User talk:Bejinhan/Archive 8

thanks for assessing

 * You're welcome. Thanks for the brownie. :) Wonderful! Bejinhan   talks   14:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 May 2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Requested article review done
Hi Bejinhan. I've just finished doing the article review you asked me to do. It's here A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 May 2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:USPP Spring Assessment 3
HI Bejinhan,

I hope you are well, I'm still bummed I won't get to meet you at Wikimania! There is a new assessment posted here. There are 25 articles in both this assessment and the next/final assessment. There was a huge amount of content that got added this term, I hope the randomly selected articles show this content to be high quality. Thanks again for assessing. ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 19:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Please take the Wikipedia Ambassador Program survey
Hi Ambassador,

We are at a pivotal point in the development of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program. Your feedback will help shape the program and role of Ambassadors in the future. Please take this 10 minute survey to help inform and improve the Wikipedia Ambassadors.

WMF will de-identify results and make them available to you. According to KwikSurveys' privacy policy: "Data and email addresses will not be sold, rented, leased or disclosed to 3rd parties." This link takes you to the online survey: http://kwiksurveys.com?u=WPAmbassador_talk

Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments, Thank You!

Amy Roth (Research Analyst, Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 May 2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:01, 31 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 23:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Karpal Singh
Hey there. I intend to take the article Karpal Singh to good article status, and knowing that you have some experience in this area, I hope you can help contribute as well as provide comments and suggestions. Right now I feel that the sections on his legal and political career need the most work. Thanks! - Yk3 talk · contrib 20:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, will get to it soon. From a glance... The lede section needs working on so that there are no refs in it and it's solely a summary of the important article points. The legal and political career sections can be expanded. The electoral history section needs references. Will try to do what I can. Bejinhan   talks   10:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 June 2011
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Last PPI Assessment
hi Bejinhan,

We finally made it, this is the last assessment request for the Public Policy Initiative! I was really impressed with the content the students developed this term, I hope you enjoyed it too. The last set of articles is at Student Post 2.2. I will keep you updated on results and publications. Thanks ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 05:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow! you are fast!!! THANK YOU. ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 05:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm having a few minutes between classes... so, why not? :) You're welcome. Bejinhan   talks   05:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank You! Bejinhan, for all your help with assessment over the course of both school terms. I will keep you posted on the research and results that come out in the coming months. All the best, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Oops!
I'm sorry, I accidentally rollbacked an edit or yours and someone else undid it before I could. My mistake entirely! I have a script that's supposed to prevent this from happening, but it isn't working for some reason. —DoRD (talk) 12:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, no worries. I did not even notice it. Bejinhan   talks   12:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 June 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

GOCE elections
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 June 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 June 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:30, 28 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 23:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive invitation
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 08:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 July 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 10:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

PPI Assessment research in FastCompany
hi Bejinhan, I just wanted to let you know that FactCompany.com noticed all of our hard work on article quality assessment! And, I presented some preliminary results of the Public Policy Initiative today at the Wikipedia in Higher Education Summit, and it was very well received by academics. They were very impressed with the rigor of the research and that is due in large part to your efforts. So yet again, Thank YOU! I will keep you posted as I continue to get the results out there. Also, if you would like a token of appreciation (aka Wikipedia swag) send me an email and let me know and I will get a package out to you later this month. all the best, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 01:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 July 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ulster Special Constabulary
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ulster Special Constabulary. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 05:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:I'm with You (album)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:I'm with You (album). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 07:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:I'm with You (album)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:I'm with You (album). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 07:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Summit Research Summary
Hi Bejinhan,

Here is a brief summary of the results that I presented at the Wikipedia in Higher Education Summit. Unless you request otherwise, I will keep you posted as the research results come out. ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 22:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 July 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The WikiProject National Archives Newsletter
The first ever WikiProject National Archives newsletter has been published. Please read on to find out what we're up to and how to help out! There are many opportunities for getting more involved. Dominic·t 21:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 July 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 22:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Ambassador Program: assessment drive
Even though it's been quiet on-wiki, the Wikipedia Ambassador Program has been busy over the last few months getting ready for the next term. We're heading toward over 80 classes in the US, across all disciplines. You'll see courses start popping up here, and this time we want to match one or more Online Ambassadors to each class based on interest or expertise in the subject matter. If you see a class that you're interested, please contact the professor and/or me; the sooner the Ambassadors and professors get in communication, the better things go. Look for more in the coming weeks about next term.

In the meantime, with a little help I've identified all the articles students did significant work on in the last term. Many of the articles have never been assessed, or have ratings that are out of date from before the students improved them. Please help assess them! Pick a class, or just a few articles, and give them a rating (and add a relevant WikiProject banner if there isn't one), and then update the list of articles.

Once we have updated assessments for all these articles, we can get a better idea of how quality varied from course to course, and which approaches to running Wikipedia assignments and managing courses are most effective.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

hi
hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.145.137.201 (talk) 16:57, 29 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 11:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 August 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Kurt Hummel
Hey there, Bejihan. This is kind of random, but I was wondering if I might be able to get your help on something. Kurt Hummel, one of the leading characters on the show Glee, just received a second peer review in hopes of nominating for FA status. The article has previously received a peer review, and has gone through a few copy-edits by User:Frickative and from the WP:GOCE. She noticed your name at WP:PR/V for major copy-editing and suggested I pop a message to you. I'm hoping to take it back to WP:FAC at some point in the future, but it's still getting flagged up for prose issues. Could you possibly take a look at it if you're not busy? HorrorFan121 (talk) 04:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks a lot! I appreciate it. ;) HorrorFan121 (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Stations
Hi, please see Notability (Railway lines and stations). The articles you have been prodding all have pages in other wikis, which presumably meets the notability requirement. Thanks. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 06:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The Korean and sometimes Japanese wikis of the pages you've prodded and now AfD'd contain the independent sources that you seek. The current status of Korean stations on the English Wikipedia appear to be in the infant stages and do require substantial expansion. Although currently they may not meet article standards, the foreign language versions of these articles suggest adequate notability. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 06:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The Korean wiki does provide sources though. The Google search in Korean returns an abundance of results. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 06:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you happy now or do you want more sources? Vanadus (talk | contribs) 06:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * They are notable because there exists a large number of independent, reliable sources. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 06:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh Miss Bejinhan. That is a very incorrect assumption of my rationale, but that is irrelevant. I just believe we should be protecting infant articles that have a chance to be warranted for inclusion. Stations in Korea are not our areas of expertise, but I am an advocate of letting possibly notable articles develop first, then allow the experts in that field or members of that WikiProject to pass judgment for inclusion. Articles in stub stages are often written in a manner to make them appear non-notable to the average Wikipedian, but that does not mean the subject itself is non-notable. Examples might include Karvirala Kothagudem and Semi-inner-products. All I wanted to do was keep an open mind and judgment on topics I was not fully familiar with. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 04:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe if you travel there, learn the local language, and visit the nearest library you will discover a wealth of information pertaining to Karvirala Kothagudem. I just think it's very unfair to assume the only source of reliable sources are what Google spews back at you. Not being able to find sources does not mean they do not exist. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 04:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Clearly we possess contrasting philosophies regarding Wikipedia, which is probably why you think this discussion is pointless. Once again, I think allowing experts in respective topics pass judgment on inclusion is only prudent. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 04:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Karvirala Kothagudem

 * - you asked me if it was notable - sorry I wasn't around...

Pleases are pretty much always considered "notable". I know it is hard to find refs for that one, but that could be spelling, or could be that there are refs in another language. Trying to delete it is probably futile; I sympathize, and I actually think that is wrong - this 'inherent notability' - because, it is resulting in thousands of similar stubs on places, which are hard/impossible to reference. But, that's current policy.  Chzz  ► 09:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Vaillant (brand)
Good work in CSD. Regarding your revert of the author's blank of this page, author blanking is considered a good-faith deletion request and is a separate CSD criterion (see WP:CSD). Just letting you know, as the page can be nominated for SD under that criterion instead of rv. the blank. Again, keep up the good work. Tyrol5  [Talk]  15:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 August 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 22:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of Puerto Ricans
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of Puerto Ricans. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 02:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tagging
You tagged Haya raef 1 minute after the article was created as A7. In general, you should not tag such pages so quickly--for all we know, the editor made one simple edit first, and was intending to add more in a subsequent edit. Except in cases of copyright violations, attack pages, or recreations of previously deleted pages, its best to wait at least an hour or two before tagging something for speedy deletion. It sends a really negative message to new users to be tagged for deletion so quickly. Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason why I tagged that article for deletion so quickly was because a Google search shows no notable person by the name. Sometimes, I wait a bit longer to give the article creator chance to expand his article, but in cases like this, it's a no-brainer. I understand where you are coming from though. Bejinhan   talks   03:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Other Rangers and Ranger-like allies
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Other Rangers and Ranger-like allies. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 August 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 08:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Andy Mangels
I just saw that you closed this, but I fail to see how this meets Non-admin_closure. Which of the three types of non-admin closures did you think it was: 1) Absent any contentious debate among participants, 2) Speedy_keep, or 3) Pure housekeeping? Rangoondispenser (talk) 04:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I closed it as a clear keep. Sources and rationales provided by at least 4 editors showed that while the article subject might not have been mentioned much in big-news sources, there is sufficient coverage to make him notable. Bejinhan   talks   05:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The criteria for NAC doesn't say "the answer is clear", it specifically says "absent any contentious debate among participants." I see definite contention among editors there; if I, for example, were closing that AfD, I'd have to think pretty hard about closing it as keep.  I probably would do so, but would also seriously consider a no consensus result.  The point with a NAC is that it should only be used in situations where there is little likelihood for debate afterward.   Qwyrxian (talk) 06:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did consider closing it as no consensus. Feel free to list this article at WP:DRV if you are dissatisfied with the closure. Bejinhan   talks   06:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So, which is it? You thought it was a clear keep absent any contentious debate among participants, or you considered closing it as no consensus? Rangoondispenser (talk) 07:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Just wondering... why is this important to you? I cannot change my closure and what I considered does not make any difference. Yes, I might have messed up with this closure as I assumed your silence meant that you did not disagree with what was said by a couple of editors. My apologies. If you are not happy with my closure, please bring this article to deletion review. Bejinhan   talks   07:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * For me, I'm just concerned for the future; well, not concerned, but just hoping that you've learned that NACs are stricter than you thought, so you really shouldn't do them unless its completely unambiguous. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't worry; I won't be touching NACs anytime soon. Bejinhan   talks   13:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe it's important that deletion discussions be closed properly. Contrary to your statement that "I cannot change my closure," you in fact can. What I am doing here is following the first step of the deletion review process and suggesting you change the way you've closed this. "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look." So, if we can agree that a non-admin should not have closed this, and that "no consensus" could have been a better close, and that you can in fact change your closure, then perhaps you should take a second chance and change your closure to something like "No consensus, previously improperly closed as 'keep' but did nor meet criteria for non-admin closure." Rangoondispenser (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have thought about this, and while yes, an admin should have closed this, I don't believe that it should have been a no consensus closed. I stand by my decision. If you feel strongly that it should have been closed as a delete or no consensus, please list this at DRV. Thanks. Bejinhan   talks   01:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassadors: Time to join pods
Hello! If you're planning to be an active Online Ambassador for the upcoming academic term, now is the time to join one or more pods. (A pod consists of the instructor, the Campus Ambassadors, and the Online Ambassadors for single class.) The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) explains the expectations for being part of a pod as an Online Ambassador. (The MOU for pods in Canada is essentially the same.) In short, the role of Online Ambassadors this term consists of:
 * Working closely with the instructor and Campus Ambassadors, providing advice and perspective as an experienced Wikipedian
 * Helping students who ask for it (or helping them to find the help they need)
 * Watching out for the class as a whole
 * Helping students to get community feedback on their work

This replaces the 1-on-1 mentoring role for Online Ambassadors that we had in previous terms; rather than being responsible for individual students (some of whom don't want or help or are unresponsive), Online Ambassadors will be there to help whichever students in their class(es) ask for help.

You can browse the upcoming courses here: United States; Canada. More are being added as new pods become active and create their course pages.

Once you've found a class that you want to work with&mdash;especially if you some interest or expertise in the topic area&mdash;you should sign the MOU listing for that class and get in touch with the instructor. We're hoping to have at least two Online Ambassadors per pod, and more for the larger classes.

If you're up for supporting any kind of class and would like me to assign you to a pod in need of more Online Ambassadors, just let me know.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

PS: There are still a lot of student articles from the last term that haven't been rated. Please rate a few and update the list!

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 16:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Isangano National Park
Materialscientist (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 August 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Digya National Park
Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)