User talk:Dusty777/Archive 1

Featured picture candidates/Everest from Drukair
Hi, I've uploaded a tilt-corrected version of the nominated image File:Mount Everest as seen from Drukair2.jpg. As you have already voted at the nomination (linked above), could you please give some feedback or show a preference between the original file and the new file? Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization/User categories
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization/User categories. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Morituri
What on Earth? You don't have a problem with the opening paragraphs ending with "(See Wikipedia's article on this expression: Ave Imperator, morituri te salutant)". How about editing Earth so that it opens with "Earth is the third planet in the solar system. (See Wikipedia's article on the solar system: Solar System)"? Are you new? -46.208.126.47 (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

And coming back to the Iwo Jima flag thing, familiarise yourself with Fair use/Definition of "low resolution". You don't seem to respond on this talk page very often, I think you'll find Wikipedia involves collaboration, and this kind of stonewalling isn't going to win you any friends. It's certainly not going to get you adminship. 46.208.126.47 (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I mean, you're clearly online, reading this; it beggars belief that you'd coincidentally stop editing four minutes before I posted. You're a busy man, have you read that fair use article yet? Yes or no will do. 46.208.126.47 (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Relax for a minute! I have been trying to type a reply to your last two comments. Now, what exactly is your problem? Dusty777 (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That's better. Good. You seem to have a thing against IP addresses; that's probably not going to hurt your career on Wikipedia but I'd be tempted to stop for a bit. I covered the main issue pretty well in the comment there. You're clearly not even reading the edits. And did you familiarise yourself with the fair use policy? That's a pretty fundamental thing for someone who has decided to make his name on Wikipedia in an administrative capacity. They will ask that kind of question when you decide to run. 46.208.126.47 (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You need to calm down. If you have a problem with my edits, kindly take it to the administrators and let them tell me about it, but i don't need to hear it from you. Dusty777 (talk) 19:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Copyrights
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Copyrights. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Your unhelpful edits
That was clearly not vandalism. Please withdraw your warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.193.129 (talk) 22:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 23:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Young Apprentice
I didn't feel that my edit to Young Apprentice was irrelevant or unnecessary. It was an important part of one of the episodes. Yes, I could have mentioned it on the Talk page first, but I generally only do that for edits that will dramatically change the article, not just mentioning something that happened in one of the episodes.

Can you tell me why it wasn't appropriate please? 94.171.244.104 (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Your edit was irrelevant to that section of the article. It was poorly written, and gave the impression that you did not like the fact that the girls had won (could have possibly passed as vandalism). You best option, would be to start a new section in the article titled Criticism, and provide your info with reliable sources. That way, misunderstandings such as this can be easily avoided. Dusty777 (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It was not irrelevant to that section of the article - I was describing something that happened within the episode that that section was talking about, so in my opinion it was completely relevant to that section. Neither was my edit intended as criticism - I do not dislike the fact that the girls won, but the fact remains that their tactics were criticised within the episode, and the section on that episode does not describe that. Starting a new section would be ridiculous - you can imagine information on all of the episodes, and then at the bottom having 'Criticism: In the first episode of Series 2, a mother complained about the girls' tactics in selling her daughter ice cream by putting lots of toppings on and not being upfront about the price.' Firstly, that is so minor that it would be pointless to start a whole new section on it, and secondly, it was a criticism of the tactics of the contestants within the episode, not of the series as a whole, so that would be misleading.

On many of the articles on the adult series of The Apprentice there is information on similar things happening within episodes. These things are a lot easier to write about on the articles for the adult series, because the episode descriptions are written in note format, and not in continuous prose like on the Young Apprentice article. I think that the episode descriptions for Young Apprentice should be written in note format, but when I posted something about this on the Talk page, no one responded, and I felt that it could be vandalism to do that myself without the backing of other editors. Therefore, I just need to put this kind of information into the articles as best I can. I don't dispute that it may have been poorly written, but in that case, you need to rewrite it so that it is easier to understand, not remove it entirely. 94.171.244.104 (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like you're pretty knowledgeable on the subject, so I guess your edit to Young Apprentice is valid. My apologies for any inconvenience and my lengthy time it took to reply. If you need help with anything, feel free to ask. =D Dusty777 (talk) 23:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Expand language
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Expand language. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 00:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Vandlism
Hi, I haven't vandalized Wikipedia! Edits I made are true and proved by references!--78.127.201.67 (talk) 17:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but your edits appeared to constitute vandalism. Your edit summary (after ClueBot reverted your edits with the tag of possible vandalism) stated: "This is not vandalism! I'm human! :)." Going off of your edit (it did not have references BTW), and your edit summary (users who vandalize are the only ones who usually joke in the summary), your edits appeared to constitute vandalism. Dusty777 (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I see. What am I supposed to do to be able to edit now? --78.127.201.67 (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I reverted my previous edit on Beyonce Knowles Discography back to your previous edit (you seem like a Good Faith editor), and I removed the warning from your Talk page. Since you seem sincere that your edit was not vandalism, and you seem like you want to start editing again, I will assume that your edit was made in good faith, and that you are not a vandal. To avoid further misunderstandings of this type, you may want to consider creating account. =D Dusty777 (talk) 18:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. So I edit the same thing on Beyonce Knowles Discography and on 4 (Beyoncé Knowles album), they won't be undo? I'd like to create an account but I cannot: username I use on other Wikipedias is already taken [not used though] on English one. Thanks again. --78.127.201.67 (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * To reduce the chance of your edits being reverted, use the edit summary, located just below the area where you type. It helps inform other users as to what you edited. Dusty777 (talk) 02:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Your request for rollback
Hi Dusty777. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! CharlieEchoTango ( contact ) 00:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
 * Use common sense.

Hi!
At what point does this go to ANI for blocking as vandal account? Quis separabit? 21:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears to me, that ANI is mostly for issues between users (E.G. Edit Wars, Sock-puppetry). I have never really been active there, so I am not sure. You could start a discussion on the projects talk page, and you could get a response from users more active on the project. I am sorry for not being able to help. Dusty777 (talk) 00:58, 29 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) 23:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 01:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Copyrights
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Copyrights. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 02:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 03:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

My edit was fine!
Please learn how to actually use Wikipedia! You do not NEED a source in the heading and it IS sourced further down the article. I was cleaning up some poor previous edits for goodness sake!!! 90.216.92.231 (talk) 18:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My apologies if a mistake was made. Dusty777 18:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Removing that caution from my talk page and making sure you read edit summaries in future would a good idea! ;) 90.216.92.231 (talk) 18:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, no problem. Sorry about the misunderstanding. When I reverted your edit, it looked like you were the one that added the unreferenced content (that was actually in a previous edit. Again, I'm sorry about the mistake. Dusty777 02:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced material
Much material is unsourced on wikipedia. Material only requires a citation if it is controversial or likely to be challenged (See WP:VERIFY). Deleting other's contributions is just plain bad manners especially when it is a good faith edit. The technique is sufficiently well known among photographers, that a citation was deemed unnecessary. The correct method of challenging something dubious or controversial is to add a tag to the claim. Since you are doubtful, I have added one on your behalf. Please feel free to delete it if you figure the technique out for yourself. 86.147.237.233 (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you will kindly check the lead section of WP:Verify, you will read this:
 * "Verifiability, and not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia; truth, of itself, is not a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement. No matter how convinced you are that something is true, do not add it to an article unless it is verifiable."
 * I'm sorry, but, just because a lot of material is un-sourced on Wikipedia, does not mean it's alright to not provide reliable sources when you add material to an article. Your edit was a good faith edit, but that does not mean I have to overlook the fact that there were no references provided. Dusty777 01:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Had you taken the trouble to read further, you might have discovered, "... any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source ...". In other words, you don't require a citation for the patently obvious.  If you think about the way the camera works, you would have to conclude that there is no other way to produce a panoramic photo of several hundred people all sitting in a long line, all looking ahead and all looking at the camera.  I could have provided a sample photo showing how it works complete with the apparently curved buildings in the background (I have several), but unfortunately I don't own the copyright on any of them so I can't.  If everything that is uncited in Wikipedia were to be removed, there wouldn't be very much left.


 * Since (as I said) that the technique was well known amongst photographers (and somewhat patently obvious), I considered it unlikely to be challenged, but then, I can't account for everyone. However, that still does not condone your unwarranted deletion of a good faith edit.  Incidentally, I have been editing here for almost as long as Wikipedia itself has been up and running.  86.147.237.233 (talk) 14:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:VERIFY states in the lead section:
 * "No matter how convinced you are that something is true, do not add it to an article unless it is verifiable."
 * Your edit is based on an assumption. It may, in fact, be the truth (I am sure it is), but without a reliable source to make the statement verifiable, it shouldn't be added to Wikipedia. WP:VERIFY states in the lead section:
 * "You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source."
 * My reverting your edit was entirely within policy. Your edit was made in Good Faith.... But that does not mean that I have to overlook the fact that your edit is un-verfiable. Most of the edits made on Wikipedia are made in good faith, but that does not mean that they do not have to be verifiable. In the future, it may be better if you provide the tag whenver you make an edit without a reference. Dusty777 17:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * My edit is not based on an assumption. It is based on knowledge known to (almost) any competant photographer.  It is also based on the immutable laws of simple geometry.


 * The principal was discussed in some detail when some comedian added a tag to the statement, "[The Eiffel Tower].. is one of the most recognizable structures in the world".  It was finally decided (with administrator support) that a citation is unnecessary for that patently obvious point.  That point is still uncited anywhere in the article.  The lead of WP:VERIFY is only a general summary and there are some conflictions in that page.  Nevertheless, the main body of the page does state that, "... any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source ...".  The logical dual is that material unchallenged or unlikely to be challenged does not require a reference.  In general such material will either be accepted by peer review or, if it really is dubious, by a  tag or even discussion on the article talk page.  A lot of the discussion on this point has come about because there is a vandal running wild on Wikipedia who has contributed nothing positive, but merely deletes anything that is uncited without the courtesy of a  tag, often within minutes of its addition.  Fortunately his interests seem to be fairly narrow.  Whatever the situation, just deleting material without the courtesy of a  tag is frowned upon within the community.  If the fact tag is unanswered within a few months, then deletion is entirely in order. 86.147.237.233 (talk) 18:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The discussion involving the Eiffel Tower is different... One can say the Eiffel Tower is one of the most recognizable structures in the world, that fact being verified by the simple fact that most of the people on earth know what and where the Eiffel Tower is (ask anyone you know, and I can guarantee they will say the Eiffel Tower is in Paris, while if you ask anyone you know what a Focal Plane Shutter is used for, they will probably not know what your talking about). Getting back to your edit, the expert photographers of the world know about the Focal Plane Shutter being used photograph large groups of people. As of 2008, there are 152,000 professional photographers in the United States. The total percentage of the US population (313,227,982 at the time of my posting this) that are professional photographers, is 0.048%... Soo... It is probably safe to assume that most of the US layman have no knowledge of a Focal Plane Shutter being used to photograph large groups of people (This is going off of the United States only... Not the entire community that uses the English Wikipedia). Can you provide a link to this discussion of the Eiffel Tower and the discussions about this "vandal" that is going around deleting everything that is uncited? I was unable to find the discussions. WP:VERIFY states: "No matter how convinced you are that something is true, do not add it to an article unless it is verifiable." & "You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source." The line below the edit box on any page on Wikipedia states: "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." I'm sorry, but I cannot over look that fact that you did not provide references to verify your edit to Focal Plane Shutter. Dusty 777 19:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Whilst you are correct in your observations on citations, finding citations for techniques such as this is not always easy if indeed possible, because it often comes down to 'tricks of the trade'.


 * The technique may well be discussed in a book somewhere, but if it is, I have not seen it. It certainly is not discussed in any of the user manuals for the cameras themselves.  If you think about the way the camera works, it should be apparent that to take a panoramic photograph of a long line of people such that they appear in the photograph in a long line; facing forward and all simultaneously facing the camera, there simply is no other way it can be done.  The only other theoretical method would be the use of a telecentric lens, but a lens with such a large field if view would have to have a diameter equal to the length of the group of people being photographed.  Not practical at all.  The same technique is required if you chose to 'stitch' together several photographs taken by swinging a conventional camera around a fixed viewpoint and taking several overlapping pictures - and I haven't seen that in a book either. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 04:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Khalsa Heritage Memorial Complex, India
Hi, I've uploaded a high resolution CA-corrected version of the nominated image File:Khalsa Heritage Memorial 176 Edit.jpg. I request you to kindly re-review the image. Thanks. Sanyambahga (talk) 08:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Common Lime Mating
Hello:

The nomination http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates#Common_Lime_Mating requires additional opinion from you. So, please - Jkadavoor (talk) 06:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 09:16, 29 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) 23:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NOINDEX
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NOINDEX. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 10:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Template messages
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Template messages. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 11:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Snow globe
Please look at the web (fe the article at the german wikipeda) and you will find, that it is as I have written. Perzy produces this globe even for the shops in Disney World.-- 178.115.249.25 (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You should provide a source on the English Wikipedia for verification. I can't read German, so... I can't verify your claims. Dusty 777 20:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Come on, there is always google translator. ^_- Anyway, I just added a weblink to the Perzy Snow globes, and I could ad some links of the article in the german wikipedia if you wish.--178.115.249.25 (talk) 20:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * That seems fine. As long as one link can verify it, then there is no problems. Cheers! Dusty 777 20:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Done.-- 178.115.249.25 (talk) 21:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

unconstructive
My edit was not unconstructive both editor were involve in case so it should have both names. I have given reply on my talk too --Highstakes00 (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Multiple editors may be involved in a discussion... Every editor involved does not need his/her name in the header. I'm sorry, but your edit was unconstructive. If you think I was wrong, kindly take it to the administrators and let them handle it. Dusty 777 01:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 12:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The Lucky One (film)
Hi, regarding the changes I had made to The Lucky One (film), I have added the sources (of both Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic). Please see for yourself. Art130385 (talk) 19:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right! I'm sorry for the mistake, after reverting hundreds of cases of vandalism to no references provided per week, I guess am going to make a mistake once in a while. My apologies for any inconvenience I may have caused. Dusty 777 22:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Get Smart!
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Get Smart!. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 12:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: The IP editor you recently warned
Hi Dusty777. Recently you warned IP editor User:68.195.91.213 about edits to the article Jeff Francoeur, asking about the sources. Looking into their edit history, I see numerous small changes of similar nature. Frankly, I am concerned that this is vandalism designed to fly under the radar. I have asked the IP editor for an explanation on their talk page and wonder if you concur in my concerns. I will watch for your reply here. Thanks. Jus da  fax   21:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It looks as if you hit upon a good point... The IP appears to only be used for creating (minor) deliberate factual errors. What do you recommend we should do in a case like this? Dusty 777 17:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've asked for an explanation on the IP's page, but no reply so far, and I doubt I'll get one. I have encountered this type of vandal before, and in fact this could be the exact same one from a couple years ago, as the technique is very similar. I can start by filing a report at Ani, as this requires serious checking to see if this is the same long-term vandal. I suggest waiting another 24-36 hours to see if there is a reply on the IP's page. If they don't reply and just start with the vandalism again, a report at Aiv is a must to stop further damage with a block. And if indeed this is vandalism, someone has to go back and revert all the damage. The vandal would then have to be indef blocked, or better, banned. Jus  da  fax   21:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We should probably go to AIV and see if we can get a block to prevent any further damage (since it has been about 48 hours, I think this step is necessary), then go to ANI and start a discussion concerning the IPs actions while the block is in effect and see if a ban is necessary, and to get the opinion of other editors on this subject. Dusty 777 17:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done as far as the AIV report, and ANI is next pending the protective block. The IP ignored my request and went right back to the same vandalism. Jus  da  fax   19:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The AIV report went through, and a three month block was put into place, let me know when you file the report at ANI. Dusty 777 22:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Will do! It appears efforts are underway to revert this character's sneaky edits. As for ANI, I'm going to dig through my archives and note the IP's that were banned for this exact type of "widespread number vandalism" to make the report complete, as I think this calls for a major review. Shouldn't take more than 48 hours for me to post. Thanks for the help on this! Jus  da  fax   07:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Glad to help out anywhere I can. I was going through the IPs past edits, and while getting ready to start reverting his edits, I found that 161.130.181.14 is kind of following the same pattern as the IP we just blocked, we might want to keep and eye on him, and see if he is the same guy or if he is a different guy that is going to do the same thing. Dusty 777 17:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly what my concern is. Over a year ago I encountered this same type of vandalism: multiple IP's doing number alteration, and staying silent on their talk page. Jus da  fax   07:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess all we can do is revert the edits, then report. If you ever need any help with anything, feel free to let me know about it. Dusty 777 22:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure that this IP editor was always vandalizing? There is at least one case when the information he put seems to have been correct (that would be his edit to Brayan Villarreal). AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * His edits may have been correct, but he edited at least over 200 edits without providing one reliable source, and was banned for number vandalism. I believe the ban was correct. Dusty 777 02:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, this concerns me mainly because I have been doing a lot of the same type of editing, with stats from Baseball-Reference.com as my source. However, I haven't been citing that website in anyway. Should I mention it in the edit summary or something like that? AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh... I can see the reason for your concern. I would recommend adding a footnote to the info you update. It may be time consuming, but at least it can keep Wikipedia verifible. Dusty 777 03:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Would it be acceptable to mention the source in the edit summary? AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 03:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't answer that question. I would say it would be acceptable, but I don't want you to get in trouble over my advice and vice-versa. I would take this to an Administrator to clarify your concerns. Dusty 777 04:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks for your help AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 04:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 April newsletter
Round 2 of this year's WikiCup is over, and so we are down to our final 32, in what could be called our quarter-finals. The two highest scorers from each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers overall, have entered round 3, while 30 participants have been eliminated. Pool B's remains our top scorer with over 700 points; he continues to gain high numbers of points for his good articles on The X-Files, but also Millennium and other subjects. He has also gained points for a good topic, a featured list, multiple good article reviews and several did you knows. Pool E's was second, thanks primarily to his biology articles, with Pool H's  coming in third, with an impressive 46 did you knows, mostly on the subject of baseball. Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both scored over 600 points. Pools E and H proved our most successful, with each seeing 5 members qualify for round 3, while Pools C and D were the least, with each seeing only 3 reach round 3. However, it was Pool G which saw the lowest scoring, with a little under 400 points combined; Pool H, the highest scoring group, saw over triple that score.

65 points was the lowest qualifying score for round 3; significantly higher than the 11 required to enter round 2, and also higher than the 41 required to reach round 3 last year. However, in 2010, 100 points were needed to secure a place in round 3. 16 will progress to round 4. In round 3, 150 points was the 16th highest score, though, statistically, people tend to up their game a little in later rounds. Last year, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 points were needed. Guessing how many points will be required is not easy. We still have not seen any featured portals or topics this year, but, on the subject of less common content types, a small correction needs to be made to the previous newsletter: File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg, our first featured picture, was the work of both and, the latter of whom has also gone on to score with File:Map of the Battle of Guam, 1944.svg. Bonus points also continue to roll in; this round, earned triple points for her good articles on William the Conqueror and the Middle Ages, Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both earned triple points for their work on Western Jackdaw, now a good article,  earned triple points for her work on lettuce and work by  to ready antimony for good article status earned him triple points. managed to expand Vitus Bering far enough for a did you know, which was also worth triple points. All of these highly important topics featured on 50 or more Wikipedias at the start of the year.

An article on the WikiCup in the Wikimedia Blog, "Improving Wikipedia with friendly competition", was posted at the end of April. This may be of interest to those who are signed up to this newsletter, as well as serving as another way to draw attention to our project. Also, we would again like to thank and, for continued help behind the scenes. As ever, 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. 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) 23:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:User pages
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:User pages. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 13:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Disambiguation
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Disambiguation. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 14:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

revert on Northern Arizona University
What I removed was a link farm, which goes against the policy outlined in WP:External links. Please unrevert. 119.154.118.35 (talk) 18:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right. My apologies for the mistake, I will revert my edit and will remove the warning from your talk page. Again, my apologies for the mistake. Dusty 777 18:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. No need for apologies. 119.154.118.35 (talk) 18:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 14:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The Pearl and the Wave
Hi Dusty, I already stated support alt. Do you think it isn't clear? Colin°Talk 18:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Checking for clarification only. I don't know if you may have changed your preference in the last couple of days. I hope it didn't take too much of your time. Dusty 777 18:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 15:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Closure review
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Closure review. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 15:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Point Guard
Greetings Dusty!

I see that you reverted my edit to Point Guard merely including the colloquial abbreviation one alongside "playmaker" and "ball-handler," referencing a lack of specific citation as the reasoning to revert. Please forgive my naiveté, but why is this inclusion any different from the content already present on the page? I made the addition to bring the page more in-line with the pages for the other positions in the game, Shooting Guard, Small Forward, Power Forward, and Center_(basketball), all of which include a reference to the numerical abbreviation for the position without specific citation. Can you clarify? --Hawkian (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Hawkian. I'm guessing that in this case, since it sounds like a common practice in basketball related articles, I am assuming that this is probably a case where a source is not really necessary (of course if you were to find one, I would recommend adding it to the articles). I have never played basketball, so when I saw your edit, it appeared to either be an edit test, or vandalism, so I reverted it due to my lack of knowledge for basketball. Sorry for any inconvenience I may have caused. I will revert the edit to Point Guard, and remove the the warning on your talk page. Dusty 777 18:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks for the clarification and the civility! I just realized that I didn't put in any reason for the edit in the comment box, so I can understand your confusion there if you were unaware of what I was going for.--Hawkian (talk) 19:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Glad to be of service! If you need assistance on anything in the future, feel free to ask, and I will try to help to the best of my ability. Dusty 777 00:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Cryptic genetic variation
Hey, Dusty, I just wanted to let you know that I changed your G7 tag (author request) to a G1 tag (patent nonsense), as I can't find a request from the user to delete the page anywhere. G3 (vandalism) probably would've worked too. Thanks, and feel free to revert if I missed a request somewhere! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Writ Keeper. I was using Huggle at the time, and it suggested that I nominate the article for speedy deletion. I was going to check and see if it chose the correct criteria, but as I was going to check, a large amount of vandalism occurred at that moment on multiple articles and I got tied up and forgot to check... Thanks for covering that for me. Dusty 777 18:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Much appreciated. You probably know Nev1's gone because of him. Dougweller (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Dougweller. Are you sure you left a comment on the correct talk page? If so, what are you referring to? Dusty 777 00:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Your removal of vandalism from my user page. Dougweller (talk) 08:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I checked your talk page to see if I reverted vandalism there, but I failed to check your user page. Your welcome, I'm glad to help when I can. Dusty 777 16:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, my talk page too! &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  17:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Glad to help where I can. Dusty 777 17:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 May newsletter
We're halfway through round 3 (or the quarter finals, if you prefer) and things are running smoothly. We're seeing very high scoring; as of the time of writing, the top 16 all have over 90 points. This has already proved to be more competative than this time last year- in 2011, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 was the lowest qualifying score. People have also upped their game slightly from last round, which is to be expected as we approach the end of the competition. Leading Pool A is, whose points have mostly come from a large number of did you knows on marine biology. Pool B's leader,, is for the first time not our highest scorer at the time of newsletter publication, but his good articles on The X-Files and Millenium keep him in second place overall. leads Pool C, our quietest pool, with content in a variety of areas on a variety of topics. Pool D is led by, our current overall leader. Nearly half of Casliber's points come from his triple-scored Western Jackdaw, which is now a featured article.

This round has seen an unusually high number of featured lists, with nearly one in five remaining participants claiming one, and one user,, claiming two. Miyagawa's featured list, 1936 Summer Olympics medal table, was even awarded double points. By comparison, good article reviews seem to be playing a smaller part, and featured topics portals remain two content-types still unutilised in this competition. Other than that, there isn't much to say! Things are coming along smoothly. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. 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 or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 02:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 August newsletter
The final is upon us! We are down to our final 8. A massive 573 was our lowest qualifying score; this is higher than the 150 points needed last year and the 430 needed in 2010. Even in 2009, when points were acquired for mainspace edit count in addition to audited content, 417 points secured a place. That leaves this year's WikiCup, by one measure at least, our most competitive ever. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:
 * 1) once again finishes the round in first place, leading Pool B. Grapple X writes articles about television, and especially The X-Files and Millenium, with good articles making up the bulk of the score.
 * 2) led Pool A this round. Fourth-place finalist last year, Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, and has reached the final primarily off the back of his massive number of did you knows.
 * 3) was second in Pool B. Ruby2010 writes primarily on television and film, and scores primarily from good articles.
 * 4) finished third in Pool B. Casliber is something of a WikiCup veteran, having finished sixth in 2011 and fourth in 2010. Casliber writes on the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. Over half of Casliber's points this round were bonus points from the high-importance articles he has worked on.
 * 5) came second in Pool A. Also writing on biology, especially marine biology, Cwmhiraeth received 390 points for one featured article (Bivalvia) and one good article (pelican), topping up with a large number of did you knows.
 * 6) was third in Pool A. Muboshgu writes primarily on baseball, and this round saw Muboshgu's first featured article, Derek Jeter, promoted on its fourth attempt at FAC.
 * 7) was fourth in Pool A. She writes on a variety of topics, including horses, but this round also saw the high-importance lettuce reach featured article status.
 * 8) is another WikiCup veteran, having been a finalist in 2009 and 2010. He writes mostly on mycology.

However, we must also say goodbye to the eight who did not make the final, having fallen at the last hurdle:, , , , , , and. We hope to see you all next year.

On the subject of next year, a discussion has been opened here. Come and have your say about the competition, and how you'd like it to run in the future. This brainstorming will go on for some time before more focused discussions/polls are opened. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. 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 or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 03:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 03:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Signatures
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Signatures. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 03:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 04:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus"
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 05:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Editing policy
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Editing policy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 05:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 September newsletter


We're over half way through the final, and so it is less than a month until we know for certain our 2012 WikiCup champion. currently leads, followed by, and. However, we have no one resembling a breakaway leader, and so the competition is a long way from over. Next month's newsletter will feature a list of our winners (who are not necessarily only the finalists) and keep your eyes open for an article on the WikiCup in a future edition of The Signpost. The leaders are already on a par with last year's winners, but a long way from the huge scores seen in 2010. That said, a repeat of the competition from 2010 seems unlikely.

It is good to see that three-quarters of our finalists have already scored bonus points this round. This shows that, contrary to criticism that the WikiCup has received in the past, the competition does not merely incentivise the writing of trivial articles; instead, our top competitors are still spending their time contributing to high-importance articles, and bringing them to a high standard. This does a great service to the encyclopedia and its readers. Thank you, and good work!

The planning for next year's WikiCup is ongoing. Some straw polls have been opened concerning the scoring, and you can now sign up for next year's competition. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. 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 or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Help talk:Archiving a talk page
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Help talk:Archiving a talk page. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 06:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

GFDL
There is a discussion at Commons:Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates. Please participate. -- Jkadavoor (talk) 16:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 06:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 06:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:User pages
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:User pages. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 07:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Asfi Mosque
Hi, Please see the edit,. Thanks --Muhammad (talk) 15:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 October newsletter
The 2012 WikiCup has come to a close; congratulations to, our 2012 champion! Cwmhiraeth joins our exclusive club of previous winners: (2007),  (2008),  (2009),  (2010) and  (2011). Our 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 goes to, for four featured articles in the final round.
 * The good article award also goes to, for 19 good articles in the second round.
 * The list award goes to, for three featured lists in the final round.
 * The topic award goes to, for three good topics (with around 40 articles) in round 4.
 * The did you know award goes to, for well over 100 DYKs in the final round.
 * The news award goes to, for 10 in the news items in round 3.
 * The picture award goes to, for two featured pictures in round 2.
 * The reviewer award goes to both (14 reviews in round 1) and  (14 reviews in round 3).
 * Finally, for achieving an incredible bonus point total in the final round, and for bringing the top-importance article frog to featured status, a biostar has been awarded to.

Awards will be handed out in the coming days; please bear with us! This year's competition also saw fantastic contributions in all rounds, from newer Wikipedians contributing their first good or featured articles, right up to highly experienced Wikipedians chasing high scores and contributing to topics outside of their usual comfort zones. It would be impossible to name all of the participants who have achieved things to be proud of, but well done to all of you, and thanks! Wikipedia has certainly benefited from the work of this year's WikiCup participants.

Next year's WikiCup will begin in January. Currently, discussions and polls are open, and all contributions are welcome. You can also sign up for next year's competition. There will be no further newsletters this year, although brief notes may be sent out in December to remind everyone about the upcoming competition. It's been a pleasure to work with you all, and we hope to see you all in January! J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 07:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Matt Bomer Infobox photo consensus discussion
Hi. Your opinion is requested in this discussion.

If you're in an area that was affected by Hurricane Sandy, and are unable to reply, I hope that you have not suffered too greatly, and my best wishes go out to you. Nightscream (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Questions/General
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Questions/General. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 08:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Recruitment policy
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Recruitment policy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 09:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 10:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ticker symbols in article leads
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ticker symbols in article leads. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 11:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Policy list
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Policy list. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 12:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:User pages
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:User pages. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 12:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 12:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 13:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 13:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)