User talk:Davidwr/Archives/Archive 8

Episcopal Church logo
There is a long and torturous history behind this. The problem at root is that admins delete images without understanding history or details, and then refuse to do more than just move on to the next deletion. Because there is never any discussion (it's a speedy delete if the admin thinks it's a copyright problem, even if he's wrong), and there is no prod or other delay the way there is for articles, the thing is particularly problematic. will and have deleted copies of this shield because they thought it was a copy of the one from the website, even when they are wrong. They will say "just upload it under the non-free exemption for fair use, it should be fine", but then someone uploads one they made, which is free, and then the non-free one is deleted as superfluous. And then, perhaps a year later, some other admin deletes the free one, because they think, incorrectly, that it's an illegal copy. And around and around we go.

I'm extremely frustrated by the procedure; it is caused by the entire absence of discussion or normal community Wikipedia process, as admins simply delete whatever they think is a problem and move on. It has happened over and over again with this image. You seem to have decided to stir up this hornet's nest for the next step in the cycle, which will predictably result in the deletion of the non-free version I uploaded, and it's replacement by the free one someone else did. The next step will be that some admin will delete that free one in a while. I am fearful that your stirring up of the next step in the cycle will be forgotten by you once the damage is done, but I hope I'm wrong. I hope that, having decided to open the next step, you will continue to monitor it and not just think you've done your good deed by getting the non-free one deleted and a consensus around the freeness of the free one. Because, what will inevitably happen, as has many times so far, an admin will disregard that consensus and delete the free one, since the rules are that admins get to do that if they think it's a copyright violation, no matter what the consensus or history is.

If you have a way of stopping this cycle, that would be great, but so far, you haven't stopped it or helped it, you've just pushed the wheel one more notch around it's inexorable curve.

Tb (talk) 02:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The purpose of the discussion is to do just that - to either prove to everyone's satisfaction that it's free, to prove to everyone's satisfaction that it's not free, or to have it on the record that its status is not determined. Once the discussion is closed, putting links to the discussion on any images that aren't deleted should halt the merry-go-round in its tracks.  It would be helpful if we had a copyright lawyer chime in with respect to heraldic images derived from a public-domain blazon.  Barring that, it would be helpful if someone were to dig up some old, pre-1923 photographs that included the logo as it was in use then.  If the 1940 logo is practically identical, it would not get any new protections and the heraldry issue would be moot.
 * By the way, if there are any previous discussions about these images, either on user- or other -talk pages, please link them to the current discussion so history is taken into account. Likewise, link logs of deleted files so that at least admins can go see if there is any discussion on those files' talk pages or anything interesting in their histories.
 * For any bystanders/watchlisters reading from the peanut gallery, see Non-free content review and Non-free content review for the current discussions regarding several images used by the United Methodist Church and the Episcopal Church (United States) whose copyright status is uncertain. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  02:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup
Hello, the flag you signed up with at the 2010 WikiCup Signups page was removed as it did not meet our flag requirements. Your flag must "be under a free license that is of a (current or historical) continent, country, state, county or city and has NOT already been chosen by another contestant. You may not use the flag of Mexico." Please return to the signups page and choose a new flag that meets these requirements. Thank you!  iMatthew  talk  at 22:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Question
Can I borrow your New Page Patrol thing at the top of this page? -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 02:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No you may not borrow it! That means you have to return it.  :)
 * It's now at Newpagesbox for all to enjoy and improve. It's already added to WP:NPP for e-z access by all.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  02:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, then, can I steal it (the original wording)? :P Thank you! -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 02:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Ah! here you are!" he exclaimed, looking at Jean Valjean. "I am glad to see you. Well, but how is this? I gave you the candlesticks too, which are of silver like the rest, and for which you can certainly get two hundred francs. Why did you not carry them away with your forks and spoons?" - Les Misérables
 * You cannot steal that which is freely given. Before you ask, yes, you can have it.  Enjoy. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  02:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (grumbles) Page looks ugly now. Any idea how I can get it to run down the side without pushing the rest of the page down? I'm too sleepy for coding... Sorry to bother you... And yay, another Les Misérables fan. Thought I was the only one. -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 02:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, and I agree, it looks ugly. If you find a fix add it to Template talk:Newpagesbox.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  02:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Temporary fix. Makes the table of contents move up the page a bit at least. -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 03:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: New editors make mistakes
Whilst a new user, I can't really see that being labelled as a mistake. Inserting some kind of made-up and badly-written rubbish about a fictional character living in the 'Hell-lands' doesn't scream 'New user making mistake'. I've seen plenty of those, and they're usually things like citing things wrong, or not at all, or signing articles pages. Not adding nonsense to a fairly obscure policy page. But still, perhaps I'm too cynical and we'll see a useful contributor appear. Skinny87 (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My guess is he was in the wrong window when he started typing and didn't realize it. WP:AGF. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  20:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Now that's some lag!
To anyone wanting some wiki-trivia: A few seconds ago, my watchlist said "Due to high database server lag, changes newer than 2,432 seconds may not appear in this list." That's over 40 minutes, folks!. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  04:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Policy Report
The community gave feedback on a couple of policy pages at WT:SOCK and WT:CIVILITY, and there will be another one in Monday's Signpost that we're putting together at WT:Username policy. I'm asking for your participation because you made an edit this month or last month at that talk page. If you have questions, feel free to ask at WT:Username policy or my talk page. The best guide to what the community is expecting from the surveys is to follow the links above to see what they've already done; we haven't had any complaints. Thanks for your time. - Dank (push to talk) 16:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the barnstar! Your message persuaded me to nominate the article at WP:GAN where it will hopefully achieve GA status. Mjroots (talk) 06:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)\

Arbitrary section break - MisterWiki 12 Dec 2009

 * Thanks for the messages davidwr, I've readed your mail, and I'm working on a unblock on the es.wiki as soon as possible, anyway, thanks. -- MisterWiki  talk   contribs  01:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In general, what is said in email should stay in email unless both sender and receiver agree otherwise. I'm okay with it this time but be careful repeating what you read in mail in a public place.  I do read my email regularly, but typically don't reply unless there is a need to. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  02:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Skier Dude ( talk ) 06:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)`

RfA? (Ceranthor)
I think this has been brought up multiple times... you should definitely run for RfA my friend. I think others will agree.  ceran  thor 14:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I figured... you should consider running as soon as possible, you'd make a strong, strong candidate.  ceran  thor 16:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I figured... you should consider running as soon as possible, you'd make a strong, strong candidate.  ceran  thor 16:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Email
I've sent you an email with the information from Barry Merer attached from my school email address. -Vcelloho (talk) 04:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikicup flag
You are quite right. Apparently, I didn't read the rules surrounding the use of flags carefully enough. I'd prefer to keep the battle flag if possible, but if not, I suppose I could switch to the 13-star 1861 flag, since it was the first to include a star for Kentucky and was first displayed in Kentucky. Thanks for the note. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 21:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Consider using one of the national flags, it will invite less drama from both wikilawyers and those offended by the flag. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  21:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Meh
Autoreviewer does nothing for the person who receives it. It only benefits the person who grants it. DS (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As a new-page-patroller anyone who gets autoreviewer and who doesn't submit things that require review benefits me. OBSpam: When you can't decide whether to patrol from the front or the back, shoot for the middle! davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  23:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Technically, you are right, the holder of the right does not benefit. However, like all "granted only to trusted users," these advanced rights are a badge of experience.  While Wikipedia is not Myspace or any other social web site, like any volunteer-based effort there is a social aspect to it.  New editors typically seek advice from those who are already known to have experience and be good at giving advice. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  23:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

RFA?
I was looking at your contributions closely and I feel that you are well-qualified for WP:RFA, interested in a nomination? Thanks Secret account 14:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I've got some off-wiki things that will keep me from giving justice to the mop right now but I invite you and anyone else who feels the same way to ask me again in 6-12 months.   In the meantime, please keep looking for qualified candidates, we need to keep the ratio of active admins to active editors at least where it is now, if not increase it to clear out backlogged areas. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  20:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * On second thought, it will be a lot longer than that. Wait until the note that shows up when you edit this page changes.  I don't expect that to happen until mid-2011 at the earliest, possibly much later.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  18:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Way to break like, everybody's heart. ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 21:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * On the third thought, make that "not in the foreseeable future." Life happens. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  21:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 00:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Varanapally
An article that you have been involved in editing, Varanapally, 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. Singularity42 (talk) 18:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, I supported deletion. It died at AFD.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  00:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Hyphens and minus
Could you please explain on the talk page why that change about hyphens and minus sign is needed? It might not hurt to self-revert the change and propose it on the talk page. Eubulides (talk) 03:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a purely technical changed required for the proper operation of the sortable wikitable. I've updated WP:MOS, see WT:MOS for details. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  03:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you please follow up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style ? Eubulides (talk) 03:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays


 Ret.Prof (talk) 12:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to your friends' talk pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ret.Prof (talk • contribs) 12:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

New page patrolling
David - thank you for taking the initiative in finding a way to "jump in" to a specific section of the unpatrolled pages log. This is exactly what I was looking for as I was simply too lazy to continue hitting 'next 500' to get somewhere middle'ish in the list. Cheers, --Jezebel's Ponyo shhh 15:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. If this grows legs we can ask that the links be added to Special:Newpages.  I'm giving it a week to see if anyone improves the template first though. Random would be cool.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  15:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I see it's now been added directly to Special:Newpages, which is fantastic. I've been using the new "jump in" function daily since you put it together and I just wanted to thank you again for the effort. Cheers, --Jezebel's Ponyo shhh 16:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

t:nts
Sure, but I figured it would be a better behavior than without nts. /shrug. --Izno (talk) 04:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A very reasonable assumption. Live and learn.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  15:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Special:NewPages header
Per our discussion, I have added the timing options to MediaWiki:Newpages-summary (diff). I made some other tweaks, highlighting better what yellow highlighting means, and making these links and the prior to the back of the unpatrolled log all plainlinks. I wouldn't have been able to do this without Newpagesbox as a guide to placing the offset urls so it's great you figured that out (I still have no idea how to make a random offset link). If you have any tweaks in mind to the way it should appear or should be stated, just hit my talk page. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I love it when my temporary solutions are no longer necessary.  If I knew about MediaWiki:Newpages-summary I would've done this myself ages ago.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  16:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, pages in the Mediawiki namespace can only be edited by administrators, but of course you can always make an editprotected request. On not knowing where that page was, many of the headers for special pages are in the Mediawiki space. When you want to find out where they emanate from, grab some unique text from the page in question and search for it in quotes, restricting the search to the mediawiki namespace. For example, the way I found the header to special:newpages was with this search.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Locstein Asset Management
Hey,

I noticed you commented about the deletion of this page. I am still in the process of adding information on it... I wondered if it was possible for you to give me a bit more time to complete the page to satisfy what you said?

My email address is laurenfindly101@yahoo.com if you want to contact me there

Lauren —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurenfindley (talk • contribs) 01:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Proposed deletions are for articles whose deletions are uncontested. Anyone, including you, can remove the dated-prod template for the next 7 days.  While you could remove the proposed deletion yourself, I would not do so without running the finished article past a few more experienced editors.  If you do, it may wind up at Articles for deletion, which is a discussion-based deletion and, if it is deleted from there due to lack of notability, it "poisons the well" for any future article about the topic to be created.


 * One thing you can do in the future: Use the Article Wizard and create the draft in your "user space" then when it is done, WP:MOVE it into its final location. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  02:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi David,,


 * I saw the comments, would you be able to help me re write to how wikipedia and yourself would see fit??


 * Lauren —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurenfindley (talk • contribs) 02:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, however, I can't know that it's possible for this topic until I see some suitable references. Suitable references include news coverage, coverage in books, and other sources mentioned in Reliable sources.  Have you read the notability guidelines and verification policy yet?  By the way, now that the weekend is over my time will be more limited.  You might try putting a note on Newcomers help page, experienced editors watch that page around the clock.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  04:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No need to get angry about it, i didnt know... I am struggling to see the problem with me building the page up over a couple of days. I think patience is needed from certain members.
 * --Laurenfindley (talk) 20:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not angry. A bit frustrated, perhaps, but not angry.  It's too easy to forget that I was new once too.  As a general rule, cleanup templates, "citation needed" templates, and the like need to stay up until the underlying issue is addressed or it's clear they were put up in error.  Those templates alert other editors to jump in and fix the problem if they can, which is A Good Thing&trade;. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  20:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

David, I am trying to redo this now, i am also helping out on a number of other pages where my knowledge expands too. Some of the citations are genuinely hard to answer... Like the Commodities citation.... please advise. --Laurenfindley (talk) 20:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * My knowledge of the financial world isn't as great as some. I've dropped a note off at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Finance asking other editors to help you where my knowledge is limited.  In general, if you can't provide a citation, and it's likely to be challenged or make people think "Oh really? Prove it!," leave it out of the article.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  21:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Will do
 * --Laurenfindley (talk) 21:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Logicus
I asked you this question here, but you may have overlooked it: "Have you actually looked at this editor's conduct, or at the 3 RFCs cited above as the basis for this proposed community sanction?" —Finell 17:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC) (To preserve the continuity of the conversation, I will watch for your reply here on your Talk page.) 

Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at this page. Jusdafax  05:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Ready 'N Steady
In regard to this AfD, could you take a look at the sourcing in the article Ready 'N Steady as it is? Thanks. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the rest of my comment
As an experienced editor, you should know better than to look at raw vote tallies in a discussion. An article on a contentious topic will automatically draw editors with a particular point of view to its DRV; in general, it is also not particularly surprising that the creator of an article thinks it should not be deleted. ATren's 'suppression' conspiracy theory comment is an excellent illustration of this problem.

You don't have to re-summarize for me discussions which I've already read and commented on. A better use of your time might be to reflect on the second half of my comment, which you seem to have ignored &mdash; and which I think is a far more important justification for the deletion. You can direct any further comments on this to the DRV; I've said my bit, and don't need to poke the horse further. Thanks, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

DRV
Erm, yes, of course. Thanks for pointing that out! :-) Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The 2010 WikiCup begins tomorrow!
Welcome to the biggest WikiCup Wikipedia has yet seen! Round one will take place over two months, and finish on February 26. There is only one pool, and the top 64 will progress. The competition will be tough, as more than half of the current competitors will not make it to round 2. Details about scoring have been finalized and are explained at WikiCup/Scoring. Please make sure you're familiar with the scoring rules, because any submissions made that violate these rules will be removed. Like always, the judges can be reached through the WikiCup talk pages, on their talk page, or over IRC with any issues concerning anything tied to the Cup. We will keep in contact with you via weekly newsletters; if you do not want to receive them, please remove yourself from the list here. Conversely, if a non-WikiCup participant wishes to receive the newsletters, they may add themselves to that list. Well, enough talk- get writing! Your submission's page is located here. Details on how to submit your content is located here, so be sure to check that out! Once content has been recognized, it can be added to your submissions page, from which our bot will update the main score table. Remember that only articles worked on and nominated during the competition are eligible for points. Have fun, and good luck! Garden, iMatthew, J Milburn, and The ed17 19:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD
Please see: Articles for deletion/Sister Vincenza Taffarel (2nd nomination).Borock (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Optimer Pharmaceuticals
I've noticed that you had added a Notability tag to this article. Just to give you a heads up here Kdrichards (talk | contribs) states on her wiki page that she is employed by Porter Novelli Life Sciences, and that she will not post, or edit articles about past and current clients, their products or services.

“I will not post, or edit articles about past and current clients, their products or services “

Yet if you follow this link to a recent press release (09/14/2009 ) you will find that Optimer Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is indeed a client of, or related to, Porter Novelli Life Sciences (her employer):

http://www.biotech-finances.com/en/cp-72494.html?highlight=Optimer

Data From Optimer's Second Phase 3 Study of Prulifloxacin Presented at Annual Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (ICAAC) 9-14-2009

Contacts Porter Novelli Life Sciences Christina Donaghy, Corporate Communications Manager John D. Prunty, Chief Financial Officer & VP Finance 858-909-0736

Porter Novelli Life Sciences Jason I. Spark, Vice President 619-849-6005

Porter Novelli Life Sciences has a reputation of exploiting Internet sites to promote their client's interest. As such this appears to be Optimer Pharmaceutical's public relations firm trying to use wikipedia to promote Optimer Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and their products via Kdrichards. You will note when you review her contributions they have been limited to this firm and it's products. See the prulifloxacin and fidaxomicin articles she has edited as well. She has not made any other contributions since joining wikipedia. Furthermore Porter Novelli Life Sciences has a direct financial interest in Optimer.Davidtfull (talk) 04:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not giving much attention to that article right now. If you would like this to get the attention of other editors, please start a discussion on Talk:Optimer Pharmaceuticals and post a brief summary and link to the discussion on Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  13:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal
After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;


 * gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and


 * ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of International Shows
A tag has been placed on International Shows, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. '' ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex"> ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣  04:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
'' ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex"> ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣  18:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

RfD nomination of International Shows
I have nominated for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. '' ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex"> ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣  19:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 January newsletter
We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. We've had some shakeups regarding late entries, flag changes and early dropouts, but the competition is now established- there will be no more flag changes or new competitors. Congratulations to, our current leader, who, at the time of writing, has more listed points than and   (second and third place respectively) combined. A special well done also goes to - his artcle Jewel Box (St. Louis, Missouri) was the first content to score points in the competition.

Around half of competitors are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. 64 of the 149 current competitors will advance to round 2- if you currently have no points, do not worry, as over half of the current top 64 have under 50 points. Everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places in round 2! 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, by email or on IRC. Good luck! J Milburn, Garden, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In case anyone is watching, I've regretfully withdrawn due to time issues, as in lack of time to contribute at the level needed to compete. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  01:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion: Albert Einstein Charter Academy
I have nominated the article Albert Einstein Academy Charter School for deletion as non-notable. I am notifying you because you had a note on the talk page, trying to pre-empt such a nomination by arguing that the school was notable. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page, Articles for deletion/Albert Einstein Academy Charter School. Thank you. --MelanieN (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I got your note asking me to help improve the article. Believe me, if I could have rescued it, I would have; I am all in favor of schools and San Diego items generally. But the school simply fails the "notability" test, described here. I couldn't find any outside, independent coverage of the school at all - mentions in newspapers, that kind of thing. That's what it takes to establish a school (or anything else) as notable enough to be included in an international encyclopedia like Wikipedia. If you know of any such references, but you aren't sure if they qualify or don't know how to put them in the article, let me know and I'll see what I can do. Sorry, wish I could be more help! --MelanieN (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Later: I just saw the links you provided in the discussion page of the article. Those are very promising! If you can add that information and that kind of sourcing into the article it would improve it a lot, possibly enough to establish notability. Good work! --MelanieN (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 February newsletter
Round one is over, and round two has begun! Congratulations to the 64 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our first round. A special well done goes to, our round one winner (1010 points), and to and , who were second and third respectively (640 points/605 points). Sasata was awarded the most points for both good articles (300 points) and featured articles (600 points), and TonyTheTiger was awarded the most for featured topics (225 points), while Hunter Kahn claimed the most for good topics (70). claimed the most featured lists (240 points) and featured pictures (35 points), claimed the most for Did you know? entries (490 points),  claimed the most for featured sounds (70 points) and  claimed the most for In the news entries (40 points). No one claimed a featured portal or valued picture.

Credits awarded after the end of round one but before round two may be claimed in round two, but remember the rule that content must have been worked on in some significant way during 2010 by you for you to claim points. The groups for round two will be placed up shortly, and the submissions' pages will be blanked. This round will continue until 28 April, when the top two users from each group, as well as 16 wildcards, will progress to round three. 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; thank you to all doing this last round, and particularly to those helping at WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. 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, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC on Community de-adminship
You are receiving this message because you contributed to Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC and have not participated at Community de-adminship/RfC or been directly informed this RfC has opened. Please accept my apologies if you have been informed of and/or participated in the RfC already.

This RfC has opened and your comments are welcome and encouraged. Please visit Community de-adminship/RfC. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Overdrive (band)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Overdrive (band). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Overdrive (band). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 March newsletter
We're half way through round two, and everything is running smoothly. leads overall with 650 points this round, and heads pool B. currently leads pool C, dubbed the "Group of Death", which has a only a single contestant yet to score this round (the fewest of any group), as well five contestants over 100 points (the most). With a month still to go, as well as 16 wildcard places, everything is still to play for. 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.

Although unrelated to the WikiCup, April sees a Good Article Nominations backlog elimination drive, formulated as a friendly competition with small awards, as the Cup is. Several WikiCup contestants and judges have already signed up, but regular reviewers and those who hope to do more reviewing are more than welcome to join at the drive 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, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) 22:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 April newsletter
Round two is over, and we are down to our final 32. For anyone interested in the final standings (though not arranged by group) this page has been compiled. Congratulations to, our clear overall round winner, and to and , who were solidly second and third respectively. There were a good number of high scorers this round- competition was certainly tough! Round three begins tomorrow, but anything promoted after the end of round two is eligible for points. 16 contestants (eight pool leaders and eight wildcards) will progress to round four in two months- things are really starting to get competitive. 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.

Judge iMatthew has retired from Wikipedia, and we wish him the best. The competition has been ticking over well with minimal need for judge intervention, so thank you to everyone making that possible. A special thank you goes to participants and  for their help in preparing for round three. 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 17:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 May newsletter
We are half way through round 3, with a little under a month to go. The current overall leader is, who has 570 points. He leads pool C. Pools A, B and D are led by, and  respectively. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

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