best Native American Music Album, from ). Points for Did You Know and good article reviews round out the scoring. No points have been awarded for In the News, good topics or featured pictures this round, and no points for featured sounds or portals have been awarded in the entire competition. On an unrelated note, preparation will be beginning soon for next year's WikiCup- watch this space!

There is little else to be said beyond the usual. Please list anything you need reviewing on WikiCup/Reviews, so others following the WikiCup can help, and please do help if you can by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup- points are, of course, offered for reviews at GAC. Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 11:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 July newsletter
The finals are upon us; we're down to the last few. One of the eight remaining contestants will be this year's WikiCup champion! 150 was the score needed to progress to the final; just under double the 76 required to reach round 4, and more than triple the 41 required to reach round 3. Our eight finalists are:


 * , Pool A's winner. Casliber has the highest total score in the competition, with 1528, the bulk of which is made up of 8 featured articles. He has the highest number of total featured articles (8, 1 of which was eligible for double points) and total did you knows (72) of any finalist. Casliber writes mostly on biology, including ornithology, botany and mycology.
 * , Pool B's winner and the highest scorer this round. PresN is the only finalist who has scored featured topic points, and he has gathered an impressive 330, but most of his points come from his 4 featured articles, one of which scored double. PresN writes mostly on video games and the Hugo Awards.
 * , Pool A's runner-up. Hurricanehink's points are mostly from his 30 good articles, more than any other finalist, and he is also the only finalist to score good topic points. Hurricanehink, as his name suggests, writes mostly on meteorology.
 * , Pool B's runner-up. Wizardman has completed 86 good article reviews, more than any other finalist, but most of his points come from his 2 featured articles. Wizardman writes mostly on American sport, especially baseball.
 * , the "fastest loser" (Pool A). Miyagawa has written 3 featured lists, one of which was awarded double points, more than any other finalist, but he was awarded points mostly for his 68 did you knows. Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, including dogs, military history and sport.
 * , the second "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Resolute's points come from his 9 good articles. He writes mostly on Canadian topics, including ice hockey.
 * , who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool A). Most of Evan's points come from his 10 good articles, and he writes mostly on meteorology.
 * , who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Phil's points come from his 9 good articles, 4 of which (more than any other finalist) were eligible for double points. He writes mostly on aeronautics.

We say goodbye to our seven other semi-finalists,, , , , , and. Everyone still in the competition at this stage has done fantastically well, and contributed greatly to Wikipedia. We're on the home straight now, and we will know our winner in two months.

In other news, preparations for next year's competition have begun with a brainstorming thread. Please, feel free to drop by and share any thoughts you have about how the competition should work next year. Sign ups are not yet open, but will be opened in due course. Watch this space. Further, there has been a discussion about the rule whereby those in the WikiCup must delcare their participation when nominating articles at featured article candidates. This has resulted in a bot being created by new featured article delegate. The bot will leave a message on FAC pages if the nominator is a participant in the WikiCup.

A reminder of the rules: any points scored after August 29 may be claimed for the final round, and please remember to update submission pages promptly. If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 15:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 03:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 September newsletter
We are on this year's home straight, with less than a month to go until the winner of the 2011 WikiCup will be decided. The fight for first place is currently being contested by, and , all of whom have over 200 points. This round has already seen multiple featured articles (1991 Atlantic hurricane season from Hurricanehink and Northrop YF-23 from Sp33dyphil) and a double-scoring featured list (Miyagawa's 1948 Summer Olympics medal table). The scores will likely increase far further before the end of the round on October 31 as everyone ups their pace. There is not much more to say- thoughts about next year's competition are welcome on the WikiCup talk page or the scoring talk page, and signups will open once a few things have been sorted out.

If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 12:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 22:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 September newsletter
We are on this year's home straight, with less than a month to go until the winner of the 2011 WikiCup will be decided. The fight for first place is currently being contested by, and , all of whom have over 200 points. This round has already seen multiple featured articles (1991 Atlantic hurricane season from Hurricanehink and Northrop YF-23 from Sp33dyphil) and a double-scoring featured list (Miyagawa's 1948 Summer Olympics medal table). The scores will likely increase far further before the end of the round on October 31 as everyone ups their pace. There is not much more to say- thoughts about next year's competition are welcome on the WikiCup talk page or the scoring talk page, and signups will open once a few things have been sorted out.

If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 12:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 22:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Survey for new page patrollers
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wiki Media Foundation at 10:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC).

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 October newsletter
The 2011 WikiCup is now over, and our new champion is, who joins the exclusive club of the previous winners: (2007),  (2008),  (2009) and  (2010). The final standings were as follows:



Prizes for first, second, third and fourth will be awarded, as will prizes for all those who reached the final eight. Every participant who scored in the competition will receive a ribbon of participation. In addition to the prizes based on placement, the following special prizes will be awarded based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, the prize is awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round.


 * The Featured Article Award:, for his performance in round 2. matched the score, but Casliber won the tiebreaker.
 * The Good Article Award:, for his performance in round 4.
 * The Featured List Award:, for his performance in round 4. matched the score, but Miyagawa won the tiebreaker.
 * The Recognised Topic Award (for good and featured topics):, for his performance in round 3.
 * The Did You Know Award:, for his performance in round 1.
 * The In the News Award:, for his performance in round 1.
 * The Reviewer Award (for good article reviews):, for his performance in round 3.

No prize was awarded for featured pictures, sounds or portals, as none were claimed throughout the competition. The awards will be handed out over the next few days. Congratulations to all our participants, and especially our winners; we've all had fun, and Wikipedia has benefitted massively from our content work.

Preparation for next year's WikiCup is ongoing. Interested parties are invited to sign up and participate in our straw polls. It's been a pleasure to work with you all this year, and, whoever's taking part in and running the competition in 2012, we hope to see you all in January! J Milburn and The ed17 00:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

2011 WikiCup participation


It was good to have you on board this time around- we hope you enjoyed the competition! In case you are interested, signups for next year are open. Thanks, J Milburn and The ed17 20:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Tannhauser Gate
There is a discussion here regarding Colonel Warden's decision to move Tannhauser Gate to Tears in rain (soliloquy) without discussion. As you took part in previous related discussions on this matter, I am informing you of the current discussion. ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive 15:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Feedback Dashboard task force
Hi Abductive,

Since you were a part of the WikiGuides project, I thought I'd give you a heads-up about a new way you can help/mentor newbies on en.wiki: we've recently released a feature called the Feedback Dashboard, a queue that updates in real time with feedback and editing questions from new registered contributors who have attempted to make at least one edit. Steven Walling and I are putting together a task force for experienced Wikipedians who might be interested in monitoring the queue and responding to the feedback: details are here at Feedback Dashboard. Please sign up if you're interested in helping out! Thanks, Maryana (WMF) (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

2012 WikiCup
Hi! As you've previously expressed interest in the competition, I'm just letting you know that the 2012 WikiCup is due to start in less than 24 hours. Signups are open, and will remain so for a few weeks after the beginning of the competition. The competition itself will follow basically the same format as last year, with a few small tweaks to point costs to reflect the opinions of the community. If you're interested in taking part, you're more than welcome, and if you know anyone who might be, please let them know too- the more the merrier! To join, simply add your name to WikiCup/2012 signups, and we will be in touch. Please feel free to direct any questions to me, or leave a note on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! You are receiving this note as you are listed on WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Please feel free to add or remove yourself. J Milburn (talk) 01:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Rory Lewis
Last February you PRODded this, and it was deleted. Deletion has been objected to (on the article talk page) so per WP:DEL I have restored it, and now notify you in case to wish to take it to AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

2011 Tucson shooting
 SilkTork   ✔Tea time  16:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 January newsletter
WikiCup 2012 is off to a flying start. At the time of writing, we have 112 contestants; comparable to last year, but slightly fewer than 2010. Signups will remain open for another week, after which time they will be closed for this year. Our currrent far-away leader is, due mostly to his work on a slew of good articles about The X-Files; there remain many such articles waiting to be reviewed at good article candidates. Second place is currently held by, whose points come mostly from good articles about television episodes, although good article reviews, did you knows and an article about a baroness round out the score. In third place is, who has scored 200 points for his work on a single featured article, as well as points for work on others, mostly in the area of pop music. In all, nine users have 100 or more points. However, at the other end of the scale, there are still dozens of participants who are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly!

The 64 highest scoring participants will advance to round 2 in a month's time. There, they will be split into eight random groups of eight. The score needed to reach the next round is not at all clear; last year, 8 points guaranteed a place. The year before, 20.

A few participants and their work warrant a mention for achieving "firsts" in this competition.
 * was the first to score, with his good article review of Illinois v. McArthur.
 * was also the first to score points for an article, thanks to his work on Hurricane Debby (1982)- now a good article. Tropical storms have featured heavily in the Cup, and good articles currently have a relatively fast turnaround time for reviews.
 * was the first to score points for a did you know, with Russian submarine K-114 Tula. Military history is another subject which has seen a lot of Cup activity.
 * is also the first person to successfully claim bonus points. Terminator 2: Judgment Day is now a good article, and was eligible for bonus points because the subject was covered on more than 20 other Wikipedias at the start of the competition. It is fantastic to see bonus points being claimed so early!
 * was the first to score points for an In the News entry, with Paedophryne amauensis. The lead image from the article was also used on the main page for a time, and it's certainly eye-catching!
 * was the first to score points for a featured article, and is, at the moment, the only competitor to claim for one. The article, "Halo" (Beyoncé Knowles song), was also worth double points because of its wide coverage. While this is an article that Jivesh and others have worked on for some time, it is undeniable that he has put considerable work into it this year, pushing it over the edge.

We are yet to see any featured lists, featured topics or good topics, but this is unsurprising; firstly, the nomination processes with each of these can take some time, and, secondly, it can take a considerable amount of time to work content to this level. In a similar vein, we have seen only one featured article. The requirement that content must have been worked on this year to be eligible means that we did not expect to see these at the start of the competition. No points have been claimed for featured portals or pictures, but these are not content types which are often claimed; the former has never made a big impact on the WikiCup, while the latter has not done so since 2009's competition.

A quick rules clarification before the regular notices: If you are concerned that another user is claiming points inappropriately, please contact a judge to take a look at the article. Competitors policing one another can create a bad atmosphere, and may lead to inconsistencies and mistakes. Rest assured that we, the judges, are making an effort to check submissions, but it is possible that we will miss something. On a loosely related note: If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 February newsletter
Round 1 is already over! The 64 highest scorers have progressed to round 2. Our highest scorer was, again thanks mostly to a swathe of good articles on The X-Files. In second place was, thanks an impressive list of did you knows about racehorses. Both scored over 400 points. Following behind with over 300 points were, , and. February also saw the competition's first featured list: List of colleges and universities in North Dakota, from. At the other end of the scale, 11 points was enough to secure a place in this round, and some contestants with 10 points made it into the round on a tiebreaker. This is higher than the 8 points that were needed last year, but lower than the 20 points required the year before. The number of points required to progress to round 3 will be significantly higher.

The remaining contestants have been split into 8 pools of 8, named A through H. Round two will finish in two months time on 28 April, when the two highest scorers in each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers, will progress to round 3. The pools were entirely random, so while some pools may end up being more competitive than others, this is by chance rather than design.

The judges would like to point out two quick rules reminders. First, any content promoted during the interim period (that is, on or after 27 February) is eligible for points in round 2. Second, any content worked on significantly this year is eligible for points if promoted in this round. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which would otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk &bull; email) and The ed17 (talk &bull; email) 23:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 05:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 March newsletter
We are over half way through the second round of this year's WikiCup and things are going well! , of Pool B, is our highest overall scorer thanks to his prolific writings on television and film. In second place is Pool H's, thanks primarily to work on biological articles, especially in marine biology and herpetology. Third place goes to Pool E's, who also writes primarily on biology (including ornithology and botany) and has already submitted two featured articles this round. Of the 63 contestants remaining, 15 (just under a quarter) have over 100 points this round. However, 25 are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly. 32 contestants, the top two from each pool and the 16 next-highest scorers, will advance to round 3.

Congratulations to, whose impressive File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg became the competition's first featured picture. Also, congratulations to, who claimed good topic points, our first contestant this year to do so, for his work on Featured topics/1982 Atlantic hurricane season. This leaves featured topics and featured portals as the only sources of points not yet utilised. However, as recent statistics from show, no source has yet been utilised this competition to the same extent it has been previously!

It has been observed that the backlogs at good article candidates are building up again. While the points for good article reviews will be remaining constant, any help that can be offered keeping the backlog down would be appreciated. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk &bull; email) and The ed17 (talk &bull; email) 23:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)