User talk:KumiokoCleanStart/Archive 7

Hey.
Good meeting you. Just wanted to connect here. Cheers! bd2412 T 00:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Check this out: Julia Child's kitchen. bd2412  T 01:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Need for a comment
Could you comment on AWB/B? Thanks in advance. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure if your watching this page but Ill try here first. Was the information I gave enough or do you need more info. Just for extra info I am selectingn the Military history plugin and the Biography plugin. Then under the Milhist tab I am selecting Nat. and Reg. I am selecting US. Under the General and periods I am selecting Biography.On the Biography tab I am selecting military and thats pretty much it. --Kumioko (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you manage to duplicate it please make the false edit and then revert it. Then put the first diff here or in WP:AWB/B. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Im still getting that error but I will try again when the next SVN is released in case its related to the current SVN I have. Do you know whats throwing that error? --Kumioko (talk) 13:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you copy the header of this bugs too? It should be "InvalidOperationException in xxx". What is this xxx? -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly, it says "InvalidOperationException in TraceManager.ProcessingArticle". --Kumioko (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Auto refresh watchlist
You said that you set your watchlist to auto-refresh. How do you do this? Sadads (talk) 16:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Its not something thats done from with WP. --Kumioko (talk) 17:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you use a code on the browser, or is there a function somewhere that I don't know about? Sadads (talk) 17:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorta the first one. I used C++ to create a little app that allows me to assign a location on the screen (in this case the area of my watchlist) as a hotspot. Then I set that to update every 5 seconds. Im certain its possible to do something in a java script that would allow the mywatchlist to autorefresh but thats above my skill level. You could ask Rich Farmbrough, hes a really good programmer and probably knows how to do that. Or he would be able to point you in the right direction anyway. One drawback thuogh, everytime someone hits my watchlist it essentially sends a request to the server and returns a result. So too many people hitting it constantly can in theory slow it down. I would think that would take quite a few though. Sorry and good luck.--Kumioko (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You could Javascript it, however the easiest would be to use the FireFox plugin "ReloadEvery". Rich Farmbrough, 18:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC).
 * Thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Sadads (talk) 18:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Frank Baldwin
FYI, This medal of honor page isn't in to good of shape, citation and other development - wise. Sadads (talk) 17:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

First Smithsonian workshop conversation
Please check out the conversation at Wikipedia talk:GLAM/SI, thanks Sadads (talk) 22:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Broke it
You broke this: article  — Rlevse • Talk  • 01:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know Ill watch out for that. --Kumioko (talk) 13:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Regex help
I have noticed that you seem to be wise in the ways of regex and I could use some help. I have been trying to convert some of my simpler AWB find and replaces with regex and have had some success but I have hit a snag in one area and that is in looking for = X where X is unknown. For example: I know that if I am looking for something like this:

|peer-review = No (or no, n, N, or missing)

and I want to eliminate it as a clutter field (since its equal to no or missing per the WPMILHIST banner instructions they are uneeded and shouldnt be present if not used) I can use logic similar to the below replacing the No with N or allowing for missing.

Find \|[ ]*peer-review[ ]*=[ ]*No[ ]* \|

What I am having trouble with is if I am looking for things other than No, N or missing. For example I have found some that have noo, some that have comments (copy pasted explaining what should go there, jsut rubbish data, etc. My question in this is there regex code that I can apply that would look for any character so instead of putting No I could put regex code and do it a little more efficiently. I would still be monitoring this closely because I wouldnt want to accidentally delete yes's or y's but it would make my codeing a little simpler and would catch more problems. The onen I mentioned above is just an example I have several dozen find and replaces that that fall under this category of change. Thanks in advance for the help. --Kumioko (talk) 14:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * (.*?) will match any character except a newline (and will match newlines when "Singleline" regex is enabled). – xeno talk 14:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow thanks that was fast so that would like some thing like this?

Find \|[ ]*peer-review[ ]*=[ ]*(.*?)[ ]* \| --Kumioko (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, and then if you want the (.*?) to be put somewhere in the replacement, you would use $1  ($2 if it was the second bracketed group, etc). You can use bracketed groups for a number of different things as well, suchlike (no|noo|hell no), etc. See also: http://www.addedbytes.com/cheat-sheets/regular-expressions-cheat-sheet/ – xeno talk  14:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for the help. I'm slowly starting to catch on, here.--Kumioko (talk) 14:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You're probably about where I was a year or so ago. I'm still just bumble along, for-the-most-part =) – xeno talk 14:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk header
Reminder: Not all talk pages need a talk header. For example:. This talk page has only banners and was never vandalized. Thus, no talk header is really needed. Check instructions in talk header. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand that rule with the talk headers and I only do it as a minor edit when Im there doing other things. The problem I have with that rule in general is that without the talk header newbys and non-reguler editors don't have anything on the page that tells them the rules about talk page behavior or how to sign.  In the case of the MOH recipient articles I have found that by putting the talk page header on the article talk page it greatly reduces the number of unsigned messages and cuts down on the excess cruft messages that people leave behind (this was my grandpa and I love him, I met him a couple of times and hes a cool guy, hes a great hero, god save the queen, etc).  On a minor aspect it also makes the talk page structure consistent making it easier to make automated updates with AWB (when I don't have a million variations of structure it limits the amount of code I need to come up with), to identify problems (when I don't have to cull through 50 different variations of talk page structure) --Kumioko (talk) 13:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Recall that we also have edit notices to help newbys and non-regulars. If we were to add talk header in every possible page we have other ways to do it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * True, but there are several things with edit notices such as they are even less used that the talk header template (less than 100 excluding user talk pages as far as I can tell), there are limited ones currently available, it would essentially be creating an additional template where an existing template would do, they can only be created by administrators or higher, and, if I am reading the instructions correctly the viewer must manually turn them on. Which sorta raises another interesting point in my mind. If we can set a template to appear, such as the persondata template, using java code. Then we should also be able to make the talk header template disappear for those who do not wish to see it using the same type of logic. --Kumioko (talk) 01:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Still the instructions read "Talk pages that attract frequent or perpetual debate, articles often subject controversy, and/or recent-and-highly-visible topics are usually appropriate for this template. Calm talk pages do not need this template.". Better start a discussion of your idea somewhere (Template's talk page, village pump, ...) before adding talk header to hundreds of pages that will never receive a comment. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Request unblock due to Collatoral damage

 * Thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 14:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Nope still doesnt work & would it be possible to get the Ipblock-exempt permission granted? The IP I use affects a couple million computers throughout the Navy and USMC and I frequently am affected from editing due to someone within this 2m + network doing something foolish. With over 110, 000 edits and a few hundred pages created over the past few years I would argue that I have proven myself trustworthy at this point. :-) --Kumioko (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed and done. :) Kuru   (talk)  15:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

AWB FR Move Template:Wikipedia-books
I will implement this but first I want to see the documentation page for the template to explicitly state that it should be placed in the see also section of the article. Rjwilmsi 11:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you look at See also it'll show that. --Kumioko (talk) 00:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

E-mail
Could I get your e-mail address, there is a lady at the Archives of American Art that is interested in meeting some of us for lunch or something. I am going to send an e-mail out to the group of people who I have alot of information on. It will probably be in august. Sadads (talk) 19:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, thecognosguy@rocketmail.com. If you still have it could you also send me a copy of the SI newsletter you made?--Kumioko (talk) 19:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Workshop sign up is Up at WP:GLAM/SI/Events
Hey, the final date and time for the first Workshop has been set. If you want to sign up for the team check out GLAM/SI, Sadads (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry I will be out of town from the 14th ot the 28th of August. Im still interested for future events though so please keep me posted. --Kumioko (talk) 19:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Definitely, Sadads (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Another regex question
I have been trying to figure out how to do something in regex and can't quite figure it out so I hope I can bug you again. Some improvements were recently made to the findagrave template so that it displays more like a citation and I would like to take something that looks like this

Retrieved on yyyy-mm-dd

and make it look like this

Is there any way I can do this or is this type of change using regex? Thanks again.--Kumioko (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe something like...

Find:

\{\{findagrave\|(.*?)\}\}[ ]*Retrieved on ([0-9]{4})-([0-9]{2})-([0-9]{2})

Replace:

Not sure though. Make sure to test it. – xeno talk 18:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "I solved my problem using a regular expression. Now I have two problems."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You could change the find to  to make sure it only finds valid dates (don't know what context this is in, and if some of the dates could be wrong, but could be useful). - EdoDodo  talk 18:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you could ;p lazy sleeping barnstar.svg – xeno talk 18:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow thats great thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 19:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Dwight H. Johnson
Hi. Your AWB edit here didn't come out the way I think you intended. The blockquote did something with the cite tag. I put an ugly band-aid on it, but maybe there's a better way to fix it. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 17:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Pomeroy Parker
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Pomeroy Parker, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.marine-family.org/hero/newstuff/parkerp.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Can't quite figure out what Im doing wrong
Hello again, I think I am starting to pick this regex stuff up. But Im kinda slow so please bare with me. I am trying to come up with some regex that will find something like this:

([ ]*)Notes[ ]*
(.*?)==[ ]*See also[ ]*==(.*?) ==

Replace:

$1See also$1
$3==$1See also$1==$2 ==


 * Maybe? See if it works. – xeno talk 01:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow thanks, your the man. Thats a little embarrassing I wasn't even close. I got a lot more to learn I guess. --Kumioko (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Less is sometimes more! =] – xeno talk 02:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * BTW, You need to change the second see also in the replace to Notes. Other than that it works awesome thanks again. --Kumioko (talk) 02:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops! – xeno talk 02:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Just wanted to say...
Thanks, and good work on the spanam list. I'll start including the new parameters to the hallofvalor and findagrave templates. — jwillbur 21:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I don't use AWB much. — jwillbur 23:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Userfication
I have moved Kumioko/Medal of Honor recipients with DAB names to User:Kumioko/Medal of Honor recipients with DAB names. &mdash; RHaworth 17:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Opps sorry about that thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

AWB stuff
Hi

The only reason I mentioned cites was because he has written his own script that I wanted to try out

The problem I was having with regex was trying to make AWB do find and replace on a set format

For example find 1971 and replace with 1971 - as I don't know anything about it at all any help that teaches me is going to make me know more than I know already lol

Chaosdruid (talk) 19:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough and like I said he knows a lot more than I do but I do things that are similar (and some that are more complicated). I left another way of doing the find and replace on his talk page. You can use whichever is easier for you. Finding and replacing XXXX is pretty easy. If you are looking for something like Retrieved on 2009-12-02  and you want to replace it with something like  its a lot harder. --Kumioko (talk) 20:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That looks far too complicated for me lol - It was mainly because some of the pages I come across have not been used for over 12, or 24 in some cases, months and some still have things like 24 July 1979 for example.
 * I will take a look tomorrow and try them in the AWB test page when I can - thanks a lot for taking the time out to explain it to me and I know where to come now if I need any other fixes :¬)
 * Chaosdruid (talk) 04:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, now that I know what your looking for I think I can gin something up for ya. Ill send you a message tomorrow and let you know what I come up with. Cheers. --Kumioko (talk) 04:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

R/recipient
I recognize that you're trying to change "Medal of Honor Recipient" to "Medal of Honor recipient" in prose, and that's obviously correct, but at Daniel Lakin, the following reference/citation isn't prose and should remain formatted as the capitalized former. —  pd_THOR  undefined | 15:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If I may ask why do you believe this should be captialized? --Kumioko (talk) 16:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * For the same reason the US Army does, if none other. The capitalization is in the original source and should carried forward as an accurate representation of the sourcing.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 17:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I completely agree that we should carry the appropriate title across, thats one of the reasons I have been making so many edits to them. Because many do not have the accurate information. But I do not agree that the capitalization must remain the same. Using the same logic, if the whole title was in caps we would not leave it that way and I have been told by several that it is not necessary to maintain the capitalization of the reference title, just the title itself. A prime example is the individual names on the Medal of Honor website. I previously reported them as caps in the citation because thats the way it is in the website and was told by at least three other editors that maintaing the caps was not necessary and it was in fact preferred to use natural capitalization for citations because its easier for some readers/editors to read. Do you have a WP guidline, policy, rule, etc that states that we should maintain the caps? It states here Manual of Style (capital letters) that the house style of WP is in natural caps and that full caps should be avoided unless under certain circumstances. --Kumioko (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I've honestly never come across this situation before. In all the articles I watch, I've never had anybody change the capitalization from the original.  I think WP:MOSCAPS more pertains to prose, so I've begin a discussion at WT:CITE.  We can either discuss there or here.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 18:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats totally fine and fair by me. --Kumioko (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment
Just wanted to mention that, while I don't always agree with you, I do like your style of non-confrontation. Thanks for being a responsible editor! There few others with your huge edit count who take the time to either do really professional editing and interfacing well with other editors. You are doing both. Nice work! (Hard act to follow!) Student7 (talk) 19:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks I appreciate that...I try not to take things personal. --Kumioko (talk) 23:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

2nd opinion
I noticed your name as part of the edit history of Michael D. Fay.

If you please, may I ask you to review my re-write of Military art; and please add this article along with War artist to your watchlist.

I also invite your comments at Talk:Military art and at Talk:War artist. --Tenmei (talk) 21:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Louis Fred Pfeifer
Hello! Your submission of Louis Fred Pfeifer at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Nsk92 (talk) 11:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Meetup/DC 11
Hey, just in case you missed it, there is an oppurtunity to get a free dinner this Tuesday August 11 and a chance to meet and hang out talk about WikiProject United States Public Policy and WP:GLAM/SI. Sorry that this is so late in the game, I was hoping the e-mail would be a better form of contact for active members (if you want to get on the e-mail list send me an User e-mail ). Hope that you can attend, User:Sadads (talk)12:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I meant Tuesday August 10, I had it correct on the meetup page,Sadads (talk) 02:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

AWB
Hello. Wanted to let you know, your AWB isn't fixing Notes section headings properly. It seems to be changing level 3 headings into level 2-1/2 headings (i.e. ===Notes=== into ==Notes=== ), rather than level 3 headings into level 2 headings. For example. Have seen this one other time, and corrected it. Nonetheless, letting you know as it seems to be a recurring problem. Cheers. Akerans (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI
FYI. – xeno talk 15:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

American Civil War Generals List
Thanks for the message. I began doing some Wikipedia editing recently and did only some small corrections until I came across the list, which was obviously unfinished. I had most of the necessary reference books and now have the Eicher book as well. I had two purposes: fill in the missing items and write a little more detailed introduction with general information on the Civil War generals not necessarily just on the war or just on generals. One thing led to another in the drafting: explaining one related point in order to be sure the next one was clear. I knew the introduction had become too long but since no one seemed to be watching, I thought I could complete the list without going back and revising the introduction. I think the current revision of the introduction is reasonably good and not yet too long again. I do not intend to change it much for clarity.

Another mistake in terms of making the article too long was that I began adding to the notes. I thought it would be nice to have some key information for each general along with the names. That was going to take too many kilobytes. I think some still need notes. I did not delete any notes that anyone else had added although some of them really could be deleted if one were trying to avoid unnecessary notes. I think the necessary notes would be info on appointments that were cancelled or unconfirmed. Maybe after that comments on killed in action. Certainly if someone had a big accomplishment, like General in Chief or President of the U.S., that might be mentioned, even though it is most likely to be known.

I do not think the brevet Union generals should be added if they were not also full rank generals. There are too many of them and they were no more than colonels. Most did not even exercise temporary general level command. I have now explained the question about who is to be counted in the reduced introduction - which is actually more pertinent to the list than some of the material I took out. I may put up a list of brevet Union generals.

Other than tweaking a few words in the introduction, more clearly identifying the rank of brevet generals, putting notes in about cancelled or declined appointments and perhaps putting in citations for a few more statements or note references, I think it will be as finished as it needs to be - or can be in view of length restrictions - and I will leave it alone. I would not object to splitting the Union and Confederate lists, especially if that would allow more info in notes. I would still think the brevet generals, and militia generals that were not brought into the Union and Confederate armies, should not be on the main lists of generals but on a separate list.

Thanks again. Let me know if you have any further thoughts on this. Donner60 (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That all sounds good to me and I pretty much agree with having a separate brevet general list. My opinion is we should have them, but probably not on the "Main"list. --Kumioko (talk) 20:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Marine Corps MOH recipients
Congratulations on finishing them. Now you're going to do all 1,090 remaining Civil War recipients, right? ( only partially kidding... :) ) — jwillbur

USMC MOH recipients
That's one hell of an awesome job! But one question: Category:Marine Corps Medal of Honor recipients lists 294 articles, but there are 295 individual Marine recipients. Who hasn't been categorized?  bahamut0013  words deeds 18:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats a good question Ill have to hunt that fella down. Let me know if you know who it is? --Kumioko (talk) 18:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Semper Fi, brother. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh thats cool thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 20:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Dang it Tony! You beat me to the punch. :( Shouldn't have waited on that last bio!  bahamut0013  words <sub style="color:#000;margin-left:-16px">deeds 00:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Speech
This humble servant would like to share this speech made before the Commission of the Latino American Museum, with his friends: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=423585291337 Tony the Marine (talk) 23:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks thats really cool congradulations. --Kumioko (talk) 00:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

James Parker (Medal of Honor)
The title should probably go back to U.S. Army General or Officer in the disambiguation. Usually, except in rare cases where there are more than one of the same kind of disambiguation (like if there was two James Parker Army Generals), then you would change the dab to something more specific. For people, the dab is usually their occupation for their notability, and James Parker wouldn't conflict with another James Parker article. Having Medal of Honor as the disambiguation just puts a different meaning than what you intend. The disambiguation in its current state, makes it sound like James Parker is a kind of Medal of Honor, not a Medal of Honor recipient (which is why it should probably go back to a U.S. Army officer or General). — <font color="DD0000">Moe <font color="0000FF">ε  16:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Louis Fred Pfeifer
The DYK project (nominate) 12:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Kumioko,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:VADM John Bulkeley 1988 NR edit.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on August 19, 2010. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2010-08-19.  howcheng  {chat} 17:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Christopher Nugent (Medal of Honor)
The DYK project (nominate) 06:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Watchlist request
I created a new article for David H. Huntoon, the new Superintendent of USMA. As I've been less active this year, do you mind adding him to your watchlist? Thanks! BusterD (talk) 23:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ill do it momentarily. --Kumioko (talk) 23:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Since he's got plenty of source material, I may build him up myself to start-class and get the DYK, so don't go too far yet... Thanks again, dude! Pleasure to watch you work. BusterD (talk) 23:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Ernest Spybuck
Hey, one of our SI employees has developed the article Ernest Spybuck, would you mind taking a look at it and helping us solidify the article?Sadads (talk) 19:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Sgt York citations
1. Do you have access to the New York Times? The obituary should prove helpful: [obit] -- It's 2693 words. I can send you the text if necessary.

2. Note 17 at the moment reads: "Mastriano, Douglas, Colonel, U.S. Army Brave Hearts under Red Skies." Mastriano didn't author that book, though he may have been a contributor. He's also one of the disputing parties so it might be better to cite someone else's account for the fairly routine info this citation is attached to. Also no page number.

3. Here's an odd source for the statement that "a higher power watched over me and told me what to do": quoted We can probably do better. It appears to be from York's diary entry for October 8, 1918

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks those should help a lot. the NYT is typically a very good source. I will look at those other issues you brought up as well. --Kumioko (talk) 20:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You haven't supplied wikipedia with a valid email address, so I can't email you the PDF. How else can I get you the file? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Milhist A-class and Peer Reviews Jul-Dec 2009

 * Thanks. Much appreciated. --Kumioko (talk) 02:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Milhist A-Class and Peer reviews Jan-Jun 2010

 * Wow thanks again. --Kumioko (talk) 10:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

IRC
Are you on the IRC channel? Arlen22 (talk) 14:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * no --Kumioko (talk) 14:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * To be honest I don't know how to access the IRC channels. --Kumioko (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Go to http://webchat.freenode.net/, Type in Kumioko for the Nickname and #wikipedia for the channel, type in the captcha, and click connect. See you there. Arlen22 (talk) 14:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * At the bottom of the screen there is a text box where you can type messages. Arlen22 (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup
Hi Kumioko. What's the rationale for removing the hidden "Metadata: see Persondata" as part of your cleanup? Thanks.  Lugnuts  (talk) 19:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was refering to the comment, and not the metadata as a whole. I'll update the script page that I have to remove that when I add the metadata in. Thanks!  Lugnuts  (talk) 19:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

DC Meetup #12
An off-wiki discussion is taking place concerning DC Meetup #12. Watch this page for announcements.

—NBahn (talk) 04:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here.

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

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

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

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

use of imagery in infoboxes for military persons
I sympathize with your concern for presentation, but, aside from other editors besides myself being interested in keeping the logos, if you consider most of the Wikipedia articles for soldiers, especially Generals, it is next to impossible to keep great gobs of guady imagery out of the body of the article. It seems many editors cannot resist the urge to pin medals, badges, etc on the page as if it were the subject's chest. Stuffing the infobox with small imagery creates a rationale for reverting the stuff that people will try to add to the body of the article, which creates a much bigger presentation problem in terms of sheer size. Just a thought, there.Bdell555 (talk) 03:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Chevrons!

 * Thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Lead
What's there now is not a summary... summaries are supposed to be substantially shorter than the text they summarize, which the case at Salvatore Giunta is not. It simply copies whole sentances from the body text. As an editor, we have to assess the article as it currently stands, and not any hypothetical future stance. If the article grows, then the lead can be adjusted accordingly. In any case, the lead section I favored does indeed summarize the most important part: the MOH. In any case, did you read WP:LEAD? The lead of a biography is not necessarily supposed to summarize the life story of the subject, but assert thier claim to notability. The two sentances I favored more than do that without being overly repetitive.  bahamut0013  <sup style="color:#000;margin-left:-1px">words <sub style="color:#000;margin-left:-16px">deeds 16:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies  talk 19:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Insignificant edits
Please see WP:AWB and do not use it to commit insignificant edits such as and. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 15:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Although I do not agree that fixing the findagrave template to correctly reflect Find a Grave I made it a minor edit in my Find and replace schema so it won't trigger unless there is a more dominant edit (fixing section order, adding persondata, etc). Please let me know if you see anything else that needs adjustment. --Kumioko (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Findagrave is a perfectly functional redirect to Find a Grave, there is no need to bypass it if that is the only reason for the edit. The changes from cite to Cite are fairly irritating especially given that the documentation for the cite templates uses small-case, but this is perhaps something that requires community discussion to clarify. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 17:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Converting the variations of findagrave, FAG, Findagrave, etc to Find a Grave are only the first step. Once this is done I am adding accessdate and date and author and work if they apply. I am also cleaning up the names in the template, removing grid= or id=, converting the bare http:findagrave link to the template and several other things. The problem is when I try and do them all at once it requires a reparse (depending on the edit) and that causes me to take a lot more time to fix them. Additionally as it has been explained to me in the past having redirects for articles are fine but haveing redirects for templates can cause problems with things such as third party site links like facebook, some templates redirects can adversely affect sister projects or cross wiki linking such as Wiki books or Wiktionary. The only argument that I have for the cleansing of template names from lower case to upper case is that is how the template is displayed (regardless of what the documentation may be written to reflect) and it looks cleaner when they are consistent. With that said the lower case to upper case switch is set to minor for me so the only time I do that particular type of edit is if I do something else. The same applies for things like converting image to File, eliminating extra spaces from sections, references, persondata or infoboxes and a variety of other things. I hope this helps. --Kumioko (talk) 17:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If your goal is consistency, you should not be creating inconsistencies by changing cite web to Cite web, since I believe the vast majority of users use the former. The template only has an uppercase first letter because the software doesn't allow lowercase first letters in the name, though it appropriately accepts the lowercase letter on transclusion. FYI I sought outside opinion here. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 18:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Richard Etchberger article
I don't see an issue with adding or uploading relevant media; I found a photo of Etchberger's brother at the dedication to a memorial to him at Barksdale AFB from 2008 on defenseimagery.mil and uploaded that. The videos I would think should be PD, so by all means, go for it. There's also the video of the White House presentation ceremony and I already uploaded an .ogg of the President's remarks. Broken Sphere Msg me 21:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Great thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've uploaded 3 of the USAF videos to Commons (of the presentation and induction into the Hall of Heroes) and the James Stutz one from the USAF tribute website. For some reason I'm having trouble with the video of the MOH ceremony. Broken Sphere Msg me 00:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Great thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 01:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Otto Diller Schmidt
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Otto Diller Schmidt, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.homeofheroes.com/moh/citations_peace/schmidt_otto.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

DC Meetup
Their is a meetup currently being planned at Meetup/DC 12, I don't know how firmed up the logistics are. I am not going to be able to make that weekend, but I just sent out an e-mail to check on them, Sadads (talk) 01:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update> Not sure if Ill make it either but I might be able too. --Kumioko (talk) 01:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

WP Smithsonian in the Signpost
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Smithsonian Institution for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 23:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Access date parameter in external links
Per WP:EL, "access dates are not appropriate in the external links section". At Richard Bong, this AWB edit of yours added nine inappropriate accessdate parameters to the External links section. I imagine that other AWB edits you have made share this mistake. Please check. Binksternet (talk) 16:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats interesting, I never noticed that before. If you know why accessdates are inappropriate in the external links section I would be interested to know but I will pose the question to the talk page for clarification. Aside from that I do not believe this is a "mistake" though and I do not agree with not using accessdates in the external links section. The whole purpose of the accessdate is to allow the users to know when the link was added, especially when the Cite templates are used.


 * Additionally, adding the links to a citation template allows a variety of advantages over simple bracket linking such as allowing the bots to verify that the links are still active and to make sure they are in the proper format, etc. The reason behind me doing this by the way is I am attempting to build up and cleanup the Medal of Honor recipient articles. Many of them have limited references and those that are there have limited formatting and usefullness. If you want to see all the pruning and construction changes I have planned take a look at my user page. With that said I will stop adding the accessdate to the external links for now until the discussion can be clarified. --Kumioko (talk) 17:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the External links section is more casual than a URL used as a reference, and if any one external link stops working, it can be removed without being replaced by an archived version. This is not true for a reference, which must have an access date so that later readers will be able to investigate what happened to it if it stops working. The access date is important in that case, as it may help locate an archived version of the reference. Binksternet (talk) 17:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand what your saying but it still doesnt seem "Innappropriate". Unnecessary maybe but not innappropriate. I have submitted a message to the External links talk page requesting clarification and possible elimination of the rule. Please feel free to make a comment there. Also, per your comment above I have added accessdate to many many external links and have seen thousands of others with it as well (particularly for Find a Grave, Hall of Valor and the like). I will hold off on removing them until a determination is made whether we are going to abide by this rule or get rid of it. If the concensus is this is something that we need to follow I will go back and fix it. I have already written some regex that should remove the accessdate if needed. --Kumioko (talk) 17:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for all your fixes on the various articles I've contributed to. Sometimes I'm a bit absent-minded about putting things in the proper order. So your attention to detail is much appreciated. MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Your welcome. --Kumioko (talk) 01:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

GA Presidents Project
When would you want to start on getting the presidents up to GA? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iankap99 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have already made one pass through with AWB looking for issues with structure, citations, typos and various other discrepencies. Here are some other notes related to it:


 * I have also started on rebuilding the List of Presidents of the United States in one of my sandboxes and I was going to work on that to get it up to Featured list status.
 * There also already seems to be a lot of activity on a couple of the George Washington articles.
 * Some of the Presidential articles are at or above GA already.
 * Someone left some comments on the WikiProjects U.S. Presidents talk page asking for help with some presidents.
 * I will build a project page to get things rolling but I think things are moving ahead nicely already. --Kumioko (talk) 20:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Sybil Ludington
I think something went awry at Sybil Ludington references. Can you double-check your recent edits. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell talk 20:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Its fixed. It was actually already there prior to my edits but its good to go know. --Kumioko (talk) 20:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--Doug Coldwell talk 20:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Plan for a few ACW articles
You have recently cleaned up some articles that I have edited and expanded (among all the other things you do!). I appreciate that because I am still not very familiar with some of the fine points of layout and formatting. I think the original article rather than my additions may have contained some of the non-conforming material (such as infoboxes), but between my lack of familiarity and my concentration on making a few substantive changes and additions, I likely still would not have noticed the format and layout differences in order to correct them - and I may have put up some of the non-standard layouts or formats in these articles as well. I have yet to write an entire article on a new subject.

You may have noted that the list of civil war generals has been split into an introductory article, Union general list and Confederate general list by IcarusPhoenix. I intend to edit the article mostly to make it conform to the new setup. I have been working mainly on the notes for the list of Confederate generals. IP added a new section of might have beens to the Confederate general list that I am not sure is really appropriate. He continues to press for inclusion, and continues to include, at least some of the Union brevet generals on the Union general list. He has not made much progress yet on conforming this to his plan for the information and layout as shown in the "A" section but this isn't a small task. I am working on a separate list of brevet generals which I hope will be good enough to persuade him and all concerned to remove the brevets from the main list. I do not want to put it up until I have it well completed but it is long enough to be taking some time and I do not want to try to convince anyone that these officers should not be included without an alternate list for them. I think the brevets should be separate both because the main group of them were not "real" generals and because the list is rather long as it is, especially with the photos and the table formatting. I do not quarrel with articles on these officers and a list of them. They are notable and many had meritorious achievements. They are appropriately included in Wikipedia. But again, the vast majority of brevet generals never achieved general officer grade during the ACW either in the Regular Army or U.S. Volunteers.

I also have been working on some article revisions at the same time so I have been delaying completion of the generals' lists. I did not want to make the split myself since I was concerned I might do it wrong so I did not work on the lists during the interim but found other articles to edit. I have been working on Camp Douglas (Chicago) which I rewrote, partially revised, and still need to revise further - and then to decide whether it will need to be cut back because it is now rather long. As I see it, the only subarticle that could be split out concerns the Camp Douglas conspiracy and an article on that subject would be somewhat longer with the reduction in the main article being small. The article as it stands is rather long, but the timeline approach that I have taken to it seems to require some length. This has taken longer than I wanted it to but I suppose a decent long article is as worthwhile as a few short ones if the topic is detailed and will support it. Sorry to go on at length to you about these articles but I know Civil War history is one of your areas of interest and I appreciate your edits and cleanups to these articles. Donner60 (talk) 22:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Your very welcome and please let me know if there is anything I can do to help. --Kumioko (talk) 22:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Findagrave
Not that it is of tremendous importance, and I don't really care which way it is suppose to read, but you seem to be making alot of corrections away from what WP:GRAVE suggests. Is this just a personal preference? Or should the template suggestion be changes? Neonblak <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  -  16:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. I changed the template example on the link to look like the template here, Template:Find a Grave. Basically what I am doing is ensuring that the template appears the same way, if there is a Retrieved on date then I am pulling it into the template as accessdate. I am also eliminating the Id=, Grid= and Name= because these are not needed for the template to work. This is also designed to cleanup the template so that I can make other improvements such as adding the pesons name if the page contains disambiguation (for example if the articlename is John Smith (Medal of Honor) that is how it appears in the template. But it should say John Smith without the disambiguation), author, date, etc. Its much easier to program these changes if the template looks the same. Currently the template can appear about 5 different ways and that means I would have to program it 5 different ways. I am also going to make sure that the bare [find a grave links are migrated into the find a grave template. This will make it much easier to determine if the find a grave link is used. I hope this helps explain things but let me know if you have any questions. --Kumioko (talk) 17:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thorough explanation, it makes perfect sense to me. Neonblak <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  -  17:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, in light of WP:NOTBROKEN, edits like or  don't make any sense to me. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In addition to my comment above if you read a little farther down the page of the link you gave me, under template redirects it states "Redirects for templates can cause confusion and make updating template calls more complicated. For example, if calls to T1 are to be changed to some new template TN1, articles must be searched for T1 and a separate search must be made for each of its aliases (including T2 in this example)". --Kumioko (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Cut it out. These edits are wasteful, disrupt watchlists, and are contrary to WP:AWB. If they continue, your access to AWB may be revoked. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 18:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Did you read the comments I wrote previously about why I am doing that? This is only the first step towards multiple improvements to the Find a Grave template. I am doing this, in part to minmize the multiple ways I will have to write the coding. As you know it can be a real pain in the rear to have to program a change a bunch of different ways just to make one change. Some of the things I will be doing include:
 * Remove id= (not needed)
 * Remove grid= (not needed)
 * Rempove name= (not needed)
 * Add accessdate (if its being used as an inline citation
 * Pull retrieved on dates inside the templates as accessdate=
 * Change unreferenced to refimprove if the Find a Grave reference is resident.
 * Add the article name without disambiguation marks (i.e. If the name is John Smith (Medal of Honor) I will add John Smith so it displays correctly.
 * Ensure the Find a Grave ref goes in the right sequence 1234.
 * Provide clarity for the template per WP:NOTBROKEN because havingn multiple redirects for the same template can confuse users and making changes to the template more difficult. (look under template at the bottom).
 * etc.
 * Additionally, in most cases I am performing other other edits on those articles at the same time. Its a relative minority that only has that change (about 1 in 20 or 30 actually). Most of them need categories, infoboxes, portals, see also links, populate persondata (that isnt already populated) or other items. As far as filling watchlists, and please dont take this the wrong way but, who cares. If the only problem is I am doing so many edits that watchlists are wizzing by then cool, Im making a significant contribution. As far as the wasteful comment I dont agree that these edits are wasteful. If you mind the pennies the dollars will mind them selves. Roughly translated even seeminly minor edits over time can significantly inmprove the article. --Kumioko (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Why can't you do it all in one fell swoop? Perhaps you should file a WP:BRFA, since the edits you are making are contrary to AWB's rules of use. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 18:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well to be honest they arent contrary and why file a BRFA for something that I can easily do myself. I have already changed about 10K and am in fact down to about 3500. Most of which require other edits as well such as typo fixes, adding persondata, rearranging out of order sections, citation cleanup, etc. Also, if I file a BRFA and a bot does a run, it is more wasteful because the bot almost always does only that specific task even if other things are wrong. This way I can make the other changes at the same time and in fact save resources. If you want to talk about wasteful though heres one you might consider get someone to do something about. Currently there are about 50 to 80 spaces or unneded characters on most or all persondata templates. Times that by 800, 000 articles and you get more than 1.5 GB of wasted space on the servers. Times that but hundreds or thousands of copies of the articles, and then factor in extra spaces for most of those articles for Infoboxes, citations, unneded white space, etc and you end up with well over 300 GB of true waste. Just getting rid of the unneeded metadata comment and extra spaces on the persondata would be a monumental improvement. --Kumioko (talk) 19:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course they are contrary - they are insignificant and trivial in terms of effect to rendered page, and controversial (self evident). I meant file a request for the a bot task that you would complete yourself, under a bot account, to reduce the impact to watchlists. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk  19:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Again I think your getting too worried about watchlists. If I was doing something that adversely impacted the server performance or was somehow affecting the site itself I could understand and would agree. But, doing so many edits that I am filling watchlists is not a problem for me. Personally I smile whenever I see my watchlist fill up because that means the pages I have on my watchlist (which is about 18000 BTW) are getting some love. The more love they get the better they are. Trivial or otherwise each improvement makes the article a little better. --Kumioko (talk) 19:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I find the claim that the three different calls for Find a Grave are a problem a little thin. Simply use Find:, Replace:   – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk  19:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That is good to know thanks but it was a simple example meant only to emphasize a point. --Kumioko (talk) 19:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You've told me that bypassing the template redirect is the first step in a phased effort. Why can't it be done all at once? – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 19:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The first phase was making the template all look the same instead of 8 different ways like it was (it would have been helpful to know that trick you showed me earlier). I tried to do it all at once though but unfortunately I had to hit reparse 3 or 4 times to get all the changes to process. If I do this first and then do the others then it seems to work better. --Kumioko (talk) 19:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Despite this, I think it would be better to just do it all at once. Making one big edit, is preferred to making a few exceedingly minor edits to accomplish the same thing. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 19:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Tell ya what Ill do in the spirit of cooperation. I will skip the edits that only change this "minor" edit as you put it and only do those that make other changes such as adding persondata, cleaning up references and the like. Then I will circle back and pick up the stragglers and add some other improvements at the same time so it isnt a minor edit anymore. --Kumioko (talk) 19:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Still think it would be best if you could manage to do the whole task all at once (do feel free to let me know if I can offer any coding help), but I guess that's better than continuing with WP:R2D changes. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 20:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

If you read a little farther down that link you gave me it states "Redirects for templates can cause confusion and make updating template calls more complicated. For example, if calls to T1 are to be changed to some new template TN1, articles must be searched for T1 and a separate search must be made for each of its aliases (including T2 in this example).". --Kumioko (talk) 23:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been pointed to that line a few times; I find it an exceedingly thin argument for bypassing a perfectly functional redirect: if the calls to T1 are changed to TN1, the redirects to T1 will simply be changed to point to TN1 - no searching articles would be needed. Am I missing something? – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 02:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Only the point. Its obvious that there is nothing I can say that is going to change your mind about template redirects so there is little point in continuing to write about it. I just find it frustrating that there are rules about rules and rules about when not to follow rules' rules. And no matter what rules we choose to follow there is another rule that can be recited by another editor that that has a rule about when not to follow that rule...or concensus changes the rule as mid stream. Oh well, theres no reason to dwell on it there are other edits to be made and other articles to be created...until someone complains...then Ill stop that too and wait for consensus. --Kumioko (talk) 02:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to discuss =) – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 03:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Please, please, please open a bot account for these edits. Rule #2 clearly states: "Don't edit too quickly; consider opening a bot account if you are regularly making more than a few edits a minute." Thanks.  Lugnuts  (talk) 09:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually I agree, I have been meaning to setup a bot but hadn't had the time. --Kumioko (talk) 15:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Conservatism in US review
Thanks a lot for that review. I'm just trying to move things forward and get a read on what we need to improve. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE GOOD WORKS 17:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Betty Shabazz
Hello. Please stop "fixing" Betty Shabazz with AWB. Every time you do, AWB mucks up the footnotes. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * How is it screwing up the footnotes? I looked at both the edits I did and everything looks correct. --Kumioko (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The footnotes are using and AWB replaces them with . They are references to online magazine articles that happen to be available on Google Books. Since the field names in  aren't the same as those in, some of the fields from  (such as the magazine's name) are no longer shown when the templates are changed.
 * What is the criterion that brings the article to AWB's attention? Maybe if I fix that, AWB will leave the footnotes alone. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * AWB is changing Cite web to Cite book because the link contains googlebooks. I will check into it but there is nothing you can do to change it. To be honest my opinion is if it falls under google books its a book. Ill see what I can find out though. --Kumioko (talk) 19:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's probably easier if I just change the fields so they're appropriate for instead of . Thanks. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Since the links appear to be for JET magazine it might be better to use Cite Journal insead of Cite Book. AWB doesn't have logic to change journal to book, only from web to book. But your right they probably should be changed to reflect Journal vice web. --Kumioko (talk) 19:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your suggestion. I've changed the footnotes to . — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Talbot Baines Reed
In the course of some housekeeping edits that you made to this article earlier today, the columnar ref format got broken. I couldn't work out why, so I had to revert your edits and then reinstate them, which I have done. This cured the format problem, whatever it was. Brianboulton (talk) 20:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia DC Meetup, October 23
You are invited to Wikipedia DC Meetup #12 on Saturday, October 23, 6pm at Bertucci's in Foggy Bottom. Special guests at this meetup will include Wikimedia CTO Danese Cooper, other Wikimedia technical staff and volunteer developers who will be in DC for Hack-A-Ton DC. Please RSVP on the meetup page.

You can remove your name from the Washington DC Meetups invite list at Meetup/DC/Invite/List.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello

 * Thank you very much and no I dont take it personally. Not at all. Just didnt agree. Cheers. --Kumioko (talk) 11:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment in persondata
Check my answer, please. At least you have to get to some kind of agreement with Rjw or someone else. Adding a comment and removing it in the very next edit like it happened here makes no real sense. I really think that the comment must stay. For the whitespace inside inside persondata I don't have a strong opinion but still some kind of arrangement must be done. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand your argument. I really do. I responded on the conversation again. --Kumioko (talk) 18:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It justs makes no sense if someone adds and someone removes. If you think the comment shouldn't be there then discuss it with Rjw and in Persondata's talk page. I can live without it. I ma just underlying the contradiction here because another editor may appear that will start the missing comments. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 18:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats fine I will stop doing it until I get clarification. There are plenty of other edits to perform after all. No use quibling about a bill im not paying. :-) Cheers. --Kumioko (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Find a grave redirect bypassing
You can do this more easily by adding an entry to AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects. Rjwilmsi 09:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Great thank you. --Kumioko (talk) 12:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, if you have consensus for it, which I have yet to find (there most probably wasn't one for the move from findagrave in the first place). Amalthea  16:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Umm, I didnt know it was in debate until I was already done. All redirects to Find a Grave have already been replaced. Although there are a few User pages and a couple new ones that have been added recently. --Kumioko (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Consensus
Kumioko,

I'm concerned about your understanding of consensus. Perhaps this will help:


 * Whatever a dozen people at one place and one time decide, is not necessarily the One True™ Perfect Consensus. WP:Consensus can change.
 * If and when we start removing links to Find a Grave, other editors will notice. If they agree, they'll keep silent.  If they disagree, they'll tell us.
 * The very moment that someone says, "I don't agree," we stop having a consensus. At the moment that this 13th person says that he (or she) objects, we need to form a new consensus.  This new consensus might be the same as the old one, or it might be different, but the very nature of a voluntary consensus means that every single person must be allowed input, including people who didn't participate in the original discussion.

The dozen or so people currently discussing this question at the Village Pump should not impose "our" current consensus on thousands of other editors. When (if) we agree to remove these links, we need to do it in a way that allows other editors to join the discussion and contribute to forming and re-forming consensus. This means moving slowly, not with an impatient, all-or-nothing extremism. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * For what its worth I agree with you and I know what consensus is and I have said all along I don't agree with it. The find a grave issue comes up every 6 months or so and it always closes due to lack of consensus. If it happens again well surely see it again in 6 or 8 months again. We both know that with the WP community, consensus doesnt exist. Consensus is those who take the time to voice their opinion and its usually the same 10 or 15 people all the time. If I hadn't taken the time to argue the point (and a lot of edits went without doing cause I did) we would likely be looking at the Find a Grave link being voted off the island. Thats also why I said we should comment it out instead of removing it, because I know its coming back. So know that you know that I know what consensus is and who it works in WP, why do you suppose I wanted to go down the path of "impatient, all-or-nothing extremism" and comment them out with AWB? -Kumioko (talk) 00:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe Kumioko is precisely correct on this point...that's why I think that the best fruit of this discussion would be an RfC where everyone gets the chance to voice their opinion at once without beating the dead horse over & over every few months. I'm reminded of the date-delinking discussions which finally yielded fruit in having the community on the same page. Most people, at the moment, would probably believe that if it is important there will be an RfC otherwise nothing would come of it. To a certain degree, WP:TLDR applies here where peoples eyes glaze over with long discussions...
 * I think this response will be a de facto from the community. If we have projects and templates for FindAGrave, then it is certainly confusing when people go to remove them. Good editors will collide with each other needlessly leading to disruption. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 00:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Date unlinking
The date unlinking consensus (although I think it mistaken) does not apply to timeline articles, such as 18th century. I reverted your edit, rather than just finding the individual changes that were inappropriate. My apologies for that, but more changes needed to be reverted than kept. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that and no problem. To be honest I didnt realize that it didn't apply to timelines so thanks for letting me know. --Kumioko (talk) 01:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not easy to find, but WP:Linking specifies: "Intrinsically chronological articles (1789, January, and 1940s) may themselves contain linked chronological items." — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, learn something new everyday..Thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 01:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Code Pink and Hamas
How do you justify keeping a section that violates Wikipedia policy?Hollyharwood (talk) 09:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * How does it violate policy? it looked like you deleted it it for dead links but the links seemed to work. You also mentioned it being a blog but it didnt look like a blog. --Kumioko (talk) 13:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If you look at the code, it's a Word Press blog. It's also got a strong right wing bias. This link to another blog, about the 5 star hotel didn't work:  http://modpunktet.blogspot.com/2010/01/plastic-rose-from-first-lady.html  The link about Medea Benjamin saying "the Hamas government "has pledged to ensure our safety." works.  That Hamas wouldn't let the marchers do what they wanted seems to argue against them working with Code Pink.  This section needs a radical rewrite or to be removed.Hollyharwood (talk) 20:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahh, ok makes more sense now. I dont know that much about the site but it looked ok. --Kumioko (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Please preview your changes
Hi, thanks for your edit to Claudette Colbert. Please do be careful to preview your changes. Several typos in the headings were created during your AWB sweep. Also, 'Notes', Bibliography' and 'References' are not inter-changeable headings. I have noticed in other articles that you have also changed these headings. Often there is a specific 'notes' section holding appended prose. 'Bibliography' can have various meanings, depending on how the article is structured. It is a tricky area, worth treating carefully. Go gently. Best wishes Span (talk) 03:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Break tags
Kumioko, I saw some of your recent edits where you replaced  tags with. Is there a reason that having the slash is beneficial? Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC) or  because that is the standard for HTML coding and eventhough it doesnt make a difference on the mediawiki servers some websites that connect to WP articles have trouble processing incorrectly formatted breaks. Even then I only do this as a minor edit as I am fixing other things. --Kumioko (talk) 23:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well that question partly depends on the article but to be honest I didnt think I had done one of those in a while. Usually though its better to use

Persondata
Hi Sorry to bug you about this but needed clarification on where the persondata should be placed within the article. The guidelines say "at the end of the blp" but it seems that RJWilmsibot is placing it before the categories. I had a quick look through some pages but couldnt see any real guidelines as to where in the page it should be placed. Is the bot correct and if so can I assume that is the standard to follow ?? Chaosdruid (talk) 00:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It shoudl go directly above the DEFAULTSORT and below any other tempaltes or succession boxes. And to answer your question yes that is the standard. If you look here it will tell you where it should go. Please let em know if you have any more questions. --Kumioko (talk) 00:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheers for the speedy reply :¬)
 * Chaosdruid (talk) 00:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

AWB & templates starting with acronyms in upper case
As an editor involved in prior discussions over AWB, templates and first letter casing please consider commenting on this discussion thread. Thanks Rjwilmsi  20:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Templates with few transclusions
(Apologies for the late reply, I've been away.)

Mmm. Zero transclusions is simple enough; Database_reports/Unused_templates lists the first 800, and I can pull a full list if you want and/or filter it. Fewer than X transclusions seems nearly impossible (or at the very least, I haven't thought of a good way of doing it yet. Regards, - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 18:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help. Basically I am trying to figure out the United States related templates that arent being used so I can eithe rstart using them, merge them together or delete them ientirely. --Kumioko (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

TB
 Imzadi  1979   →  18:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Persondata
I know we currently place the persondata before defaultsort, but the logical place for this and "person authority" are right at the end. The structure would then be;


 * 1) Article metadata
 * 2) Disambiguation messages
 * 3) Article tags
 * 4) Article proper
 * 5) Lead
 * 6) Sections
 * 7) Std. appendices
 * 8) WP meta data
 * 9) Defsort
 * 10) Categories
 * 11) Stub templates
 * 12) WikiMedia metadata
 * 13) Interwikis
 * 14) Universal metadata
 * 15) Person authority
 * 16) Person data

Rich Farmbrough, 18:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC).

Authority control is another Germanic import, which links to a serial number (or numbers) that bibliographic databases maintain to distinguish between people of the same name (or people with many names). Rich Farmbrough, 19:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC).

Well it's hard to say, even the Persondata has failed to produce significant sound reasoning for its inclusion. Most of the examples I have seen referenced are either bugged, 404, not using persondata, or of limited use. So the value of adding more "cruft" is debateable. Rich Farmbrough, 19:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC).

We have passed de: in the number of transclusions. That would seem to be enough to be useful! Rich Farmbrough, 19:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC).

Tell me about it! Wiki means quick, I thought. Rich Farmbrough, 19:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC).

Unexplained removal from project
Hi. I noticed that on at least two ship talk pages (Talk:SS Fredericksburg (1958) and Talk:SS Booker T. Washington) you removed WikiProject Maritime Trades. Was this a mistake? Could you explain the rationale to me? Thanks. Haus Talk 19:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching that and no I did not mean to do that I will watch more closely. Im not sure how that happened. Im just trying to add the banner for WPUS not delete other folks work. Sorry about that. --Kumioko (talk) 19:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Kathlyn Williams
I have been researching Kathlyn Williams for 2 1/2 years, and I have copies of her college programs from 1899 to 1901, and I even court documents from New York City when she sued her first husband. All the dates in the article and personal data are correct, and I have her parent's marriage certificate too. I have her wedding license from Ancestry.com, and copies of all of those newspaper articles from her early life in Butte, Montana. There are newspaper articles that I have from her college days from 1899 to 1901. She was born in 1879 which can be found on the 1880 Census.

The article needs to be fixed, but the research and all of my references from the past two years are correct. I am also writing a biography on her too.Stutzey (talk) 02:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, is there a question in there somewhere? --Kumioko (talk) 02:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You posted that everything needs to be cleaned up in the article. You said the dates need to be fixed. I posted that I have been researching Williams for over 2 1/2 years, and my research is fine since I have actual documents. I have been doing genealogy for over 25 years. The format needs to be fixed, and the article needs to be adjusted in a few categories. I could use some help there if anyone would help.Stutzey (talk) 13:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Frank Furness
Given your interest in wp:NRHP and in MOH winners, you seem to be the person to ask about Philadelphia architect Frank Furness, who won the MOH in 1899 for an action in 1864. The delay intrigues me - but I'm not even sure what question to ask. I'm also interested in how the GLAMS/SI is going - I might be interested in attending something related in the future, but really only to apply lessons learned to Philadelphia. Any help appreciated. Smallbones (talk) 02:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well where to start. It wasn't uncommon in those days for decades to go by before the MOH was received he just happened to be on of those long ones. He is actually one of the recipients I have been meaning to work on because so much info exists for him (and he has a rather interesting career as well) although Im only vaguely familiar with it. There is tons of references on him so finding info is rather easy and a lot of the builings he built or esigned are in this area. If you think of a more specific question I might be able to answer but not sure what your looking for. As for GLAM/SI there was a meetup a while back to train some of the museum folks an I wasnt able to attend as well as a C meetup in late Oct. Im honestly not sure whats going on other than they still seem to be interested. User:Sadads has been much more involved than I in that project so hes probably a better one to ask. I dont know if a answered any questions but please let me know if you need anything else. --Kumioko (talk) 02:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Getting all presidents to GA level
I have begun work on the Clinton article. I am working off of a new peer review that i requested. The work is nearly done, and I believe that with your help, it can be finished even quicker. I have marked off what I have done on the peer review. The review can be found on the article.--Iankap99 (talk) 21:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Good job youve made a lot of progress. Unfortunately Im not going to be able to dedicate much to article developement for the next few weeks. Im trying to get the US project going again and that seems to be taking a lot of my time. Once I get it up and running again im hoping to get back into it. I did graze through the article though and here are a few things that I noticed were improvements could be made.
 * Inline citations in the lede. Usually inline refs should be avoided in the lede
 * Needs some prose work. Some choppy sentences
 * The references needs some pruning
 * References should be a consistent format
 * Too many references, I would try and keep it under 100 if possible
 * Some of theh references are more notes. I would create a seperate notes section with just these notes. Ths isn't a requirement but it makes it easier to read through when you have a lot of refs. Examples are 68 and 145
 * Some references need to be expanded. For example 50, 52 and 119
 * There are some dead links Example 130, 149, 201 and 205
 * There are references that are duplicated in the Further reading or external links section. If you are using it as a ref dont use it as a further reading or external link. Example ref#1
 * Blogs are typically not valid for use as references. It could be an External link though Example 202
 * Good luck and good job. --Kumioko (talk) 03:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "The references needs some pruning"?

"Too many references, I would try and keep it under 100 if possible" This seems absurd, the Obama article has 300.

Thanks for the read through and suggested improvements, would you mind if I cross them off here when I finish them?--Iankap99 (talk) 21:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting good to know about that article. Im kinda surpirsed its an FA I see a lot of problems on that one as well. No probelm feel free to cross them off and please let me know if you need anything else. --Kumioko (talk) 21:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well feel free to start an FAR on the Obama article, I'm sure the problems will be addressed and fixed within a day.

You missed this last time around. Thanks.
 * What do you mean by "The references needs some pruning"?--Iankap99 (talk) 01:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh basically like the stuff I mentioned above. --Kumioko (talk) 01:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hartford City Courthouse Historic District
Hello, Kumioko -- I just finished the Hartford City Courthouse Square Historic District article, and about to start on an article about the Blackford County Courthouse. Any suggestions to improve my recent articles would be appreciated. I would rather not continue making the same mistakes over and over. TwoScars (talk) 03:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow I have to say good job. After reading through it I really don't see anything wrong with it. It could probably stand to have a couple more categories but Im not sure what yet. All in all I would say it has a good chance of meeting FA requirements in fact. Great job. --Kumioko (talk) 02:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia DC Meetup 13
You are invited to Wikipedia DC Meetup #13 on Wednesday, November 17, from 7 to 9 pm, location to be determined (but near a Metro station in DC).

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can join the mailing list.

You can remove your name from future notifications of Washington DC Meetups by editing this page: Meetup/DC/Invite/List. BrownBot (talk) 13:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You're putting stub tags on redirect talk pages
Redirects are...redirects; they technically don't even exist except as shortcuts to other pages. Half Shadow  04:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Which one are you referring too? --Kumioko (talk) 04:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite a few of them. I haven't gone through the whole list yet:Talk:94114, Talk:94117, Talk:800-555-TELL, Talk:1-800-COLLECT... Since they're redirects, the pages will literally never be seen. Half  Shadow  04:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is I am going through a few thousand US related articles and I cant tell from the talk pages their redirects. Ill start scanning through the articles first before I tag the talk pages (especially when the talk page is blank) from now on and that should eleviate that. I will also probably go through at a later time and make the class equal to redirect so itll be easier to identify in the future. Good catch thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 04:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * S'alright. I'll chug through the list you've done so far. Not the hardest of jobs, really. Half  Shadow  04:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I went through a few as well. I noticed you marked a couple as speedy delete but I think it woudl be better if we put the talk banner and class equals redirect. That way if people stumble onto it as I did theyll know. --Kumioko (talk) 04:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite a few, actually; but I don't mind refixing it. And awaaaaaay I go! Half  Shadow  04:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, again wouldnt it be better to mark them as a redirect rather than delete the page? --Kumioko (talk) 04:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Doing that now. Marking talk:90077 as redirect to talk:Bel Air, Los Angeles and such, yes? Half  Shadow  04:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh got it know sorry. --Kumioko (talk) 04:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Be a bit more work, but that's fine. I have coffee and I know how to use it. Half  Shadow  04:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Im going through some too. I hate making work for others to fix. --Kumioko (talk) 04:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, lemme get a second opinion on this. AN/I should do the trick. Half  Shadow  04:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure please let me know what they say. I also noticed I was using the wrong edit summery too..oops I think its time for bed. --Kumioko (talk) 04:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm, this may take a bit. Ah well; we have nothing but time and maybe they'll help. Half  Shadow  05:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I left a little comment too. Im interested to see what they say. --Kumioko (talk) 05:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Screw it; I'm just going to blank them. I can't be bothered. Half  Shadow  05:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Give the list of pages and I ll delete them for you. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 43 pages deleted. Tell me if they are more. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no need to delete those pages. It is perfectly fine to use a class=redirect. ---Kumioko (talk) 01:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Do these projects use redirect class? WikiProject Greece for instance doesn't. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I was only adding the WPUS banner on those pages so I cant speak for what the other projects are doing. I personally like the idea of using it for several reasons but aside from that it appears that WPUS has used it at some point in the past already to some degree. --Kumioko (talk) 01:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Better ask me before adding banners of redirect class to thousands of talk pages. Redirect class is usually by projects that have a lot of mergers and not just to tag every possible redirect. Redirects can't get improved so I don't see how a project can deal with them. -- Magioladitis (talk) 02:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Im not sure why I would need to ask you other than asking for a bot to be run but for what its worth I had no plan to start mass tagging any redirects for a while. There are too many real articles yet that need to be tagged and that is more important. There are a couple reasons I think its useful to tag them though. Please let me know if you have any more concerns. --Kumioko (talk) 02:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It allows the project to see how many there are just like templats and article classes
 * 2) It makes it easier to identify the page when tagging articles without banners
 * 3) It prevents things like what happened on several of those were people leave comments which go unanswered or place banners incorrectly classing the article as something other than a redirect
 * 4) If a user stumbles onto the page then theyll know exactly what it is.
 * I meant ask the project if they still use redirect class. Not all projects do. -- Magioladitis (talk) 02:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats a good idea. The project layed in state for a long time before I started to resurrect it so as long as the current active members dont have a problem then we can set the rule. I will put a comment out here when the time comes and see what everyone says. --Kumioko (talk) 02:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Some reasons not to use Redirect class:
 * It creates unnecessary talk pages
 * Many redirects are only created by moves, misspellings, typos, etc. WikiProject Video Games uses redirect class only for pages that have been merged and not in general.
 * Banners shouldn't be used for page count. Projects exist to improve pages. For the same reason WikiProject Greece for instance doesn't tag every single page that contains something about Greece but only pages that have to do directly with it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason for tracking the redirects isnt really for page count since they arent really articles it just allows the project to have some visibility of how many articles have a redirect. To me the more important advantage is just to be able to see that it is a redirect which is currently difficult when mass tagging. I have to let AWB preparse the pages skipping redirects and then change to talk pages (so I dont tag them like I did before. There is no easy way to see them, theres no category, nothing on the talk page to say its a redirect, etc. Going on the point that you make you get left overs on the talk page after the article has been moved. As far as the misspellings they should be deleted unless it s a misspelling that the users are likely to try in which case its still a redirect. I have the same feeling towards disambiguous pages. They should say Disambig or something in the class to identify those as well. --Kumioko (talk) 14:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * How do you load the list of pages? I usually don't get any redirects. I recall tat I once did a run in pre-parse mode in article space with Skip if redirect on and then I skip expluded them from the log, but I don't remember why I did that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I usually load them from Categories and then use List comparer to exclude the US related ones (or most of them). Then I change it from talk, remove any duplicates or nonmainspace and then preparse to eliminate redirects. It sounds worse than it really is but it is more steps than I would like and there is a possibility that some are being tagged as US that dont necessarily fall 100% in the US scope (but Im ok with that, it will work out in the wash. It makes it much easier if the redirect is in the redirect class category for the project so i can just exclude them and move on. Much of this is only because the project has been dormant for so long and I am trying to quickly capure the thousands of articles that arent currently tagged. Once we get caught up and stay on top of it it wont be that bad (I dont think anyways). I will eventually need to do some fine tuning or adding appropriate task forces/topics as the project evolves but thats ok. --Kumioko (talk) 14:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Number of pages in Category:Redirect-Class United States articles shows that the project doesn't really care about redirects. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Again you have to remember that I only started the project back up a month ago and before that it laid dormant for a year and a half. --Kumioko (talk) 01:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Blp banners on the top
Concerning this edit of yours I would like to remind you that WPBIO goes on the top if it contains a blp tag. -- Magioladitis (talk) 02:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Im not sure how that even happened I thought AWB had logic to move the WPBIo template to the top when living=yes. Ill watch for that though. --Kumioko (talk) 02:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This logic is in the plugin, not in the main program. It would be better if you were adding templates using the plugin but I know it's a bit difficult to configure it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 02:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It still doesnt work. It just gives me errors so I figured it was still under developement. --Kumioko (talk) 03:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What kind of errors? Exceptions? -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I will try and use it in the next day or so and let you know. --Kumioko (talk) 14:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * We are adding it to the general fixes soon. I asked Rjw. :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh thatsll be great thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 15:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Some more advice: priority without work-group is useless. Moreover priority is deprecated. I am gonna remove/fix them all soon. If possible remove empty priority parameters. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I noticed that the parameter for WPUS was inserted wrongly. Earlier I noticed 1-2 WPUS banners misplaced. I strongly recommend that you add banners using the plugin and not doing it manually that fast. Since you are doing this for tenths of pages you better ask for a WP:BOTREQ or apply for a bot, so tht the process isn't done manually. The task is very easy with a bot. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Your right It would be very easy to do with a bot and I actually tried too but I couldnt get concensus to do it in an automomated fashion. Because the project has been dormant for so long knowone knew what should be counted here, through the Milhist US project, the various state projects, etc. So I am left, Trying to add the banner only to the ones that dont have one wihout accidentally displacing another banner, adding a banner to a redirect or to an article that already has a US related template (there are about 421, 000 different articles that already have one or more of the 122(and Im not counting them all) US related templates). With that said I did about 800 edits so far today so if I only made a mistake on a dozen thats pretty good I would say and even most of the bots make a few errros. BTW I would use the plugin but it doesnt work yet and even then not for this project as far as I can see. Mostly Milhist and Biography. --Kumioko (talk) 01:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Happy Birthday
And to you as well, Marine! Semper Fidelis.  bahamut0013  <sup style="color:#000;margin-left:-1px">words <sub style="color:#000;margin-left:-16px">deeds 15:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Happy Birthday, Marine

 * Semper Fi Tony the Marine (talk) 18:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --Kumioko (talk) 18:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

WPJournals
Hi, there are a few cases (like this where you put WPJapan mucking up the WPJournals tag. I guess this was some kind of automated edit that went wrong. I also have to say that I hardly see the relevance of those articles for the USA project, but as I don't work with that project, that's not really anything of my business. Anyway, I only found 2 botched up WPJournals tags up till now, so it's not a big problem, but thought it would be good to bring this to your attention to avoid it in the future (and I didn't have time to check your contribution history, so there may be others that I did not see). --Crusio (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. I fixed that so it shouldn't do that anymore. Please let me know if you catch anything else. --Kumioko (talk) 19:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

New AWB snapshot available
Please install rev 7351 or newer: http://toolserver.org/~awb/snapshots/ -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have and use the current snapshot except for the talk page edits which I use the last full version because quite a few of the talk pages I am editing are blank pages and the AWB SVN updates wont allow the creation of a page. --Kumioko (talk) 18:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Your queries have been answered:
Hello there. I have answered your queries at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject North America and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject East Asia. It is the same message in both places, so you only have to read it once. I am glad you pointed this out, especially so early on in our projects' histories. Please feel free to rummage through them and see if you find any other problems when you have the time. Considering your bio on your userpage, both projects might be of interest to you as well. I've included the formal invites below. Thanks, Sven Manguard  <sub style="text-shadow:#ffd700 0.14em 0.14em 0.14em"><b style="color:black;">Talk</b>  19:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Sven Manguard <sub style="text-shadow:#ffd700 0.14em 0.14em 0.14em"><b style="color:black;">Talk</b>  19:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Sven Manguard <sub style="text-shadow:#ffd700 0.14em 0.14em 0.14em"><b style="color:black;">Talk</b>  19:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, there was a list of only 11 (found a couple more after the initial couple went out) that had a different format and I was hoping knowonen would mind but you never know. --Kumioko (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Break tags 2
I see (example) that your edits sometimes change  to. I think that is not helpful because what we edit is wikitext, not html. As an example, this line ends with : Viewing the html source for this page confirms that MediaWiki (as configured for en.wikipedia) has changed my  to the valid html   (with a space before the slash). In fact, your  wikitext is also changed (a space is inserted).

This is all trivial, but the reason I suggest not doing these edits is that people notice them and think that it must be the "right" procedure, and they then start inserting slashes themselves. The result is just unnecessary complication of wikitext. Johnuniq (talk) 00:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well just to clarify there are a couple reasons I do this. First your right that the standard HTML guideline is to use the space. between br and / and that WP automatically converts it with several variations of br (upper case, lower case, with and without the slash, etc) but the 2 main reasons are:
 * to standardize the formatting across WP (I prefer it without the space because it saves space).
 * The second and more important is that a lot of sites link to WP (like facebook, and a bunch of mirror sites for example) and many of these do not have the ability of automatically converting the breaks like WP does. So what ends up displaying on the site is a jumbled mess. Nearly all convert br/ to br / but not all the variations WP does. I hope this helps. For what its worth I only do that when I am making more significant edits. --Kumioko (talk) 06:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I would be interested to see a link illustrating the mess next time you come across one. I would be surprised if a browser failed to render  correctly. Johnuniq (talk) 07:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject United States additions
While WP:WPUS does indeed state that any article related to the United States is considered to be within the project's direct scope, I am really not sure that means all the articles whose talk pages you've recently been tagging with the project banner really need it ... I mean, there are fifty state-level projects (and some with their own regional subprojects, yet) for a good reason. Daniel Case (talk) 02:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Right now, there are literally thousands of articles that fall into the WPUS scope but do not have any US related tags. I am for the most part just trying to tag articles as WPUS if they don't already contain another WPUS related banner. I may have accidentally tagged a few that do but for the most part I have tried not too. If you feel that I tagged an article as WPUS and it more appropriately fits into one of the State or regional level projects feel free to make that change. With regard to the 50 state level projects you are mostly right. In fact there are over 100 US related Wikiprojects that relate to US. Some being more active than others. Right now I am focusing a lot of effort into pulling missing articles into the scope, rebuilding the WPUS project and just generally trying to get my arms around the monster. In time though I intend to divvy the articles up to those projects that are active. You are also correct in your statement that I may have tagged a few that have less related to US due to them being incorrectly categorized under US but that will also balance out. I hope this helps. --Kumioko (talk) 06:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, take notice that any WP:SCOTUS (Supreme Court decisions) are already under that. And consider regional tags, too. I noticed this because you tagged Talk:Stewart International Airport, which is already in WP:HVNY, a regional project. Daniel Case (talk) 16:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I do most of them but not all. I have a list of 377,343 articles (at last count) that are US related based on an extract of articles belonging to projects from all 50 states, most national or regional projects and most other projects bigger that 1000. I even included some that are inactive. Again it is possible that I have added the US tag to a few and there is no harm in that but it should be fairly rare. You should also note that most (including most Americans) wouldn't know what SCOTUS is. --Kumioko (talk) 00:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Breaking project templates
Some of you edits, such as this one have actually broken the project template instead of updating it. In the project banner philately is capitalised. Thanks. ww2censor (talk) 16:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats really odd because I when I put inTemplate:WikiProject philately it automatically redirects to Template:WikiProject Philately. --Kumioko (talk) 00:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You know, I've had problems with the auto-redirect also. I read somewhere that WP in general is programmed to ignore the lc/uc distinction, but in the WP:WPBM template codes, the lc/uc is not ignored, as in the case of parameter values, etc. These are the technicalities we get to deal with! Just a FYI, to get to the pg by avoiding the auto-redirect, type in the "url" the http with the desired lc or uc word and it'll go to the pg that you want (you can do this by just modifying the http url also). --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh cool thanks I learn something new everyday. --Kumioko (talk) 19:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Jon Stafford
Hi, I've deleted this page twice now because there's no article at Jon Stafford. If you have some kind of list you're using to add templates to talk pages with AWB maybe you should take this one off the list for now. Anemone Projectors  02:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry bout that and thanks for letting me know. I got that from the list of New articles relating to the United States. --Kumioko (talk) 02:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fair enough. The article did exist but was speedy deleted. Anemone  Projectors  03:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Im going to modify my process a little and add them to a sandbox to see if there are any red links before I start editing them. --Kumioko (talk) 03:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Illinois
Hi- just to let you know I've removed the semi-active tag from WP Illinois, because I've been tagging articles religiously, at least for the past 2 years, along with other project members. The WP Chicago project gets more action (and attention), but WP Illinois is for the rest of the state, which may be less active than Chicago, but it's the umbrella for everything related to Chicago and Illinois, together. I don't think the tag should be on there, because it's very discouraging to members, like myself, who work behind the scenes everyday on the IL articles. I hope you understand! --Funandtrvl (talk) 06:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologies. No offense intended. I had been watching the project page and the talk page for a while and it didnt look like there was any activity eventhough the articles under the project had been worked on. --Kumioko (talk) 18:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, I guess we're not as talkative as some other projects are!! Cheers, --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Tweaks
, unnecessary empty lines added.
 * Unfortunately that is a result of my limited regex ability. The logic I use soemtimes results in a blank line and is as follows:

\{\{WP[ ]*(MILHIST|Biography)(.*?)class[ ]*=(stub|start|C|B|GA|A|FA|List)(.*?)\}\} --Kumioko (talk) 00:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * find
 * Replace
 * Note I typically just set the importance to low. I tried to do a find and replace like I do with the class but so many are missing that it was skipping bunches of them. I also typically only do this with Biography and milhist since the vast majority of articles have one or the other. --Kumioko (talk) 00:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

blp not converted to WPBiography.
 * I didnt have logic for that but I will add something unless you are planning on adding some to AWB. --Kumioko (talk) 00:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Tell me more precisely what is the problem with the plugin, please. To load a plugin use: Generic template and add in the appropriate field. Remember to get redirects.

Tomorrow, we are releasing a new snapshot. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notes. My comments are under each scenario. Thanks for telling me about the generic template I hadn't tried that yet. I also had a question about the code you sent me. For WP Medicines I used a little bit different logic but I think we get the same result. The logic I used was:

\{\{[ ]*(CMedWikiProject|WP Medicine|WPEMS|WPMED|WPMEDICINE|WPMedicine|WikiProject Emergency medical services|WikiProject Medicine CoopBanner|Wikiproject Medicine|Wikiproject Medicines) {{WikiProject Medicine
 * Find
 * Replace

and the logic in your file used:

{{\s*(WikiProject[ _]+Medicine|CMedWikiProject|WikiProject[ _]+Medicine[ _]+CoopBanner|WPMEDICINE|WPEMS|WikiProject[ _]+Emergency[ _]+medical[ _]+services|WP[ _]+Medicine|Wikiproject[ _]+Medicines|Wikiproject[ _]+Medicine|WPMedicine|WPMED) *([\|}\n])
 * Find

{{WikiProject Medicine$2
 * Replace

The question I have in all that is how does [ ]* differ from [ _], what does the \s* do and what does the *([\|}\n]) at the end do? thanks--Kumioko (talk) 00:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I left a message here asking for an updated list and informed Rjw about your questions. -- Magioladitis (talk) 02:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I merged his list and mine BTW if you want it. I only had about 10 he didnt already have but I had a bunch of redirects he didnt and I changed some of his replaces that were redirects to the actual Project. I also checked them all as minor cause I think folks are gonna scream if we do them alone without doing something more major too. --Kumioko (talk) 02:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I use this list only as addition to other changes. Yobot does various tasks in talk pages. I recently requested to do some more. Check Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 17. -- Magioladitis (talk) 03:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, was the importance parameter replaced with priority on all projects or just certain ones? I only ask because I have been using importance in my WPUS tagging but I would be glad to change that or initiate a conversation to change it to priority if this is the standard. --Kumioko (talk) 03:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Only for WPBiography. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's the new list User:Rich_Farmbrough/temp17. Check my talk page for Rich's comments. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Banner template redirects for talk pages
Updated version at User:Rich Farmbrough/temp17.


 * Note: needs checking for any oddities caused by strange punctuation.


 * Note that it was strongly argues at Roads, and less strongly at MILHIST and Biography that the reason not to make the move was that the redirect was already there. Arguably this is a validates using the standard from redirect. To do this simply edit the appropriate rule.

Rich Farmbrough, 03:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC).


 * Thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 03:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's automated. SO if you give me banners to add I can add them. It's not bugless though, chokes on "&" and diacritics for starters. I ran this of the list you will see earlier in the history of the same page: recursive of the Cat:WikiProject banners. The previous list I made from the STANDARDISATION data page.  I ran a few test edits, and then did some talk page edits that were for other reasons.  I agree this should not be generally be run unless other substantive changes are being made.  I can change them all to minor, but it's not a big deal either way - probably worth doing though. Rich Farmbrough, 15:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC).


 * To make things faster we have to exclude redirects with 0 transclusions, if this is possible. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The only question I have here is just cause there are 0 today doesnt mean there will be 0 next week. Can the list update based on what redirects are being used at that build? If not I would say just leave them. I wouldnt think it woudl affect performance that badly. Not sure though. --Kumioko (talk) 16:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Usually 0 means 0 for ever. No worries if we have a few exceptions to that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I would like to remove User:Kumioko/Talkpage from Category:WikiProject banners with formatting errors but I don't want to mess up your code. Could you help? Thanks &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. Im not sure which of the 200+ banners is generating that error so for no I nowikied the code till I can crack the nut. I am still in the process of building the list so its possible by the time Im done it will all work out. Please let me know if you see anything else. --Kumioko (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It was the United States banner. But what you've done is fine with me. Cheers &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

New snapshot
http://toolserver.org/~awb/snapshots/ -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Lol, thanks I literally just did it. --Kumioko (talk) 00:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Go for the one we just uploaded! (7401) -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 01:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Gregory R. Peterson


A tag has been placed on Gregory R. Peterson requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. &mdash; Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 19:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for the tweaks to Sherril Huff, which I helped to rescue recently as part of my 'Article Rescue Squadron' / Wikiproject Biography work. I have learnt a few things from the changes you made - but it has taken me over 2 years to get past 10,000 edits so have to admit being very impressed by anyone who can do that in one month! Thruxton (talk) 19:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I usually dont get past 7k but my personal best was 16K and change although I was pretty much a hermit to get it. Please let me know if you have any questions. If I dont know the answer I probably knowsomeone who has access to the hanswer and I would be happy to ask. I also just went back and made a few more small changes to the article and a couple to the talk page. --Kumioko (talk) 19:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats great - I've just been in touch with Sherril Huff's office to ask for a photo, as it makes all the difference on a bio article. I will definately keep you on my handy contact list as there are times when I can't find out how to do things (or forget). I had a look at Medal of Honor and really like the way its been done Thruxton (talk) 19:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

AWB
Please avoid making AWB edits like this one. They go against the AWB rules of Use point 4, being a purely cosmetic change. Looking at your most recent edits, it looks like they are all like this, so I would urge you to stop this AWB run. Fram (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

E.g. your latest edit changes the position of the BLPunsourced tag (while I prefer top position, there is no agreement about this), and changes it incorrectly to BLPsources. Fram (talk) 16:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * For the first issue:
 * Actually giving the BLP unsourced/BLP sources top billing is not a purely cosmetic change. BLP issues are the most significant issue of the maintenance tags and is currently on the forefront of a slew of cleanup issues currently being undertaken in WP. This ensures that BLP issues are the first thing that appear. This has been discussed repeatedly and has garnered virtually unchallenged consensus in relation to the BLP tags on the talk pages. Since traffic to the actual article far exceeds that of the talk pages the same logic should be applied to the article itself. Since this has consensus already though I am going to continue fixing these articles in this case. If you disgree though I would recommend starting a discussion at the village pump, The Biography of living persons page or possibly even The incidents page of the Amdinistrative notice board (possibly all of the above). Youve been around so I didnt add links but if you need them let me know.
 * In regards to that last edit you mentioned that was a good catch and thanks for bringing that to my attention. Here is a description of the problem and what I will do to fix that
 * I have some logic that looks at the article and if references exist it will change the BLP unsourced tag to BLP sources (meaning it has one of more sources but needs more). In this case the article had an invalid empty references tag so I removed that section. I have also updated my code to better qualify a reference. Since I have only applied these changes to BLP's in the US (and even then only relatively few) the impact is small and I will get those fixed in the next day or so. I have added logic that replaces BLP sources with BLP unsourced for articles that do not have references in them. If you want the Regex code I use to do this BTW let me know and I would be glad to provide it. There are several steps that need to be done in a certain order though so its rather complicated to explain.
 * If you find anything else please let me know. --Kumioko (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a comment: neither ensure us that the article is sourced. That's why we need editor review. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, after I received the above comments I changed it to the below to be more explicit. It doesn't capture all of them but its more exact I think and for things like this its better to not change a few than to change a few too many.
 * Find: \{\{[ ]*BLP unsourced(.*?)\}\}(.*?)\<[ ]*(ref|ref[ _]+name)(.*?)\>[ ]*\{\{[ ]*(cite[ _]+web|cite[ _]+book|citation|cite[ _]+journal)
 * Replace: $2<$3$4>{{$5 --Kumioko (talk) 17:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for correcting the second issue. As for the first, I don't believe that such a consensus exists for article tags (note that e.g. BLPunsourced can just as well be added to the multiple issues tag), I have also noticed that there was at least one article where you placed the BLPunsourced tag even before a ProD or AfD tag, which is certainly more important. Note e.g. Template talk:Unreferenced, where a discussion about whether the tag should be at the top of the page or is also allowed at e.g. the references section remained undecided. I don't believe that there is a reason to assume that this would be different for the BLPunsourced tag as compared to the general unsourced tag. Fram (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand your arguments and I am on the fence about wether the BLP tag should supercede the AFD or Prod tags. Since both the latter go through a review process and a vote in a separate location to decide their fate, IMO it benefits the article more to put the BLPO tag first and it certainly doesnt harm anything. I did notice a couple of other things recently that I need to clear up though and that is does an article that has the banner stating the content was blanked due to a copyright violation and the message that says its a BLP made after March 2010 and needs to have a reference need this tag as well since its message is implied or made not applicable in the other 2. In regards to the other comment I believe that the BLP X templates should follow the established criteria for BLP templates not for a standard maintenance template. An article without a reference is bad but a BLP article with no references could be a catalyst for a lawsuit. --Kumioko (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

WPUS for ABC?
Hi Kumioko, with regards to this edit, I'm not really seeing how Andrew Browne Cunningham, a British WWII admiral is part of the US wikiproject? Were you using a category as your basis? Woody (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the catch. Yes I am using Category:American military personnel and recursive. I see the reason he appeared and that was because he has a couple of American medals which fall under the Parent category of American military personnel. I assume this probably happened to a few others as well but I have only done a couple hundred edits today so it'll be easy to see if that's true and Ill check. Ill look at the list a little closer and see if I can filter some out but because of the way the categorization works it may still happen to a few. In the end its not a huge problem to have an extra WikiProject banner but Ill try and watch it a little more closely and please let me know if you see any more. --Kumioko (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thought it might be one of those categories. I will keep an eye out for any more that pop up on my watchlist. Thanks, Woody (talk) 22:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I just removed about 900 foreign service personnel from my 8000+ article list but I think there are likely a few more to chop. That should be the bulk of them though. --Kumioko (talk) 22:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Reverted United States Portal of low importance
I reverted the United States Portal of low importance from the discussion of Albert Kotin article to the previous edit by Salmon1. The reasons for the action: If "This page has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale then why to add it? Best, (Salmon1 (talk) 00:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC))
 * 1. Albert Kotin was a WPA artist, pioneer abstract expressionist, New York School artist of the 1950s, an action painter.
 * 2. Although he fulfilled his duty as an American by complying with the draft during World WarII he was not a career soldier. Other artists like Julius Hatofsky and many other artists do not have the United States Portal.
 * 3.


 * Just a TPS here, but an article could be of low importance for the overall national project, and higher importance to another project. That doesn't mean it isn't within the project scope though. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;" > Imzadi  1979   →  00:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Since there are several questions let me answer each one:
 * I dont mind that you reverted but I will likely tag it again at some point in the future since he falls into the scope of US.
 * The reason why the others don't have it yet is just because I haven't gotten there yet. They will eventually but there are at least 40 thousand US related articles that dont have a us related template. Possibly more. The project laid in state for a long time before I started getting it going again.
 * Having the WPUS template has nothing to do with being in the military, although American military personnel is the category I am working with at the moment there are many more to go through. I have basically just randomly picked one in no particular order.
 * The logic I am using usually grabs the importance/priority from the biography template along with the class but if it doesn't or cant then it defaults to low rather than leaving it blank. But in this case as Imzadi put it the article is low to the US project in general.
 * I also wanted to add that just because its considered low importance it still should be tagged and low isnt a badge of shame. --Kumioko (talk) 01:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your thorough answer along with the clear picture of your dedication to your interest. Best regards, (Salmon1 (talk) 02:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC))

WMATA Silver Line map
Since you commented on the earlier FFD discussion regarding File:WMATA Thin Silver Line Map.jpg, which was withdrawn due to the need for a venue change, I invite you to comment on the new discussion at PUF, at. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

US portal
Hi Kumioko I reverted back your addition of US Portal at Albert Kotin's discussion page. I realized that what you are doing is constructive. I regret my opposition to it. Very best, (Salmon1 (talk) 02:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC))
 * No problem thanks for letting me know. --Kumioko (talk) 02:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Article talk page problem
Hi -- I've noticed that during your talk page cleanup, you've occasionally been inadvertently removing brackets (such as here) which is causing some of the WikiProject banners not to register. Could you keep an eye on this during future edits? Thanks! -Dewelar (talk) 02:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. I actually noticed that a couple days ago and fixed it I think. I thought I went back and fixed all the problems but if you happen to notice some more after the 24th please let me know. --Kumioko (talk) 02:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Will do. -Dewelar (talk) 02:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Last North American veterans by war listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Last North American veterans by war. Since you had some involvement with the Last North American veterans by war redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). 76.66.194.212 (talk) 07:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Both these 2 templates are only used on 1 or 2 pages and I think we can redesign them to meet the needs of both
Both these 2 templates are only used on 1 or 2 pages and I think we can redesign them to meet the needs of both, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Miscellany for deletion/Both these 2 templates are only used on 1 or 2 pages and I think we can redesign them to meet the needs of both and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Both these 2 templates are only used on 1 or 2 pages and I think we can redesign them to meet the needs of both during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Kumioko (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Netherlands Portal
Hi Kumioko! I added Netherlands Portals to Nanno de Groot. He was an American citizen but in World WarII he served as liaison officer to the US Army and US Navy in charge of running troop ships between the west coast and the western Pacific, chartered by the United States. Please check the biography if you think it is incorret then please delete the portal. Thank you. Best regards, (Salmon1 (talk) 00:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC))
 * No thats completely fine with me thanks for the heads up though. --Kumioko (talk) 01:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Question
Hi there, I was just wondering how you got all three (rollback, Autopatrolled and Reviewer Rights) insignias in the top of your page. I tried to do place all 3 of them in mine but only two show up. Thanks El Johnson (talk) 17:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I had to play with it a bit. I will take a look and see if I can fix yours if you want. --Kumioko (talk) 18:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure that would be great, I would really appreciate it. El Johnson (talk) 19:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

MFD nominations
In Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kumioko/militarybiographyheader you wrote "Wish I could just delete my own userspace subpages myself!". There is, however, a speedy deletion template - db-userreq - that you can use to tag your own user subpages for deletion without bureaucracy.

Furthermore, CSD G8 states that subpages of deleted pages such as the ones you're nominating can also be deleted without bureaucracy. The appropriate template to use is db-subpage.

(I also took the liberty of removing the silly MFD notices that were a result of your deletion nominations.) MER-C 07:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ill use that other template next time. It just seems like folks should be able to delete subpages within their own namespace rather than have to submit them for deletion and make more work for someone else. --Kumioko (talk) 12:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Miscellany for deletion/Economic policy of the Barack Obama administration
Why did you create the page above? If you are nominating it for deletion, it should be at Articles for deletion. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually I meant to send it for discussion not deletion. The talk page is restricted and would not allow visibility or edit and it needed to have a couple banners on it. At least BLPO. --Kumioko (talk) 12:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * When the article was moved recently, the talk page wasn't moved along. I have now moved the talk page, you should be able to add any necessary banners to it. Fram (talk) 12:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, wasnt sure whu it was doing that but that makes sense. I appreciate the help. --Kumioko (talk) 12:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Still I don't understand why you wanted to send it to MfD, but anyway we seem to be sorted now. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I was trying to discuss why it was restricted from editing. Didnt make sense to me why it wouldnt let the talk page even be visible. I didnt realize it was the result of the article being moved recently. Thanks for the help. --Kumioko (talk) 12:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:General AmbroseHill.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:General AmbroseHill.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Lightning Hammer.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Lightning Hammer.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Lightening Hammer2.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Lightening Hammer2.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Phantom Strike.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Phantom Strike.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Frederick Vallette McNair, Jr.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Frederick Vallette McNair, Jr.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Better source request for File:James Parks.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:James Parks.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Fred Zabitosky.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Fred Zabitosky.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Benjamin Brown.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Benjamin Brown.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Henry Alanson Barnum.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Henry Alanson Barnum.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Calvin Pearl Titus.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Calvin Pearl Titus.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:John Baxter Kinne.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:John Baxter Kinne.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Sgt Edward R Talley.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Sgt Edward R Talley.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:PFC Michael Valente.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:PFC Michael Valente.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Calvin John Ward.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Calvin John Ward.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Samuel Woodfill.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Samuel Woodfill.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:William Mcbryar.gif
Thank you for uploading File:William Mcbryar.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:George Jordan Gravestone.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:George Jordan Gravestone.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:George Emerson Albee.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:George Emerson Albee.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Medal-of-honor-army.png
Thank you for uploading File:Medal-of-honor-army.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:CharlesKilbourne.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:CharlesKilbourne.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Webb Hayes.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Webb Hayes.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to particpate in the December 2010 Wikification Drive
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 18:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC).

Needs-persondata
Maybe you want to comment in Template_talk:WikiProject_Biography. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Question
I know that may seem like a personal question but.... I know this girl and her parents just got divorced. Is their anything I should not say infront of her. Their divorce was really nasty they had like a whole custody battle and crap. Now she seems all sad and depressed. She doesn't laugh at jokes she doesn't hang out with friends she just stays inside. Is their something I can do? Like spend more time with her? Or take her to the movies or something like that? CJISBEAST (talk) 20:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Umm, Although I appreciate that you think I could help this isn't the right place for that kind of question. --Kumioko (talk) 20:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I already tried the internet. It is filled with crap. So you got no idea? CJISBEAST (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Lol...A valid description of the internet i must admit. I would ask your parents. Not really my place to say and as I said this isnt the right venue.Sorry. I'll say this though I would say the answer to the last 2 questions is follow your heart. If you feel like its the right thing to do then it probably is. --Kumioko (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup. Cool. I'll just hang out with her more and try to make her laugh (a laugh a day keeps the doctor away). Thanks.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CJISBEAST (talk • contribs) 21:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Kumioko/Create biography template
User:Kumioko/Create biography template, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kumioko/Create biography template and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Kumioko/Create biography template during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Kumioko (talk) 03:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Kumioko/Documentation
User:Kumioko/Documentation, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kumioko/Documentation and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Kumioko/Documentation during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Kumioko (talk) 03:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Kumioko/Sandbox/Medal of Honor
User:Kumioko/Sandbox/Medal of Honor, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kumioko/Sandbox/Medal of Honor and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Kumioko/Sandbox/Medal of Honor during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Kumioko (talk) 04:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Soft Drinks
Doesn't exist any more. --<span style="font-family:lucida sans, sans-serif;">Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah its food and drink now right? Are you referring to a specific article. I have made over 1000 edits in the last day so Im not sure which article you are referring too. --Kumioko (talk) 05:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

After reviewing your contributions I see what I did. I updated my regex code for that and added all redirects pertaining to that template as shown below: {{\s*(WikiProject[ _]+Food[ _]+and[ _]+drink|Beverage|F&D|Food|Food[ _]+and[ _]+drink|WP[ _]+Food|WP[ _]+Ice[ _]+Cream|WPCUISINE|WikiProject[ _]+FOOD|WikiProject[ _]+Food|WikiProject[ _]+Food[ _]+and[ _]+Drink|WikiProject[ _]+Ice[ _]+Cream|WikiProject[ _]+Mixed[ _]+Drinks|WikiProject[ _]+Soft[ _]+drinks|Wikiproject[ _]+Food[ _]+and[ _]+Drink|Wikiproject[ _]+Food[ _]+and[ _]+drink|Wpf|Wpfood) *([\|}\n]) WikiProject Food and drink$2
 * Find
 * Replace

I also noticed 2 redirects to sandboxes for templates that have been subsumed by this one and submitted them for deletion. Please let me know if you find anything else. --Kumioko (talk) 05:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion
If it's a doc page for a deleted template, just use db-subpage to have it speedy deleted. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 06:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

MOH list article
Kumioko, I see you have an interest in the Medal of Honor listing article. Heads-up. I've just tagged it for editorializing in that the article goes beyond giving a straight-forward listing or a listing with simple historical context descriptions for the wars. Instead, and in particular in the Korean War section, we see POV edits. Please see my comments in Talk:List of Medal of Honor recipients. Thanks. --S. Rich (talk) 07:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Im not sure I agree with your assessment of the article but there are some areas that could be improved so I will take a look in the next day or 2. --Kumioko (talk) 12:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

??
Hi Kumioko: Just wondering why you added Cape May County, New Jersey to the Cities WikiProject, since it clearly isn't a city. Seems like they probably have enough to do dealing with the things that are in their remit! :) Any chance I can get you to reconsider?  Perhaps Cape May City should be added there instead?  MeegsC | Talk 04:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry -- you weren't the one who did that! Please ignore the above... MeegsC | Talk 04:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks I was a little confused. --Kumioko (talk) 04:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

minor edits
Hi, I was wondering if you could try to mark edits where you make minor changes to templates as "minor" so that I can filter them out when looking at my watchlist. Looking today I see a bunch of messy edits like that, which makes it hard to use. Thanks! john k (talk) 16:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What edits are you referring too. The vast majority of edits for today I have done (with a couple of exceptions) where adding the WPUS banner to talk pages. --Kumioko (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, those ones. john k (talk) 17:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I can mark them as minor but it could be argued that those are not minor edits so I am hesitant to mark it as such. Since you asked though I will but if someone else considers it not a minor edit I will have to switch it back. --Kumioko (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Thanks. john k (talk) 17:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject United States
I updated the code for Template:WPUSA, some of the parameters were deprecated. Also, the nested stuff was incorrect, if you have the TFs as a hook, you need to use: 'Template:WPBannerMeta/hooks/tfnested' to get the nested stuff to display correctly. The nested parameter that was in there only works for the first five TFs, only if they're not in a hook. --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. That means that the code in the /sandbox is not totally correct. If you let me know which TFs you're adding next, I'll be glad to help with the coding. --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for the help. Im still new to the WP banner template logic. Right now I am concentrating on articles that dont have a tag and articles that fall under the scope of a Defunct or Inactive project. I havent deceided exactly which one to do next but the WikiProjects for South Carolina and Colorado are basically inactive so they will probably be next. thanks again. Also, I am basically doing them one at a time because in addition to marking the articles that are currently covered by that project I am also marking the ones that should be but arent tagged for it. Case in point the U.S. counties project had 135 articles tagged out of about 3200. --Kumioko (talk) 18:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that. If we can re-tag those 135 articles, then we could delete the Template:WikiProject U.S. counties, because it doesn't have quality assessment. (Neither does the TF either, at this point, but it would be better to have one less WP template out there.) --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * All 135 should have the WPUS template with U.S counties=US. I did that group first before I started tagging any other the others of which I have done about a 1000 so about 2000 more to go. I can add the quality assessment but I havent done that before. I might need some help with that. --Kumioko (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I can help with removing the us counties template and add the wpusa w/us counties parameter. I think we should leave it w/o a quality/importance assessement right now, as it's already assessed by wpusa. I think I will add a shortcut for the parameter though, e.g., |county=yes and |counties=yes, so anyone of them would work. --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. the logic I am using for the addition of the WPUS with counties takes the class from the other resident template (only if its a state) and I have the importance set as low because for the WPUS anyway I think they all are. If you disagree we can change that). I also fix any WikiProject banner redirects and a few other things while I am there. On the counties thing you raise a good point. Do we really need to say its US. Its in the US template after all. I think we can just drop the US and leave it as counties. I would need to change the category but thats not a big deal. --Kumioko (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't change it, leave it as U.S. counties. What I'm referring to is just the parameter, instead of having to write it out, it can be just |county=yes, the |U.S. counties= will still work. Where is the code you're working on about the state project's quality assessment? --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Its in an XML file on my machine. I use a regex expression in AWB. Its pretty big because I have a couple thousand find and replace logic changes. It exceeds the 500K (without articles in it) page size for a WP page so it wont all fit in a sandbox or userspace page. I also have logic in a C# macro but I usually dont haev that running. --Kumioko (talk) 21:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay! That's way beyond me! BTW, I added |county= to the wpusa template. Will work on re-tagging later (I've got to go to my real job now.) --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good thanks for the help. --Kumioko (talk) 21:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've finished removing the old U.S. counties template from all the articles, so that template is now redirected to the WPUSA project template. Also, in regard to the U.S. state WPs that aren't that active (like CO, etc.), I would recommend not to delete their wp banner templates, as the situation might be like the WPIllinois template, where most of the action is at WPChicago's template. I also think that improvement in the various states' WPs could be made from the 'bottom up', instead of the 'top down'. In other words, there are sub-projects, like Eastern Washington, that need to be incorporated into the WPWashington template. Right now, I found a lot that were tagged with E. Washington, which doesn't have a category for talk pgs, and the articles weren't even tagged with the main Washington template, so they're just floating out there! --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats a good idea about the subprojects. I was starting to look into WPDistrict of Columbia possibly being next but theres no need to be in a rush. --Kumioko (talk) 00:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I cked the code and it's fine. Only 1 addition to the /doc pg under "Instructions" was needed. I don't know either if anyone is in charge of working on the portal. Thanks, --Funandtrvl (talk) 07:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I tried to add the TF level importance for county and DC (since I want to make sure this is still available for WPsuperfund), and I can't seem to make it work. I am sure there is some code or something that I am missing.  Can you fix this? Cmcnicoll (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, I'll take a look at it. --Funandtrvl (talk) 23:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think it's fixed. I moved the 2 TFs up, you can put 5 TFs there, before starting the hook. I think it was missing one of the tf importance parameters. Also, there was one cat error, see: . The wp articles cat go under the wp cat, not the other way around. Is the plan to leave both the WPUS and WPDC banner templates, or to merge DC into the WPUS one? If you need more help, just let me know! --Funandtrvl (talk) 00:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

MFD
I'll say it again since you apparently didn't hear last time. If it's the doc page for a template that's been deleted, db-subpage is your friend. PLEASE use speedies instead of MFDs for these. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok I just submitted the rest for speedy delete. I found some more today but I will submit those in the next day or 2. --Kumioko (talk) 05:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

CRWP banner
I'll post this here to explain a little differently. There are a few reasons CRWP is getting its own banner back. All of this work won't work if the Canada banner is still attempting to track CRWP assessments. One reason is that the Canada banner is going to be using the wrong categories. (They renamed them all when they force-merged CRWP's banner.) The second is that if they switched the national banner back to the old category names, you could get one banner placing a CRWP article in B-Class nationally and the other placing it in C-Class globally, nationally and provincially. That would screw up the statistics. By your own comments though, you support what we're doing, but you said that the parameter should stay in the national banner. That can't be for the reasons I've outlined. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;" > Imzadi  1979   →  07:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It will allow CRWP to set its assessments separately from the national Canada assessments. The two have to be the same now. (USRD can assess different than WPBIO or WPUS because of separate templates. CRWP doesn't have that ability.)
 * 2) The national banner right now only tracks CRWP articles into a national category. The new CRWP-only banner tracks by province and national levels. Instead of a B-Class Alberta highway article being placed in Category:B-Class Canada Roads articles, it will go into both Category:B-Class Canada road transport articles and Category:B-Class Alberta road transport articles.
 * 3) Once the by-province and national tracking is done, CRWP can get a Canadian version of WP:USRD/A/S. USRD has to have by-state and national categories for the bot to calculate that Michigan has 5 Featured Articles, 5 A-Class, etc.
 * 4) In a month, the CRWP, USRD and UKRD banners will all also place that article in Category:B-Class Highways articles. This will allow WP:HWY, The Highways Project to create its oen leaderboard. That will track how USRD, CRWP, UKRD compare with the new regional Europe, Asia, Africa, Oceania and Latin America task forces (which won't include the 2 full projects) as well as HWY as a whole.

Template doc subpages
Thanks for locating all of those orphaned template documentation pages. I deleted all of the ones that you tagged and closed the MfDs you opened except for a few of them that are in use by other templates:


 * Template:Ahnentafel/doc
 * Template:Geology timeline/doc
 * Template:Saudibox/doc

Template:Infobox Romanian Parliament/doc really belonged to Template:Infobox Romanian legislature, so I moved it to the correct name. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 12:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Wrong forum TFD since is Template namespace
Don't take it personally (and the other), but do something that actually fixes articles... this crap is crap. Still put it to TFD, no doubt, they're still mistaking their deletions as useful... see my user talk for a small amount of tools I'd still like having... Sheesh! Better yet, convert the depreciated template to auto the new fangled one, then your redirect will follow along. If you need an argument to pass for the Utopian dream template the Dick's are using now, then link directly to it instead of the depreciated name. Either way, keep the tool names. SOMEONE may recall them, or try them as a likely name some dark tired lonely hurried night falling off a chair... some old fart like me. // Fra nkB 14:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I replied to your comments. Not offended at all but those 2 items were redirects and not the actual template. Just FYI. BTW, just I have done about 2500 edits in the last couple days so the do something useful comments a little out of place. Also, as I mentioned in my reply I think that getting rid of some of the extra clutter and crap is needed. There is no need to keep a bunch of deprecated templates and ambiguous redirects for the sake of nostalgia. If were not using them then we shoudl get rid of them. Not leave them stuffed ni the couch cushions and buried in the shed next to the old car parts to vehicles I dont have any more and broken lawnmowers Ive been meaning to fix. The nature of WP is that whatever we do will eventually be undone by a better model, template, article, edit, etc. Its the nature of things in Wikipedia to evolve. Not to keep it cause it aint broke and dont need fixing. --Kumioko (talk) 14:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

So your userpage
is AWESOME and was a pleasure to read!! :) Missvain (talk) 02:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 02:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:WikiProject U.S. state capitols
Template:WikiProject U.S. state capitols has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Kumioko (talk) 04:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Procedural close on two non-existent WikiProject templates
FYI, I just procedural-closed two TFD nominations that you did on Templates for discussion/Log/2010 December 5 because no content ever existed on those titles. I presume you didn't mean to do that... SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I actually meant to submit the WikiProjects themselves not the templates. --Kumioko (talk) 19:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Cherry-picking FAs to tag
It looks very bad when your AWB run: I reverted your addition of a WP:WPUS tag to Talk:Capitol Loop because you had previously stated that USRD project articles would not be targeted for your tagging efforts, and you're clearly only tagging Featured Articles from your recent contributions. Please stop this and consider how it appears. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;" > Imzadi  1979   →  22:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) has a misleading edit summary and
 * 2) is only targeting Featured Articles to tag.
 * There is actually a method to my madness and here goes. I'm not cherry picking I'm just not done yet. I want to start building a sense of teamwork amongst the projects and at the same time see if we can work together to build up some content. I am going to add all the GA and better US related articles so that we all have way to deterimine how many US related articles are in those classes within the US scope without having to pull in more than 200 projects. Once I am done I am going to try and set a goal (the projects can participate or not its up to them) and try and improve that number. But until I know what we have its hard to say what to shoot for. I started with FA's because its a smaller group (about 500). Once I am done I will do the A class and then GA. Once I get them all tagged I will suggest to the projects that we should all work together to meet X number by X date. I hope this helps to explain my madness and I realize already that USRD will not be interested in participating but their projects should be counted in the number cause they fall in the scope of US. --Kumioko (talk) 02:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You're still cherry-picking. Either you have to tag it all, or none. That brings up another issue. How many templates though do each article's talk page need? The USRD tag should be sufficient to mark an article as the nexus of WP:WPUS and WP:HWY. WP:MSHP is considered a subproject of both WP:MICH and WP:USRD, and that should be sufficient rather than toss a separate tag on the talk page. Where is the consensus that the WP:WPUS tag needs to go on everything remotely related to the US? <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;" > Imzadi  1979   →  02:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * How am I cherry picking? Because I am tagging articles that are in your project, or because you commented before I finished? It always seems to be USRD that takes exception...its getting a little old. I will tag the rest in the next day or so just be patient. Right now I got busy doing something else. I used to think that the talk pages shouldn't have piles of templates either but ironically your comments helped to convince me otherwise. The projects are separate and therefore whether there are 2, 5 or ten that relate to United States, if the project wishes to be a stakeholder in the maintenance and development of the article then they have that right. It doesn't really matter how many banners are on the talk page according to you and other editors. Additionally there isn't any policy discouraging projects from staking their claim. The determination of what scope of area projects wish to mark an article is at the discretion of the project. There is no concensus neeeded. Take the article talk:Barack Obama for a prime example. That article has about 20 banners, about 10 of which are related to US and all the projects have just as much right to be there as the others. For what its worth I don't intend to tag all the USRD articles and although I had planned too I probably won't participate much in the project so you won't have to worry about me meddling in the affairs of your project except for the occassional overlap. --Kumioko (talk) 03:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's cherry picking when you won't take the good (FA, A, GA) with the bad (stubs). That's exactly my point. Don't tag the 31 FAs under USRD unless you'll also be tagging the 4,632 stubs. Don't tag articles for a project unless that project is actually going to actively support the article. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;" > Imzadi  1979   →  03:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I should warn you to be careful what you ask for. If you want me to I would be glad to tag them all. I can tag them all in under a week. I would prefer it actually and as strange as this sounds I was minimizing my scope to the higher rated ones basically as a compromise. Whether you want outside influence or not I am including them in the count of total US articles for the upcoming content buildup im planning at the first of the year. I will tell them to avoid making edits to the USRD articles and concentrate on other areas but I need to count them with the whole. So its up to you, can I just tag the ones I need for the US content buildup or do you want me to tag them all. --Kumioko (talk) 03:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, you don't need to do anything. WPUS used to be just a shell project to coordinate common issues between the state projects. Given the breadth of articles involved and the sheer numbers, that's what it should be. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;" > Imzadi  1979   →  03:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And Godzilla used to be a little bitty lizard...but things change. When I started rebuilding WPUS it was inactive and had been for a couple years. Regardless of its previous form consider it under new administration and I am not the sit idly by sort. I am and will be very active in expanding and building up content related to WPUS and I intend to continue to recruit and advertise the project so that others will actively do the same. I will try to avoid your project as much as possible but there are going to be times when the scope of our projects overlap. So since not doing anything is not an option, and since we both know that a project can tag articles in their scope even if those articles are already tagged and actively supported by another project (because remember the tag doesn't convey ownership) do you want me to tag them all or just the ones I need for the project? Im not trying to push you out but the WPUS project has just as much right to tag and build these articles as USRD does. --Kumioko (talk) 04:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to give you a side-effect over-tagging can cause. is the last 200 changes to articles tagged for USRD. That works off either the banner template or a main category. If you flood WPUS with all of the state-, local- or topic-level projects, that tool will be useless to the project. Too many articles means too much to track and things will fall through the cracks. That tool works great for USRD to help remove vandalism from articles. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;" > Imzadi  1979   →  04:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's great and knowone is saying you can't. I use that too and I also use several others. But adding the WPUS banner isn't going to affect that! --Kumioko (talk) 04:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * When you consolidate too many banners together all under WPUS, the last 200 edits could be only a few minutes' worth of editing in the tens of thousands of articles under WPUS. Good luck watching them all. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;" > Imzadi  1979   →  04:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

From WP:AWB: "Don't do anything controversial with it. " As this is obviously controversial, please stop adding WP:WPUS banners to USRD articles with AWB without further discussion in the appropriate venue. --Rschen7754 04:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There is nothing controversial about adding project banners. That's like saying don't edit them. Fine if you don't want me to cherry pick thats cool I will gladly tag them all. And I am not consolidating them under WPUS. By the way several projects have that many including WPBiography with something like 800, 000 articles so that precedent has been set. --Kumioko (talk) 04:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * People have expressed concerns about your tagging USRD articles with WPUS. You can't just use AWB to run over them and force them to accept your wishes. If you do this, you will be reported to the proper venue(s). --Rschen7754 04:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * One other related question to your use of AWB. How many edits a minute you making? Rule #2: "Don't edit too quickly; consider opening a bot account if you are regularly making more than a few edits a minute.: I think you're pushing that threshold now. Please consider setting up a bot account for further mass-AWB use. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;" > Imzadi  1979   →  04:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You know, one edit to USRD and all of the project's articles can be place into your project's assessment categories as well as the USRD and HWY set. One edit versus 14K edits to get all of them. Your choice. Although if you were truly worried about improving the quality of content, you don't want the FAs, you want the stubs. They are the articles that need the editing. FAs only need maintenance to keep them current to WP standards and MOS style guildeines. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;" > Imzadi  1979   →  06:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I tried to report it and the discussion was closed. So I guess that's that. It doesn't matter at this point. I have too many other things to work on to continue to spin my wheels over this anymore. I am starting to see why WPUS went inactive in the past though. I'm about ready to slap the inactive tag back on it and go back to building up the Medal of Honor recipients. --Kumioko (talk) 06:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I was curious to see how many articles we have in common...22 including 1 book and 2 categories. I have delinked them. In the future I will make every effort not to edit any of the USRD articles. You are free to edit any WPUS articles you wish. We welcome all help. --Kumioko (talk) 06:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Check you AWB edit summary
Just saying... <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;" > Imzadi  1979   →  07:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Civil Rights Movement
Hi, in my comment at Talk:African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955–1968) I've informally suggested Civil Rights Movement (United States, 1955–1968) (etc.) as an alternative. What do you think of that? (replying there, if you choose to reply, would be preferable to me - thanks). --Born2cycle (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of WikiProject U.S. cities
WikiProject U.S. cities, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. cities and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of WikiProject U.S. cities during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Kumioko (talk) 03:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Recent DC WikiProject tagging
Did you mean to leave the WikiProject DC template on the page in this edit? If you are combining the assessment templates, I would think you would only need one. Sadads (talk) 03:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking out. I agree but I wasn't sure if concensus was there to remove the DC tag. I suppose since I am there anyway I should rather than come back later and do another edit to remove it. I still have several thousand articles to tag but it shouldn't take me more than a week or so. If anyone screams I can always add it back but having DC in the US banner does the same thing for the most part. In case your wondering why im doing it manually vice using a bot its because I am also doing a bunch of cleanup at the same time and I didn't want to break any articles. How ya been by the way I havent talked to ya for a while? --Kumioko (talk) 04:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Pretty good. Been doing a lot with WP:Ambassadors. The program is really taking off and there is overwhelming support for it everywhere we turn: wikipedians, professors, librarians and students. Its pretty good, and keeps me really busy. I am attending Oxford in the Spring as well, so I am really excited, and January can't seem to come any quicker! You? Sadads (talk) 04:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Good to hear. Oxford should be fun. A lot of work I imagine but fun none the less. I've been busy too trying to get WPUS back up and running. Had some setbacks, some hick-ups and some US related projects that were less than interested in collaborating but its coming along. Right now Im just trying to get all the articles tagged, get the project going and get some members actively participating but in the next 3 or 4 months I want to start doing things like Content drives to build up the content. Hopefully by summer the project will be strong enough to be taken off life support. Well see. Well good luck and hope to see you at the DC meetup in Jan. --Kumioko (talk) 04:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

VWBot
Since noone else has edited Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/CCI since October, it would be appreciated if you could move your comment to WT:CCI where there's a current conversation going and more likely others will be able to read and respond to it. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

WPBS related bug fixed
You were right that were was a bug. We fixed it. Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs/Archive_18. -- Magioladitis (talk) 02:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Great to hear you were able to replicate it and fix it. Thanks for letting me know. --Kumioko (talk) 02:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Minor edits
Minor edits such as that just replace redirects and change whitespace are disallowed by the AWB rules. You need to make sure that AWB edits are only saved if there is a substantive change to the page. (I realize that the DC project isn't a redirect at the moment, but it would be much easier to edit the DC banner to simply call the US banner with appropriate parameters, rather than editing thousands of pages to do the replacement.)

Also, in this edit, one of the replacements of "Image:" was not in an image tag, it was in a section header. Those probably shouldn't be changed. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 18:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think this type of standardization edit is disallowed but I admit that some users don't think they are needed.
 * I don't claim to be an expert in Wikiproject template programming but I don't think that jsut adding the category will accomplish what we are trying to do with this.
 * On the image issue that is a little strange but it is still in keeping with the goal of replacing the old "Image" naming schema with the new "File" scheme so I think this is ok. --Kumioko (talk) 19:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

@Carl:I think there is a misunderstanding on the first edit. One part of the edit isn't just bypassing redirect but merging a WikiProject to another.

@Kumioko: I agree with Carl on the second part. Better avoid replacing Image: with File: in talkpages. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok but why does it matter differently on talk pages? If the new standard is File vice Image then it should be uniform across namespaces. Otherwise we'll have remnants of the old file structure to infiniti!. --Kumioko (talk) 23:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Because what you changed is a comment and some people (or bot owners) get annoyed if you fix their comments even if they have typographical mistkaes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to seem argumentative here but editors get annoyed with just about any edit these days. Its seems any use of AWB, a bot or just editing an article they feel strongly about in any way even manually is enough to annoy at least one or 2. I don't mean to seem like I have a bad attitude about this but if I stop making a certain edit, based on the comments of one or 2. I wouldn't be able to edit and may as well watch TV. So although I do see your reasoning I don't think that annoying an editor or filling up watchlists are good enough reasons to not make an edit. I understand its just a lowly talk page and I certainly understand the typo fix comment (I try not to make those on talk pages by the way) but I thikn this is different. For one its linking to another name space and isn't just a typo or redirect and it is in fact a deprecated namespace that we should be working towards switching over. --Kumioko (talk) 00:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The principle at work is that it's considered bad form by many to alter other's comments on a talk page. Altering their contributions in an article is what the project is all about at its core, but any edits in the talk namespaces to others' comments looks like you're altering their meaning/intent/etc. If you're just changing how a graphic is displayed, that's a whole 'nother issue. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;" > Imzadi  1979   →  00:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

William F. Dean
Hi. I am working on improving the article for William F. Dean and have basically everything I need, but I've had a very difficult time finding all of his awards and decorations. I noticed on a previous revision you noted a number of other medals he was awarded that I can't confirm. Do you have any info that could help me out? Thanks. — Ed! (talk) 03:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow great job, It looks way better already. I'll see what I can find and let you know. --Kumioko (talk) 12:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I found Dean's bio and decorations here on veterantributes.org. How reliable is this site? I see a lot of other articles use it, including GAs but I don't know how to establish its credibility. — Ed! (talk) 05:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say its middle of the road as far as reliability. I would gauge it in the same caliber as Arlington Cemetery.org. Its ok to use if you can't find it anywhere else and it'll probably pass GA and maybe A class but its doubtful it'll fly for FA. It might though I'm not sure. I would use it but if you find another with the same info thats more reliable use that. I would think that his book would list his awards but he was a pretty humble guy so maybe not. As far as gauging credibility I'm not sure but in this case I think its ok. I hope this helps a little. --Kumioko (talk) 05:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, his book doesn't even list his DSC. I'll use it unless someone at GAN or ACR objects then. Thanks! — Ed! (talk) 05:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Romm talk page
Hi. I'm not sure what you intend to do at the top of this talk page, but it is messing up the code. Can you discuss your proposal on the talk page first so we can help you? Thanks! All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. Thanks for letting me know. Mostly I was trying to replace WPDC with WPUS/DC and standardize the templates. I just double checked the edit and it worked this time. The problem was when I removed the collapsed to allow the WikiProjects to be visible. --Kumioko (talk) 01:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, looks good. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Please stop DC-tagging WMATA stations for time being
Please stop DC-tagging WMATA stations for the time being. I tagged all of the Maryland stations for Maryland last night, replacing the earlier DC tagging, and then today, your tagging work came through and re-added the DC tag alongside the Maryland tag. So if you would please hold off on this for now, while we have a discussion at WPDC's talk page that I know you're aware of (since you participated in it), I would appreciate it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that. If I tagged anymore it was an accident other than converting the rest from DC to US. I am done converting DC to US now though so I am going to start in on tagging the DC related articles that hadn't been tagged yet. I will exclude the Metro stations for now as you ask but I still think that the ones in DC proper should have the DC tag in addition to the WMATA tag. --Kumioko (talk) 04:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it's a moot point regarding the Metro stations, as they're all tagged now. Also, I think you may have misunderstood me regarding what tags should go where.  I'm not saying that stations in DC proper shouldn't be tagged with the DC tag as well as the WMATA tag.  They absolutely should have both, because they're different projects with different scopes.  I was specifically referring to a few edits (specifically, this one, this one, and this one) where the most current version of the DC tag was reinstated alongside the Maryland tag the DC tag had previously been removed (having been replaced by the Maryland tag).  In other words, you made two sweeps.  I think the tagging was already wrong when you went the first time around, and so your first sweep just updated the tag that shouldn't have been there in the first place (i.e. not your fault).  The second sweep, I find harder to explain away, and that's the one that concerns me.


 * Otherwise, addressing some comments you made on my talk page (and it seems fit that I just address it all in one response)...


 * If my tag-switching last night overreached, I apologize, and can explain. I was perhaps a little too tired to edit last night, and actually fell asleep on the switch, if you can imagine that.  Not "at the switch", but "on the switch".  I literally fell asleep with my finger leaning on the button while running AWB, and so while I finished the article list, I fear I was sound asleep for much of it.  At least you know I'm not telling you a tale - you can't make stuff like that up.


 * Lastly, the category... my intention with the project category was to quickly cluster the station articles together in order to do the re-tagging. It unfortunately didn't populate quickly enough, so I moved to other methods to do the work.  I have a feeling, however, that the category will be helpful overall, and so it might be worthwhile to just leave it in place.  If not, I'll just G7 it and be done with it.


 * So there you go, I suppose. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject United States (continued)
Okay, when you added the Superfunds, it was missing the "|" after the word Superfunds, see:. It should have been. But you fixed it when you added the alt parameter later on, so it's fine now! --Funandtrvl (talk) 05:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh ok thanks for looking. --Kumioko (talk) 12:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've put in for the WPDC template to redirect to WPUSA, because it looks like you updated all the talk page templates. I updated the /doc pg for now, and requested the DC template to be unprotected. BTW, how in the world are you tagging all those talk pages?? Do you have a tool to do it??!! --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks and yes I use AWB. I use several different things to do what I need. In some cases I just use the built in find and replace functionality or general fixes built into AWB. I also built a custom module that cleans up the redirects for the WikiProject templates. You can see that here. I also have another group of fixes that I have on my computer (they could cause problems and need to be watched so I didn't put them in my talk page group in my userspace) that does some other things like move some of the non wikiprojet templates (like Article history, DYK, Image requested, etc) out of the WikiProjectBannerShell or above or below it as appropriate (Article history, talk page, skip to talk and some others go above, things like image requested and DYK's go below). I hope this helps and thanks again for the help with the coding of the WPBS template. --Kumioko (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * One more thing we need to tidy up, the peer review for "Wikipedia:WikiProject District of Columbia/Peer review" won't work anymore because we redirected the template and the WPUSA template doesn't have it now. Do you think we should add it to WPUSA? Otherwise, I need to delete the peer review pg and related categories, in order to clean up. --Funandtrvl (talk) 01:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh I wasn't really aware that might happen. I think having a peer review page would be useful.I think we should move it under WPUS and I will create a tab for it. Since the project is getting more active by the minute its something that could be hugely beneficial. --Kumioko (talk) 02:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, you could just do a page move, but the parameters need to be added to the template. Are you going to do that, or do you want me to do it? --Funandtrvl (talk) 02:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you mind I don't know how to do that. --Kumioko (talk) 02:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll be glad to, although I may not get to it tonight. --Funandtrvl (talk) 02:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem I've just never done that before so I don't know what to change. Thanks for the help on that. --Kumioko (talk) 02:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:JBLM McChord Field‎, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. See WP:TPO (first paragraph) and the first to last bullet in WP:HEAD Srobak (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm a little confused, I think you sent this to the wrong person. I didn't delete any comments. --Kumioko (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You section header edits to 2 other people's contributions were unnecessary and ineffective, as per the bullet in WP:HEAD which I indicated previously. To that effect - those section headers were created and formatted the way they were by using the New Section Tool at the top of each WP Talk page. If you believe this formatting to be in error, you may wish to pursue having the hard coding of WP's integrated editor altered. Srobak (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you need to take a closer look at the edit I made. Yes I removed the spaces from before and after the ='s in the sections but only because I was already making a more significant edit at the same time, which in this case, was replacing Wikiproject Superfunds with WikiProject United States with the Superfunds parameter and importance. --Kumioko (talk) 18:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I was not referring to the Superfunds portion of your edit, which could have been done without the others. Srobak (talk) 18:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, you were rather unclear in your statement. Removing the extra spaces is allowed as long as there is a more significant edit at the same time. We shouldn't edit the page solely to remove them but if were there already its ok. --Kumioko (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Again - those spaces were put there automagically by the New Section Tool located at the top of each WP Talk page (the + symbol). Consequently - you will find literally millions of these formats on WP and they will increase exponentially far more than users will be able to eliminate them.  If you believe this type of format to be in error, you may wish to pursue having the hard coding of WP's integrated editor altered.  However - functionally there is no difference between a spaced and non-spaced section header, as per WP:HEAD. Srobak (talk) 18:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

So by your own admittance then it does no harm to the article or talk page if, in the course of other more significant edits I cleanup the section headers as well. Also bear in mind I have done this about 100, 000 (literally, not figuratively) times or so already and this is the first time that I can remember anyone ever mentioning this. Also, you have to read all the instructions not just pick out the things you want to make your point. For example, per the instructions: With that said I appreciate you taking the time to comment about what you believe to be an issue, however, since it wasn't in error, did exactly what I wanted it to do when I wanted to do it (meaning it wasn't done alone but with another major edit) and it has never come up in my 6 years and 174, 000+ edits I am going to continue making this particular edut. I don't mean for this to sound bad but no matter how I write it the tone seems the same, but its not meant to be. If I stopped making an edit every time 1 editor had issue with 1 type of edit I wouldn't be able to do much. I suggest if you feel this is occassion warrants attention leave an incidient report at ANI and we can spend the next few days to weeks discussing it. If you find any other changes that cause you concern or you feel are in error please let me know and I would be happy to discuss. There have been occassions were I did a bad edit or made a bad assumption/interpretion of the rules and was wrong. Cheers and happy editing. --Kumioko (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Spaces between the == and the heading text are optional
 * 2) Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. I would argue that it is easier to read the headings when thier not surrounded by a bunch of extra spaces.
 * 3) Fixing layout errors. Although this isn't an error per sey having spaces in the heading can be problematic
 * 4) It requires extra coding to do the same task when using bots and automated tools.
 * The "cleanup" of section headers would require them to be dirty in the first place. In the course of your doing this about 100,000 times (some in talk pages, where again the very first paragraph of WP:TPO applies), you seem to have missed the hundred or so such "formatting errors" contained within your own talk page. While you would argue that section headers are easier to read without spaces - I would argue that the opposite is true, as it makes them stand out more when scrolling through WP article code. Either way - it is completely subjective. As you refer to the spacing as both "erroneous" and "problematic" - this seems to indicate that you believe the hard coding in WP's integrated editor to be faulty, as it is solely responsible for the addition of the spaces. As the people responsible for the existence of this feature likely tested it exhaustively before implementation - long before you or I ever existed here - I would be inclined to disagree with that notion. However - you are still welcome and encouraged to take it up with the coders and developers, especially as there are more automatically generated spaces added in a single day than you remove in an entire month. Barring that - you are of course also welcome to continue down your path of "editing" out the erroneous and problematic spaces - in talk pages no less. I think a lot of people would find that editors could make much more effective use of their time than manually scrolling through pages and deleting non-detrimental spaces.  The fact that it is done on talk pages - which per guidelines "are not necessary to bring to publishing standards" drives home that point.  Good day. Srobak (talk) 20:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I really have no intention of continuing to argue the symantics of whether we should or shouldn't do these edits but to clarify a couple specific points you mention:
 * I do not normall edit user pages or their talk pages that would be in bad form as you say.
 * I don't think the editor is faulty but I don't think we should be adding extra spaces for every single section in every single page that gets created either and since the rules leave it open as to wether its needed or not I choose to make them go when I make other edits. This reduces the size of the page (in some cases significantly, especially when you add up multiple snapshots). I also can't speak for how well they tested it. I suspect they didn't put a lot of time into analyzing whether its better to have an extra space before or after an = since they were likley working on bigger problems at the same time. I honestly don't know though.
 * I am not "manually" scrolling through the talk page. I use an App called AWB that allows me to edit things like that very quickly by using find and replace logic.
 * As far as using my time better, again thats subjective. Its my time so who cares how I use it.
 * Also, your comments that I don't know what I'm talking about don't carry much weight especially since I did more edits in the last 2 days than you've done in the whole 2 years you've been editing WP so when your going to scold someone on their editing habits or knowledge you should probably glance at their edit history or count first. Perhaps if you would have asked what I was up to rather than dropping a standard welcome to Wikipedia message and an ambiguously worded response (that I had to get clarified) it would have been more effective. --Kumioko (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Please vandalise and lawsuit Wikipeida i will give you sweets — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glassange (talk • contribs) 12:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Watch your edit summaries
- adding WikiProject United States to an article doesn't seem to fit under Cleanup talk page templates, formatting template/section order &general fixes using AWB (7474). --Admrboltz (talk) 00:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem I can do that. I changed it to Add or Cleanup talk page templates, formatting template/section order &general fixes using AWB (7474)--Kumioko (talk) 00:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Downgrading unsourced BLP
What happened here? Gigs (talk) 02:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats a good question, not sure what happened, good catch. --Kumioko (talk) 02:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject United States?
Hi, Kumioko. I noticed you recently put a notice at File talk:Knot-graphic-stub.jpg saying that the associated image, an icon representing a knot (seen at the right), is within the scope of WikiProject United States. I am curious what it is about this image that makes it of interest to those WikiProject members. It is an unused image that has nothing to do with the United States in particular, except for the fact that it originally came from a Web page hosted on a United States Navy server. Are you implying that any content on Wikipedia that originally came from a United States federal government source should be within the purview of WikiProject United States? That seems a bit excessive to me. —Bkell (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to untag that one if you want. I tagged it because it fell under the United States Navy Category but I didn't realize that the list contained files like this that didn't really pertain. I'll take a look at the list and see if there are any more. Good catch and please let me know if you see anything else like this. --Kumioko (talk) 08:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI, your recent taggings have been brought up for discussion at Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Please confirm your membership
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 19:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC).

Eastern > Washington WP
If this goes ahead, are you any good with the meta template that creates the banner, so that we can create an Eastern Washington task force? Then either I can have you, or go over to bot requests to have current pages tagged w/ WP EW moved to the Washington project tag w/ the taskforce identified. --Admrboltz (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah thats no problem, I just did that with three for WPUS. Funandtvl does too. Either way just let me know I'd be happy to help. I would suggest looking at doing the same thing for WPSeattle and WPSeattle Mariners at some point as well. --Kumioko (talk) 01:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I am working on Seattle. An activity check is going on right now, then I will propose it after the first of the year. WP Seattle Mariners is already a task force of the Baseball WikiProject, and is tagged under a task force of the Baseball tag. --Admrboltz (talk) 01:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry, merry

 * Thanks and to you as well. --Kumioko (talk) 20:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Notifications
Your recent notification messages were not neutral. Please keep in mind WP:CANVASS and WP:FORUMSHOP when making WikiProject notifications. Personally I don't see why these are needed since the discussion has attracted a fair amount of participation (even if it may not be going your way).  Them From  Space  17:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My comment was because it comes up every other month. The last time was just on Oct 17, before that in Aug and before that in early July. Its rediculous but your right WP:CANVASS and WP:FORUMSHOP are exactly whats going on here but not from me. --Kumioko (talk) 18:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Changing Wikiproject to WP
I understand what you mean. I would like to point out that it should start with the WikiProject sections, whatever the subject is to make the banner invalid when shortened to "WP subject here". Yes, some do become invalid once shortened to "WP subject here". That way, the "users" who are trying to make it appear to be "WikiProject subject here" much easier job. It should not just be individuals being warned, it should be a "global" Wikipedia change to all WikiProject banners. No offence is intended, only giving a valid reason why WikiProject can be shortened to "WP" and really it has nothing to do with me. It's the "WP subjects here" and Wikipedia itself, otherwise why can they be shortened? Feedback and a change in policy would be appreciated. I do understand what you mean, honestly. Adamdaley (talk) 20:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Im sorry I dont understand what your trying to accomplish by doing this. --Kumioko (talk) 20:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's say that the "Terrorism" portal was (for example) "WikiProject Terrorism|class=|importance=" banner, why would they abbreviate it to "WP Terrorism|class=|importance=", if it should be the first stated example? The second would be show up as invalid on a preview of the page before saving.  In my opinion, if the committee, board, adminstrators, council of Wikipedia is trying to make the "WikiProject Terrorism|class=|importance=" (example) for all portals or subjects covered, then shouldn't they and as well contributors (regular users) have their opinion heard? Adamdaley (talk) 21:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Im sorry I think your going to have to break this down Mr. Potato head style because I still do not understand what he point is. --Kumioko (talk) 23:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Check Adamdaley talk's page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Image / File in Infoboxes
Before things get started over again like before. I have noticed the little errors I made, basically I chose the wrong word for the image/file or picture for the infobox. I will try my best to remember this error I have made and try and keep it from happening. Adamdaley (talk) 02:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Portal:DC
I've added an "ifeq" parser function to make the US portal change to the DC one. In the top five TFs, one has to use an ifeq argument. It looks like in the TF hooks, that the function is already there. So if there are more portal variations for the 1st five TFs, the ifeq will have to be changed. --Funandtrvl (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Great thanks. I appreciate the help I just couldn't figure it out. --Kumioko (talk) 03:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

bot regarding NRIS reference
Hi, I wonder if u are able and willing and interested to develop/run the bot needed for NRIS reference replacements, as discussed at wt:NRHP? Not sure of how the process should work, because i understand any bot request has to be approved. So I'll open a discussion section at wp:botrequest, could you comment there? Thanks already for your helpful participation in the discussion. --Doncram (talk) 16:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe Ill have to take a look and see if what the feasaibility is. I looked at that a little before and I had some concerns but I can't remember at the moment what they were. --Kumioko (talk) 17:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy, happy

 * Thanks and to you as well from Chilly DC. Thanks--Kumioko (talk) 14:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Find-a-grave
Hi. Please could you point me to the consensus in External links/Noticeboard that you cite, showing that this shouldn't be used? Thanks.  Lugnuts  (talk) 10:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Pretty much everyone except me thinks it shouldn't be used. In fact they went and creates an external links Cheatsheet.Guideline that discusses it as well here. If you are referring to my deletion of several Find a grave links though I stopped already but if you graze through the monstrous discussion (and several that have been submitted previously about the site) its only a matter of time before the site gets banned and someone starts to delink them all. --Kumioko (talk) 13:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Kumioko. I think it's best to wait until it becomes policy/guidance, before removal commences (if, indeed there is a consensus about it)! Have a great 2011.  Lugnuts  (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Even when and if it becomes policy its going to be a mess and do more damage than it will fix. --Kumioko (talk) 14:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

 * You invoted yourself? LOL!
 * Thanks for the invite, but I must admit that I hadn't even noticed the project had lapsed. I had my name on the old list, which I'm guessing you used to send out the invites? Anyway, I'm still going to mostly focus on military history, but if you see something that I might be able to help on, throw this dog a bone!  bahamut0013  <sup style="color:#000;margin-left:-1px">words <sub style="color:#000;margin-left:-16px">deeds 15:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah I partially am using that list as well as the lists of all 200 of the US related projects plus a few other things. When I started looking through the old member listing there were so many that were retired, inactive or blocked I thought it would be better just to start over. The list I am working with has about 2000 users on it so itll take me a couple days to send them all out. If I get 10% Ill be happy. Will be sure to let you know. Once I get the Members list updated the next thing I want to bring up for discussion is a content drive of some kind. Happy new year. --Kumioko (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is already an invitation/welcoming template for WPUS, see WPUS Invite. That template should be used (transcluded) onto prospective members' pages, not the full hard coding. Please feel free to update it with your revised wording!! --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks and your right. I only did it differently this first time because the wording wasn't quite inline with what I wanted to do and I didn't want to completely change the wording of the template. I was going to use the template from this point forward after this initial run through. Thanks for fixing all the stuff with LOC by the way. I didn't realize I had made so many mistakes. --Kumioko (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you using an automatied gizmo for the invites? You seem to have a bug.  bahamut0013  <sup style="color:#000;margin-left:-1px">words <sub style="color:#000;margin-left:-16px">deeds 13:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Parameter yes/Yes problems
Just a FYI, the parameter answers, such as yes/Yes, need to be in lower, not upper case, as in "DC=yes". Otherwise, the portal change is not going to work. I don't know the parser functions well enough to allow for an upper case "Yes". The default case for parameter answers is usually lower case. --Funandtrvl (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks I will go and fix those. I appreciate the help. --Kumioko (talk) 01:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Good news, you don't have to change all the "Yes" stuff to lower case, redrose64 helped me out, and I've updated the WPUSA template. However, in the future, when tagging, please use lower case yes/no. Thanks, --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

President
I saw you work alot with medal of honor articles and I wanted to ask. If you think that Theodore Roosevelt article is close to  GA? Spongie555 (talk) 07:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think its getting close but it still needs a lot of inline citations and some prose work. --Kumioko (talk) 12:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

/LOC/Main vs. /LOC
FYI-I've revised the name for the LOC mainpage to be just .../LOC, so that the subpages will show a link to both the USA and LOC project mainpages. --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok thats great thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
-- Perseus ( t •  c)    20:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Members page
Well, for one, we should probably alphabetize the member list before it is too large to do so :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your absolutely right...Thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject United States
This seems like an inordinately large 'project'. Aren't we biting off more than we can chew? It would seem that the many sub-projects would be covering MOST of the subject. I keep reading the project page, yet i can't seem to find it's goal or parameters, am i missing the point of the project?EraserGirl (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Good comments, Well your right in the sense that the subprojects could do some of it. The problem is that 1) there are over 200 of them and 2) many are inactive. In fact only about 25 are truly active. You are correct that it is a large project but so is MILHIST, WPBiography and several others. WPBiography has over 800, 000 articles and its only broke up into about 6 topic areas. This one would potentially have over 75 but it could have as many as 3 or 400, 000 articles I admit. Your right the goal and parameters are in need of development. DO you have any suggestions? --Kumioko (talk) 02:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite, but my plate is full. BTW, I would not use WP:Biography as an example of a good project. IMO, it suffers from being overly large and seems to be unable to do anything much besides tag articles with its tag. I suggest that you focus your activities very narrowly and don't go putting a project tag on hundreds of thousands of articles that the project will not maintain. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice and I hope you find the time at some point in the future. --Kumioko (talk) 03:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Ssilvers is correct a more NARROW focus would be more successful, once certainly can't tag everything on WP with this project tag just because it falls within the US aegis. There is no way any one small group can do much for a project so big. Did you have any specific thing in mind when you started the invites? EraserGirl (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

In this case I disagree with tha narrower scope. We haev 200+ projects with narrower scopes already and most are inactive or ineffective. Below are some of the my goals there are quite a few actually,
 * 1) ) I wanted to try and and get some of the 200+ projects working together more instead of everyone working independently with different rules and guidelines. For some of the inactive ones I want to eliminate them completely. If a project only has 30 articles in its scope, is in active and hasn't been active for over a year there is no need to keep it IMO.
 * 2) I wanted to make sure that the articles that fall under an inactive project or don't have a US related project tag at all have one
 * 3) I wanted to build up content relating to US topics
 * ) Get an active pool of editors (were well on our way to this already) and get some discussions going about US related things as well as central place to discuss US related issues.

And many more.
 * 1) Cleanup articles needing things like infoboxes, have maintenance tags, unreferenced BLP's (I have already done a couple hundred in the last month or so)
 * 2) add missing articles (more than 1000 Medal of Honor recipients still need articles, about 50, 000 Historic places, etc)
 * 3) Ensure that all the US related content is properly assessed and prioritized. (About 1300 left from about 5000 and thats after starting with only about 9000 articles)

To go back to your comment about the scope though. I don't really have a problem with having a large scope and the knowledge we can't address every single issue. But if the articles are tagged with WPUS and grouped sufficiently by Topic (ie DC, US counties, Colorado, etc) and we have a large pool of active users with different interests and areas of expertise (we have about 100 in 2 days out of the 2600+ I invited to participate) there is a good chance that someone in the group will notice it and take action.

I admit that we are still working out the details of the project but now that the recruitment effort is over my next project is to do two things: Of course this is just an example and we could do it on a number of other things but the point as I see it is that if we establish a collaboration for a period of time (I was thinking a month because I think a week is too short) we can then do improvements to various areas needing attention. And again that collaboration should be broad enough to draw people from various areas of interest rather than just focus on biographies or one narrow topic which will only draws a specific group.
 * 1) to reinvigorate the United States portal
 * 2) Organize a content improvement drive. This should be important enough to constitute a US scope and at the same time be broad enough to encompass other US related projects and areas of expertise/interest. One that has been suggested that I like and that I think is a good starting point is improving articles related to the President of the US. This could have a narrow scope and only apply to the biographical articles but this would push some users away from the drive when we want to foster maximum cooperation. I think with slightly more effort we could coordinate with some of the other subprojects such as NRHP, US presidents, Barack Obama, etc and expand the scope to include all US president related articles (There are at least a couple hundred depending on how we define it but I was thinking presidents, important landmarks related to them like the White House and Camp David, the First family, etc). This could include:
 * 3) Improving the articles class (for example. stub to start, Start to GA, GA to FA)
 * 4) Ensure all President related biographies have persondata and infoboxes
 * 5) Make sure any maintenance tags are addressed including BLP related matters
 * 6) Add articles for things that are missing that relate to the topic
 * 7) IMO should include images, (ie add them if needed, submit to be a featured image if appropriate, cleanup the image, move it to commons if appropriate, make sure it has the needed categories and tags, etc)

Additionally, I have been signing up various bots (and have a bot request (the first of several planned) of my own currently pending) to address a multitude of items that can bot bot taskable to free us up as much as possible to concentrate our efforts on things that can't be done by bot such as expanding articles, organizeing the drives, etc. --Kumioko (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * FYI, User:Xenobot/R is has been sitting there for some time. Let me know if this task has consensus and is still desired. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 16:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Milhist A-Class and Peer Reviews Oct–Dec 2010

 * Thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 12:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion on US-related articles: give high-trafficked articles priority
If there's a US-related article with high traffic stats, with daily readership of 1000+ readers or more, but the article is in poor shape, let me know. I believe a general priority here at WP is doing stuff that gets read.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree in part but I also think we should include high importance as well. As a start here is a link to a place where we can view the most viewed articles for the project.
 * Also Popular pages --Kumioko (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikiproject USA
Glad to be part of the team! I'll be sure to shoot you a message if I have any questions or concerns. Thanks for the warm welcome. - Sharkface T/C 22:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Kumioko Qui Tam Relator here
How can I be of assistance in helping on Wikipedia in it's quest for research in some of the articles posted on Wikipedia.Qui Tam Relator (talk) 23:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikiproject USA 2
Me too. Thank you for thinking about me and keeping me informed. :) Wallie (talk) 00:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks from me also.Joseph507357 (talk) 02:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikiproject USA - Voltin
I appreciate the invite to WP USA, but right now I really don't have the time to commit to another Wikiproject. Thank you for inviting me, and when I have more time I will reconsider the offer. —<font color="#2C4EEF">Voltin (T&#124;C) 00:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:US Invitation
Thanks, I've joined :) --Shruti14 talk • sign 07:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 12:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm on board.  Cjmclark  15:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Portal
Actually, neither of the portals I work with are featured (P:USMC & P:BB). I might take a look later this week and see if there is anything I can do, but I'm not sure I can really adopt another portal for long term.  bahamut0013  <sup style="color:#000;margin-left:-1px">words <sub style="color:#000;margin-left:-16px">deeds 12:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:US
Thank you. I am in. Snake bgd 01:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiXDC: Wikipedia 10th Birthday!
You are invited to WikiXDC, a special meetup event and celebration on Saturday, January 22 hosted by the National Archives and Records Administration in downtown Washington, D.C. Please RSVP soon as possible, as there likely will be a cap on number of attendees that NARA can accommodate.
 * Date: January 22, 2011 (tentatively 9:30 AM - 5 PM)
 * Location: National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), downtown building, Pennsylvania Avenue & 7th St NW.
 * Description: There will be a behind-the-scenes tour of the National Archives and you will learn more about what NARA does. We will also have a mini-film screening featuring FedFlix videos along with a special message from Jimmy Wales. In the afternoon, there will be lightning talks by Wikimedians (signup to speak), wiki-trivia, and cupcakes to celebrate!
 * Details & RSVP:  Details about the event are on our Washington, DC tenwiki page.

Note: You can unsubscribe from DC meetup notices by removing your name at Meetup/DC/Invite/List. BrownBot (talk) 02:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Fred Green
An article that you have been involved in editing, Fred Green, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Paul McDonald (talk) 14:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Quick question regarding findagrave.com
Just a quick question: Would you be fine if I'd remove the findagrave.com link from featured and good articles for now? As far as I can tell, you're mostly worried about losing possible sourcing information, which is very unlikely to happen in featured and good articles. --Conti|✉ 17:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * For the most part it would be find with the featured ones however I would suggest taking a look to see if there is anything in the Find a grave article that would add value to the article such as additional pictures we don't already haev and links to the Find a grave articles of relatives. If you find an Fa that uses it as a reference it should be changed to be something else (but you shouldn't find any for A, FA or FL class articles). I found a couple of GA's that use Find a grave as a srouce that need to be reviewed but again in the case where its an external link as long as it doesn't have anything extra thats fine with me. --Kumioko (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course I'll still look at the findagrave.com link before removing it, just in case. I'll also simply not touch any references at all, only external links. --Conti|✉ 18:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thats fine, I do think we need to address the references. Don't be surprised if other editors start to appear and ask questions when you start deleting those links though. Sinc the discussions are ongoing and a clear consensus still has not been raised I envision it won't take long before comments start rolling in. --Kumioko (talk) 18:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I welcome comments and more participants in the discussion. :) --Conti|✉ 18:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Me too, although it hasn't moved as quickly as either of us hoped it feels as though we are at least making some steps in the right direction. That is eliminating the link when not needed but not banning it completely from the site either. --Kumioko (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/Quality content
Hi- it's not the category that's causing the problem, this is the problematic revision:. I've seen this happen before, but I haven't figured it out either, yet! --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's fixed, needed to remove this code: . --Funandtrvl (talk) 00:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks I fiddled with it for about an hour and couldn't figure it out. --Kumioko (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

New Years Message for WikiProject United States
With the first of what I hope will be monthly newsletters I again want to welcome you to the project and hope that as we all work together through the year we can expand the project, create missing articles and generally improve the pedia thought mutual cooperation and support. Now that we have a project and a solid pool of willing members I wanted to strike while the iron is hot and solicite help in doing a few things that I believe is a good next step in solidifiing the project. I have outlined a few suggestions where you can help with on the projects talk page. This includes but is not limited too updating Portal:United States, assessing the remaining US related articles that haven't been assessed, eliminating the Unrefernced BLP's and others. If you have other suggestions or are interested in doing other things feel free. I just wanted to offer a few suggestions were additional help is needed. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions, comments or suggestions or you can always post something on the projects talk page. --Kumioko (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Unitron as part of Wikiproject United States?
I fail to see how the Unitron article is closely enough related to the scope of WikiProject United States that it should be included in that project. If articles this loosely associated to "the United States" fall under the scope of that project, the shear number of articles that would then qualify similarly would seem to undermine the whole project. Jason Quinn (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well your probably right that it is extremely low on the National importance spectrum but it got tagged because it wasn't already tagged with any US banner and because I was tagging a large group of articles starting with United States. I tagged a few articles before and after that group with the thinking that since they didn't already have a US tag at least now they would have one, even if it was low on the scope. If you think it should be New York then by all means change it. --Kumioko (talk) 22:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Just in case you weren't watching. Makeemlighter (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy 10th Anniversary of Wikipedia!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#000000; background-color:#aa9944; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks"> Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia! Hey Bzuk  (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

US Collaboration reactivated & Portal:United States starting next
Casliber recently posted a suggestion on the talk page for WikiProject United States about getting the US Wikipedians Collaboration page going again in an effort to build up articles for GA through FA class. See U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTM. After several days of work from him the page is up and ready for action. A few candidates have already been added for you to vote on or you can submit one using the directions provided. If you are looking for inspiration here is a link to the most commonly viewed articles currently under the scope of Wikiproject United States. There are tons of good articles in the various US related projects as well so feel free to submit any article relating to US topics (not just those under the scope of WPUS). This noticeboard is intended for ‘’’All’’’ editors working on US subjects, not just those under WPUS.

The next item I intend to start updating is Portal:United States if anyone is interested in helping. Again this is not specific to WPUS and any help would be greatly appreciated to maximize visibility of US topics. The foundation has already been established its just a matter of updating the content with some new images, biographies and articles. Please let leave a comment on the Portals talk page or let me know if you have any questions or ideas. --Kumioko (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi-Thank you for the barnstar!! I've created a new category just for the USA portal's pages, see: Category:United States portal. I tried to tag as many pages as possible within the category (they need to be within noinclude tags on a portal subpage). However, there are a lot of subpages out there, see: . I'm not sure at this point whether they work with the portal box skeleton template and the random subpages template or not, so will continue to sort it out! --Funandtrvl (talk) 06:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your welcome, Ok sounds good thanks for letting me know. --Kumioko (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy tenth!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#000000; background-color:#aa9944; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

<font face="Times"> Perseus, Son  of Zeus  has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at 19:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC) --<font face="Times"> Perseus, Son  of Zeus  19:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 19:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Zachary Taylor image
Hi there, so it would seem. However, if a better place for the picture can be found, it can be renominated. --KFP (contact | edits) 21:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Added an extra =s
FYI, you added an extra equals in the novel template in this edit, Sadads (talk) 02:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

WP District of Columbia in the Signpost
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject District of Columbia for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 03:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Random Smiley Award
For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award. (Explanation and Disclaimer) ♠ <font face="Old English Text MT"> TomasBat  02:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well thanks. I appreciate that. --Kumioko (talk) 02:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

February 2011 Wikification Drive
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wikiproject Wikify at 00:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC).

Portal:United States
Thanks for deciding to update the portal. Here're some items that you should work on: <b style="color:#0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color:green;">Talk page</b> 03:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Include more high-quality selected articles
 * Similarly, include more selected culture articles
 * Ensure the stats in various components are not outdated. If they are outdated, replace the information that is up to date.
 * Stats could mean population, the n-th of something (e.g. fifth largest city), changes in politicians, etc. For other suggestions, you can take a look at the criteria for featured portal <b style="color:#0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color:green;">Talk page</b> 04:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for categorizing all the subpages for the portal! Yes, of course, if there is an automatic way to display DYKs, OTDs, etc., by all means, that should be taken advantage of. Now that we have all the subpages in one place, then we can see which ones are needed or not. I'll have to check if the random subpages templates are being used or not, when the portal was set up; I'm sure the portal box templates have been improved since then. --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The random pages are being used for several things and a bot populates the News from Wikinews. I think this was added a couple yers ago so its very possible that there are improvements we coudl take advantage of. --Kumioko (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

In reply to a comment of yours on moonriddengirls talkpage
Hi, I did not want to disturb Moonriddengirls talkpage with this, but the following comment from you really stung me:

"Thats what I thought. And I am confident that, as in the past, they were not 'reviewed' and and simply deleted. Its a shame really. I guess if knowone else cares I shouldn't either. Its not like anyone actually reads these articles anyway! --Kumioko (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)"

All articles in a CCI are manually reviewed for copyright problems. Presumptive deletion is only used in cases where there is strong evidence of copying, but no source can be located. Deletion of an article for copyright problems is a last resort measure and not done unless absolutely necessary. Your accusation that articles were deleted without review is baseless as well as offensive to all editors who contribute to the thankless job of copyright cleanup. Yoenit (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Although I agree that it is an important and thankless I have witnessed on numorous occassions (including an incident were VMbot was dubiously unleashed) articles being deleted without review because of "CCI" issues and on the assumption that if an editor was found guilty of Copy vio then it can be assumed that all edits they did were copyvio. My intnent was not to be offensive however if the reviewer isn't going to do the job properly then they should leave it to someone else because it just makes more work for others in recreating articles (or fixing them if its due to an improper reversion or deletion) for no reason. Additionally, a lot of the Copyvio's seem to be based on results from Corenbot which I have personally witnessed has a high degree of false positives and when those issues are raised on the owners talk page are either ignored or dismissed with comments. My intent really isn't to piss people off however I am getting rather tired of fixing or recreating articles because someone lazily deleted it because a CCI violator added an external link or some other minor edit without reviewing it first. --Kumioko (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy Kumioko's Day!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, click here. Have a Great Day...<small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 05:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

YO!
So great to meet you too! Lots of Wikipedia goodness to be had. Please send me a link to the topics identified by the American Art Museum so I can take a gander :) Also, you make such a great handle model: File:WikiXDC_Cupcakes_A.jpg OMNOMNOMNONOMNOM Missvain (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify's Coordinator Election
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 22:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC).


 * Aww thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 00:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Smithsonian task force
I'm experimenting with the idea of adding a task force for Archives of American Art articles, and adding the task force to Template:SI-related. Adding a task force seems like a good way to get articles categorized specifically for Archives of American Art and allow us to generate a summary table like.

I'm not the best at working with template markup, but have something at Template:SI-related2. It's not showing the quality rating for the task force, and not sure the best way to organize the parameters. If you are good with templates and want to look at this and improve it, that would be awesome. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 03:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem I can fix that up for ya. I also just added the rest of the organizations from the original list. I created a separate page for Organizational topics and then added that above the link you gave to my page. I am going to break it into a couple groups because its over 250K and it doesn't even have them all yet. --Kumioko (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser#Generic edit summaries]]
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser]]. meco (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC) (Using ) __meco (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Almirante Latorre-class battleship/archive1
Kumioko, thank you very much for taking the time to review this article. It is very appreciated! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your welcome. --Kumioko (talk) 11:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikpedia: Public Art - DC Task Force!
(Hey Kumioko, just an FYI) Thanks for your interest in helping bring DC public art to Wikipedia! We have updated our Task Force page for DC, so please take a look and get started. We look forward to seeing your contributions and please let me know if I can help you with anything. Missvain (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your welcome and glad to help. I like the look of the new page...it seems somewhat familiar..lol. A couple questions though. A couple of the articles for creation are a little ambiguous and I was hoping for some clarification. For the article of Lt Gen George Washington there is already and article for him but I assume you are talking about a monument or sculpture somewhere. Same with Winfield Scott. These might need to be clarified to say something like Lt. Gen. George Washington (sculpture).


 * Depending on the documentation and sources you can scrounge up it might be better to start with some by adding them to an existing article. That will help get the word out about that piece of art and at the same time expand on an existing article. A good example of this would be to add more information about the Dupont Fountain (and create a redirect for Dupont Fountain to the appropriate section) to the article for Dupont Circle (which gets a fair amount of Trafic) rather than build a stub page for a piece of art that is likely to draw less attention than the article its associated too (no offense intended here. As the information and imagery on that piece of art is expanded we can always break them out into separate larger articles later and this will help to draw traffic to the art as well. --Kumioko (talk) 14:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey. Thanks! The articles that I requested to be started are generally following proper naming conventions (from what I know, but I can be wrong) but they don't have to stay that way. Upon visiting the DC List you can find sources for all of those sculptures and more. We ask that people use the SIRIS database, and upon searching for those titles you will find the sculpture that matches.


 * I already do add many sculptures to existing articles. If you feel we should change the suggested creation pages to not be red links, or whatever, right on. Most of this stuff should seem pretty obvious and common sense for the beginner (or How-To pages are so freaking easy to understand, since we are often dealing with non-Wikipedians), but, it all seems easy when it's your project. :) User:RichardMcCoy actually built the Project page, FYI! I'm sick..so sorry if I'm grumpy :-/ Missvain (talk) 14:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * On the issue of naming is the Lieutenant General George Washington article being requested a sculpture or something else? The reason I ask is because of his obvious common figure status if you just name it Lieutenant General George Washington people are likely to be somewhat confused.


 * Sorry to hear your sick. You must have got the Wikiplague with Aude this weekend I guess. I hope you all didn't get it from me but since I am not sick I don't think so. Tell one of your friends to bring you some chicken soup or something. Theres something in that stuff that makes people feel better. Mint tea helps too. --Kumioko (talk) 14:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Cookie
--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. --Kumioko (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

ANI
I will stop posting additional RFC notices on WikiProject talk pages if you withdraw your ANI. Racepacket (talk) 17:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I would rather eat my cookie < and see what everyone else says. It might also be more productive if you signed your posts. Seems like maybe something thats been mentioned before. I have made mistakes and said things that I knew were innappropriate. I'm willing to man-up and concede that I have let my frustrations get the better of me and that its possible that some of your actions are not as negative as I have made them out to be. That is precisely the reason I opened this ANI. To get outside perspecitve on the ongoing disagreements. But I am also willing to make a bet that I am not the only one that found some of your comments to be innappropriate and not professional. We'll see. Let stop commenting back and forth and see what others think. --Kumioko (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Pseudo-barnstar

 * Thank you very much. --Kumioko (talk) 23:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Bot request
You would like to withdraw it? That can certainly be done. - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 20:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

U.S. portal work
Hi Kumioko,

Thanks for your work on the U.S. portal! I keep seeing updates to the project page, but haven't read much. My takeaway is you're moving on, at least for now. I'm doing a little more editing on the contents portal pages and might have some time for the U.S. portal here and there. Anything in particular you would want me to work on? Regards, RichardF (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of it is setup it just needs new content from time to time to keep things fresh. The On this day section still has a lot of days that are missing content so that could use some improvement. Thats all I can think of. Good luck. --Kumioko (talk) 23:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's about where it was when I left it off.  Enjoy your next adventure!  :-)  RichardF (talk) 00:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep I didn't get the chance to do a whole lot before I got sucked into an endless debate about the scope of WPUS. If I may ask what made you stop before? Also, I contacted several WikiProjects about providing content and one of them, US roads, has already got a couple and they seem interested in providing content. If you take a look at their talk page you should see them. Good luck to you as well. --Kumioko (talk) 01:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Removal of speedy tag
Are you aware it is against Wikipedia policy to remove a speedy deletion tag from a category that you yourself created, as you did here? Please instead place the hold on template along with reasons of why you think the speedy deletion criteria doesn't apply if you don't wish for the category to be deleted. I will be reverting your change because you have not provided a reason for why the C1 criteria doesn't apply. Thanks, 69.59.200.77 (talk) 00:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no need to add a speedy delete tag because I am still constructing the template that feeds that category. I ran into a snag and had to ask another editor for assistance and it should be fixed soon. --Kumioko (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

State infoboxes
Thank you for the warning about state infoboxes. I fixed the ones I inserted, and found that Maine is where I started, so I fixed that, too. The results looked so good, I got carried away. I do wonder what "| has-goals =" and "| assessment =" mean, as I have not found them in use. I am also puzzled that Maine does not seem to be a project with a category for assessment tables. Maybe the tools people will tell me. --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Im sorry I don't know what the goals is either other than as a yes or no to say the project has them and maybe for the assessments = would mean they have the quality assessment categories and functionality on their banners. Thats just a guess though. As far as the Maine question some of the state projects and several of the other US related projects do not have assessment carteories but I thought maine did. If you look at the Embassy page @ WikiProject United States all the US related projects are listed (that doesn't mean that they fall under WPUS just a list of whats out there), their status and a link to the Assessment tables. Not sure if that will help but maybe it will. --Kumioko (talk) 02:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Out of an abundance of caution, I did not add an infobox to Wikiproject Kansas, but instead Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kansas provides the infobox on their talk page for their consideration. They have a very "busy" project page, and I am unsure how an infobox could fit in. Nebraska is a different story. See DThomsen8 (talk) 19:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah there are a few active ones out there. WPUS is another one thats pretty busy but I was trying to see a way to work it in. New York, Wisonsin and Oregon are pretty active as well so you might want to drop it on their talk pages first as well if you haven't implemented them yet. --Kumioko (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2011
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for attempting to harass other users, as you did at Wikipedia talk:Online Ambassadors/Mentors. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Shippy...
Recommend a deep breath and perhaps unplugging the computer for a bit. Sarek is a calm admin, which is why I was surprised earlier. I understand your overarching point (concentrating activity in a US wikiproj is a good thing) and I believe I feel your pain ("How dare you try to improve the wiki by concentrating effort efficiently?!?"). But you really do keep putting the lollypop squarely on the metatarsals. Deep breath, short pause, and I think things will get better. Best. Haus Talk 04:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Help
Hello there Kumioko - although we disagree with Find a Graves uses here on Wiki - I find myself trying to defend there article from being defaced with mention of its (what i call spam) links here on Wiki. They also seem to want to mention its reliability in the article to... So would like your input at Talk:Find a Grave and  Talk:Find a Grave.Moxy (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah ill take a look. --Kumioko (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The Wikifier, WikiProject Wikify's First Newsletter (January 2011)
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 02:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC).


 * Holy cow thats a huge message. Maybe somone should trim that down a bit? Maybe a smaller picture..lol. It definately gets attention though. --Kumioko (talk) 02:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Interstate Highways and WPUS
Two questions: 1) Why didn't you observe WP:BRD? You were bold, I reverted, you should have discussed. Instead you reverted. Now I'm discussing this, but in the future, it's not polite un-revert other's changes to your bold edits. 2) Why are you singling out two highways of the entire network as "nationally important"? Honestly, the whole network is, which is why I tagged Talk:Interstate Highway System and Talk:United States Numbered Highways for WPUS, as they are both national networks of highways. I'm considering Talk:National Highway System (United States) for additional tagging. It seems to me that you picked two Interstates, one for each coast, without any consideration for their actual importance vis-à-vis other components of the system. The NHS, by definition from the FHWA, is: "important to the nation's economy, defense, and mobility". That's my opinion on what should be tagged, not individual components, which will reopen the contentious discussions you participated in at WT:USRD. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;" > Imzadi  1979   →  06:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. I didn't untag Talk:U.S. Route 66 as the cultural aspects weigh in favor of an exception to the general thought that the systems themselves are the nationally important item, not the individual components. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;" > Imzadi  1979   →  06:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * First Quite frankly I don't agree with the whole national scope claim to begin with. There also was no reason for you to take the tag off in the first place, so I reverted. Your project doesn't own the article and any project is free to tag them so for you to remove the tag quite frankly is innappropriate without at least discussion it. If you disagreed you could also have discussed it rather than removing it. Although I don't agree I'm not on a mass tagging campaign; I chose those (1-5, I-95 and Route 66) specifically because of their "National" importance. I also agree that the 2 other articles you selected are of National importance and I appreciate you tagging them for us. I also agree that third one would be appropriate as well even under a national scope. Although IMO I shouldn't have to explain why I chose to tag those. I will reply to each.


 * Route 66, primarily for reasons you suggest.
 * I-5 and I-95 are major arteries that run the full length of each coast respectively and cross multiple states. They each run through multiple major cities, have multiple issues relating to them of national importance. Are used for Interstate commerce, travel, work, vacation, are mentioned in multiple cultural references (sings, books, literature and the like), etc.


 * With that said, I'm not trying to fight this battle with you and I though it would have been obvious when I only tagged 3 articles that I wasn't trying too and that I was being very selective in what I was tagging so as not to interrupt the delicate balance of which projects have the right to put these articles under our scope. Unfortunately I can see that you did not see it and probably will continue to fight the issue of ownership over these articles. You need to learn how to work "with" others and be a little less combative when it comes to other projects tagging articles in the scope of US roads. --Kumioko (talk) 14:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to strike the right balance here. That's why I'm suggesting tagging the systems only. I find it curious that you only tagged two Interstates, and only the two that the the coasts, and not any of the east–west Interstates. To me though, tagging any additional articles while the discussion at WPUS is still ongoing is very contentious. This discussion over tagging USRD articles under WPUS has been had and rejected by parts of the community already. Two people can work together and still disagree. However, you seem to be the type that will force his opinion through, and use the power of AWB's speed to make tagging a fait accompli, which is bad around here. Now, I've extended an olive branch by tagging three articles (IHS, USNHS, NHS) and leaving one tagged (US 66). Please accept that in the good faith in which it was offered. People disagree with your actions and choice, and you'll need the support of the community to continue. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;" > Imzadi  1979   →  19:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * First the discussions at WPUS are pretty much over as far as scope. We did a major rewrite and clarified some things but the group agreed with the scope but we have all agreed that the primary area of concentration would be National level articles particularly those of Top and high priority. Not that we wouldn't tag them or consider other articles in the scope of the project. Second, if I was the type to force my opinion I would have tagged all of the US roads articles rather than just a couple that I felt were uncontentious and pertained to a national standpoint. The reason I didn't tag any of the coast to coast ones was because quite frankly there is any number of ways to get from east to west besides them. The coastal routes offer little deviation. You might be able to skirt them for a while but eventually you'll have to use them at least for a short while. Although I appreciate the fact that you tagged those other articles there is, quite frankly, no need for you to make allowances because we have just as much right as your project to tag the articles. I am personally happy with the 10 or so articles mentioned above and don't really intend to push it any farther. There is no need for your aggressive tone, personal attacks, threats or displays of ownership of the Roads articles. --Kumioko (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

A point of clarification. What have I done that is a personal attack? Where have I made any threats? How do I own any articles at issue? Am I the only one that has disagreed with your tagging of two (2!) articles? I'm attempting to compromise here. The previous status quo, to which you agreed, was "no tagging of USRD articles by WPUS". Now you (as in you personally) tag three articles, seemingly at random. (You have a rationale, but it wasn't explained anywhere until questioned here so others were left with their initial impressions based on a lack of communication about that rationale.) You were reverted. Instead of discussing it at an appropriate forum, you reinstated your opinion, against the tenets of WP:BRD. I had to start the discussion, and you've been reverted by a third editor. In the course of that discussion, you're now making bad-faith accusations towards me without explanation.

I suggest that others might view another reversion by yourself on this issue as edit-warring. I would view it as a bad faith attempt to own the issue while it's being discussed. That is not an attack nor a threat, that is only a personally held opinion being being honestly offered in the spirit of open communication that such action should not be done until this discussion is resolved. I will also offer that there is currently no consensus to reinstate the tags, and until such time as there is, they should remain off the articles in question.

Now, I'm tired of this. You know the opinions of the interested editors. I do not choose to speak for all of them, as I am only one voice that keeps trying to discuss the situation with you. The others will discuss and offer their opinions on a different talk page if asked, but previous discussions have been clear: USRD is considered a part of WPUS, and its articles will be tagged for the United States in the WP1.0 release, so the additional, redundant banner tags are not necessary. Your actions have been controversial. I mean that in the sense that there is controversy and disagreement over them. Please reconsider your position. My opinion remains the same: there are many, many highways that are "nationally important". Most of them are gathered together into one system: The National Highway System which includes all of the Interstates, many US Highways, many State Highways and even some County Roads that may or may not ever get articles. Rather than sorting through every article under USRD to determine which roads are or aren't listed on the NHS, especially when not all of the articles have NHS status added and some link the the NHS article in a statement they aren't listed on the NHS, and then trying to determine which roads have enough NHS-listed length to be considered "important", I'm suggesting that WPUS tag the system articles and US 66. The systems are what is nationally important, as the whole system in its totality is what drives the importance, not one component. Apparently, I'm not the only one that agrees with this philosophy because a third editor has reverted your edits.

Now, as for the importance being limited to coast routes, I dispute that as well. Why? Well, I don't think that most of the commercial traffic is running up and down the coasts. It's probably running inland to take goods to and from the ports. Our industrial centers are not right on the coasts. Our population isn't concentrated solely along the coasts. Coastal traffic isn't limited to I-5 or I-95; there's US 101 and US 1 and many other roads along the coasts. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;" > Imzadi  1979   →  21:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

First it is absolutely ridiculous that you would make such a monumental issue out of tagging 3 articles. It is absolutely disappointing. It really is. I tagged 3 articles, not 30 or 300 and in my edit summery even stated that I was doing so with the understanding that the tagging of the should be understood. It doesn't surprise me at all that they were reverted since it is common knowledge to many editors not part of US roads that the US roads project displays ownership over the articles in their scope beyond what is seen as appropriate. When you repeatedly take comments I have made out of context and continually accuse me of inapropriate activity (over 3 articles no less) that is a personal attack. You were careful in your first response not to make any direct threats true but reading the last 2 sentences sure sounds like an indirect threat and certainly gives the keep it up and see what happens inferrance. Knowone is trying to take over US roads or trying to knock you out of the project but you are required to allow others to edit the US roads articles without threats of reversion, blocking or anything else. You nor the project own them. I shouldn't feel like I have to repeat that but I do.

I don't see how anyone could see my reversion of bad faith reversion on the part of you and your projects ownership issues of the articles in your scope to be bad faith edits. There is consensus and the new mission statement has been adopted. Of those that voiced their opinions it was roughly 7 to 1. Now if you want to go and submit a suggestion that in order for a project to change their scope that all the other projects have to agree then go for it but personally I think this would be pointless, a waste of time and amount to requirements creep.

I also tire of this constant petty bickering over what amounts to symantics. ANY PROJECT CAN TAG ARTICLES IN THEIR SCOPE. I have abided by the accord that we wouldn't tag US roads articles but having 10 in common isn't a problem. It is not up to YOU to decide what we or I will tag.

AS for US roads being part if WikiProject United States...it is not...nor should it be. They are separate independant projects with different scopes and although they may from time to time overlap in certain areas Missions and areas of Focus as well.

As for the the Coastal comment. Over 75% of the US population lives within 300 miles of a coastline, the majority of goods and services going from the coastline to inland is by train and although Heavy trucks carry a large chuck they are not the dominant share. Aside from this if you want me to start a discussion on the WPUS talk page of which US roads articles we should tag due to being in the national scope and want to have a good debate then ok but my guess is the general consensus is going to be that its more than the 10 we currently have (not counting this in DC). --Kumioko (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Also it was just pointed out Who can tag articles if you really want to press the issue over three articles...which I have no interest in doing by the way. I am willing to live with what we have between us and don't intend to start tagging more from US roads (there are plenty more articles to tag that aren't represented as well as the articles under US roads) but I can't speak for others who may not agree so I would recommend not opening that can of worms. --Kumioko (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm not happy to have a constant discussion with you over 2 articles when you won't listen to the core point, which is, that consensus has rejected any further cross-tagging of articles. Now, I'm trying to "play nice". I'm the one spear-heading the effort to select 4 articles for the US portal. (One of my next planned Featured Article nominates is being moved up in the schedule so that Brockway Mountain Drive can be a FA added to that portal.) I've suggested that the national system articles are fully appropriate for a national scope project rather than open the can of worms of "which of the 10,000 other articles might be 'nationally important' enough" to also tag. (That debate could seriously run a year in time to determine what criteria and then research all of the various parameters to include or exclude specific articles.) I think we both need to examine the commercial shipping aspect, as I believe most of the cargo in this country is shipped by truck. (Walmart and other stores don't make deliveries to stores by train. UPS uses planes to transfer packages between hubs and then trucks from the hubs to delivery locations. That isn't to say that trains don't ship anything, but I think you vastly underestimate how much is shipped on the highways.) Now, I've tried, and I'm done with this conversation. We're probably not going to agree, but I hope that you can see my point. I see yours, but don't agree. As for USRD and WPUS overlapping: USRD is a subject-matter child project of WPUS. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;" > Imzadi  1979   →  00:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not trying too argue this and believe me I wholeheartedly appreciate you spearheading articles to be featuring on the US portal for your project but please don't think of it as a favor to me but to the US portal, the US roads project and to the article itself. All three will benefit from a collaboration. Again please check out Who can tag articles so the arguments of who can tell whom what articles can be tagged is mute.


 * I did a little research and you are right that trucks deliver more goods than trains. Here is a link to that. --Kumioko (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

United States Project template counterexample
I just don't have the energy or time to enter the discussion on what should be in the United States project, or not. Too complex. Too much for me to consider.

Arthur Ross (philanthropist) is the kind of article that I think should not be tagged with the United States project template. I did nothing with the talk page. I cite it as an example for you to comment on, and perhaps use as an example in the discussion. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure I did that partly because he is a US resident and does not have another US related project associate with him. It was also partly because he is a fairly well known philanthropist in New York. Aside from that, there is no requirement for you to work on this article or any other. Work on the articles you want to work on or help out with the project if you want. We are all volunteers and knowone is asking you to do more than you want to do. But I feel strongly that if an article doesn't have another US related banner then it could and should fall somewhere to ensure that it is maintained by someone. Even if that maintenance is limited to bot activity related to the project because the article is low in the importance scale. We only have 26000 articles on the projects list at the moment (not counting templates, categories, files and the like) its really not that big. And even then that's only after 4 months of me tagging them. It will be a long long time before it ever riches the behemoth that people seem to make it into if it ever does happen. --Kumioko (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am trying to understand the policy. In this instance, I added a New York City template. I am not complaining about your editing. Perhaps what you have said above is sufficient for me. --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree adding the New york template was also needed. Although I don't normally work on individual states some like New York are very active and that makes sense. I have considered starting to add the banners for some state and US topic related articles but have had mixed results with doing that (even though a think is in the state or topic some projects decide to further restrict their scope) so many articles aren't added to the projects because they are too low on the importance scale and the projects choose instead to limit their activities to only the most important articles. --Kumioko (talk) 16:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Smithsonian
Yep, I'm working on it right now. FYI-I changed the /Sandbox to lower case /sandbox, so that it links from the main template pg (at the bottom). --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh great thanks very much. Sorry to be pushy. --Kumioko (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * One problem is the mixing of article categories and WikiProject categories. The 1st is for articles, the 2nd is for article talk pages. I'm going to separate the talk pages to be under the collaboration category only, because the project articles shouldn't be in the mainspace categories. --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok Im not quite sure what you mean but hopefully it will make sense once I see it. I thought I did it the same way that the template fro WPUS was done but I guess not. Sorry for all the extra work.--Kumioko (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Mostly done, but I've got to create the qual cats & a few other things yet. I'm working on it right now. --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, finished for now. Everything is in Category:Wikipedia-Smithsonian Institution collaboration & its sub-categories. --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you again for your help and I apologize for my ignorance in trying to make the template work. --Kumioko (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

AWB bug?
Your edits here are mangled. You have modified another user's comments, and failed to correctly place the WikiProject Abortion project template. I am going to revert your changes, but feel free to try again once the bug is fixed. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 08:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Contents pages navigation proposal
A proposal to add topical links to all of the contents pages has been made. As part of that proposal, the navigation bar at the top of these contents pages would look like this.

Please respond to the proposal, Portal talk:Contents, as you see fit. Regards, RichardF (talk) 13:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

WQA
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
 * (According to history this was left by Racepacket who yet again failed to sign) I have commented at the Alert link provided above. --Kumioko (talk) 19:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Project tagging
Hi, while there is no specific order for placing project tags, it is preferable to keep WP Biography at the top when the subject is a living person. When you added a WPUS tag here, you placed it above the WPBio banner, and moved the BLP notice to a position below the top. Makes AWB edits more difficult, but that notice really is important to keep as the first thing someone sees on the talk page.  Jim Miller  See me 22:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks that is a bit strange especially because I have logic that will move the BLP living to the top of the banners. I think its because I was using the prepend function. I will go back and make sure that WPBiography is top for all the ones I did. Please let me know if you see anything else. --Kumioko (talk) 22:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Newsletter
Sure, feel free to use whatever you need to setup your newsletter. Most of the larger active projects have newsletters so consider visiting the project pages, as they should have links to their most recent newsletter. It took me a few minutes of searching, but we used to have a directory of all newsletters. It has since been redirected, but you can see a list of them as it was back in 2009 here. That listing should be helpful in showing a variety of formats and may indicate what projects are still producing newsletters. If you need help with anything let me know. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank You
Thank you for removing vandalism from my talk page--<font face="Goudy Stout" color="Black">Steam <font face="Goudy Stout" color="FireBrick">Iron 18:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your welcome. --Kumioko (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The February 2011 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive has begun!
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 01:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

Purple
Thanks for the heads up. I'm meeting with some WMATA board members tonight and will ask about it. Racepacket (talk) 21:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your welcome and good luck. --Kumioko (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Added template for SuggestBot
Hi,

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

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

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

If there are any questions, please don't hesitate to get in touch with me on my user talk page. Thanks again, Nettrom (talk) 16:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Kumioko, I just wanted to thank you for your involvement with the discussion of qualifications/disqualifications for Online Ambassadors. Clearly, there were more issues with Racepacket than what I was able to pick up from browsing the dispute between you two. (It's never easy to sort out who's really right or wrong in disputes like that, without spending a whole lot of time reviewing the details. Which is why I still think that, outside of the ambassador role, disputes involving ambassadors should generally be left the normal dispute resolution / policy enforcement structure... I definitely, definitely, definitely don't want the ambassador program to try to set up its own parallel arbitration committee or something like that.) But it's important for people to bring up problems with ambassadors, which hopefully can most of the time be resolved in a happier fashion than this case. So again, thanks.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 12:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

New WikiProject United States Newsletter: February 2011 edition
Starting with the February 2011 issue WikiProject United States has established a newsletter to inform anyone interested in United States related topics of the latest changes. This newsletter will not only discuss issues relating to WikiProject United States but also: You may read or assist in writing the newsletter, subscribe, unsubscribe or change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you by following this link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page or the Newsletters talk page.
 * 1) Portal:United States
 * 2) the United States Wikipedians Noticeboard
 * 3) the United States Wikipedians collaboration of the Month - The collaboration article for February is Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
 * 4) and changes to Wikipolicy, events and other things that may be of interest to you.


 * Hey, a suggestion: if you are going to write from the 1st person, you should include your sig (or at least your name) in the newsletter (that's assuming that you were the editor who wrote it).  bahamut0013  <sup style="color:#000;margin-left:-1px">words <sub style="color:#000;margin-left:-16px">deeds 19:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

--Kumioko (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

USA project tag on photos of Mexico
I've noticed that you've added the WikiProject United States tag to a number of photographs of Mexican churches and such, for example File talk:Oquitoa.jpg and File talk:Oposura.jpg. I've taken it off the ones I've noticed. No biggie, but potentially confusing. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Contractions
Hi, I just wanted to tell you that I mentioned you, agreeing with you that the use of RegexTypoFix to "fix" contractions should be questioned. M AN d ARAX •  XAЯA b ИA M  23:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem at all but thanks for the heads up. --Kumioko (talk) 23:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Me again
Came across something that may be of interest to you. See here..what seems to be happening is this editor is delinking The word USA and others words for ALL the USA templates. Not sure if this is normal...pls take a look tell me what you think.Moxy (talk) 17:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for updating the WQA
Many people underestimate or even forget about the bit in the instructions: If the circumstances change since your original posting then please update your alert. But it's there for a reason; although it may take a minute to leave the update, it can save a lot of minutes in the future if unfortunately (for one reason or another) people have to go through it again, and that's why your edit is appreciated. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. --Kumioko (talk) 01:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Missing brackets revisited
Hi, Kumioko. I posted on your talk page back in November about an issue with your updating of article talk pages inadvertently removing template brackets, and you asked me to let you know if I noted any others. It appears to have occured again with this edit. -Dewelar (talk) 04:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you I added some logic that will close a wikiproject banner if its followed by {{ or ==. Please let me know if you find anything else. --Kumioko (talk) 14:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

{{talkback|visik}}

James McLeod
I was making a disambiguation list for James McLeod to serve as the place to point a redirect for James C. McLeod, a South Carolina politician of the 1940s and came across the unrelated entry in your Sandbox6 for James McLeod, a Civil War MoH winner. However, while he is in the MoH list on Wikipedia, he isn't in your articles to create list despite the fact he has no article. Just wanted to let you know in case either he's been added as hoax, or more likely because you didn't include him in your articles to create list because the article James McLeod had been a redirect for James Macleod. Carolina wren (talk) 03:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. To be honest I rather forgot about him. I need to go back and finish that. --Kumioko (talk) 04:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Alvin C. York
I hope you are still minding the Alvin C. York page. You've been a critical voice in the past. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have been working on getting WikiProject US and some related things like the portal, collaboration and Newsletter going again (several pothers users have been instrumental in that endeavor as well so I don't want to take credit for what they did) and that has taken a lot of my time but I am hoping to get back to working on the recipients pages soon. I'm glad to see you are working on that one. --Kumioko (talk) 20:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Contents pages navigation proposal
Now that the two week trial period is completed, please respond to the proposal, Adding topical links to contents pages navigational headers and footers, as you see fit. Regards, RichardF (talk) 14:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

AWB edits
Please rememeber that edits like that only bypass redirects and change white space are forbidden by the AWB rules. You need to skip these edits when you review them in AWB. Persistent violation of AWB rules will lead to your AWB access being removed. If you are doing things that you know are potentially controversial, like "cleaning up" talk page templates, you need to ensure that you do it by the book. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk)


 * Similarly, the edit summary of seems to be misleading: you did not update the assessment to "A" for any project. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 22:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say they are fobidden as much as discouraged. At least in the case of the Wikibanner standardization. Consideringn I do over 10, 000 edits a month I would hardly call 5 to 10 a persistent trend as that constitutes something like .009% accuracy which I dare say is better than most editors. With that said I remember that second one and kicked myself once I did it but I couldn't go back and change the summery once I hit save. Maybe a new change to AWB would be to allow us to edit a summery once its been made. The other is an anomaly. I am usually very careful not to do edits like that without a more significant one. Let me know if you find anymore though. --Kumioko (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Even if they were only "discouraged", AWB rule #3 says not to do any controversial, which certainly includes not doing things that are discouraged. But rule #4 explicitly includes bypassing redirects. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 23:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As I stated before oh mysterious IP user these were just anomolies and represent the exception and not the rule. Everyone makes mistakes occassionally and I certainly am no exception. I would hope that the rules of use within WP haven't become so stringent that they do not allow for occassional failure! --Kumioko (talk) 23:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure these were errors, too:  . Those three in a row. Removing unused parameters is also a trivial change, if it doesn't actually change anything in the rendered article. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 23:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I apologize in advance but this is going to sound kinda bad in text. First I appreciate that you seem to feel strongly that standardization and the use of bots for this is a bad thing but I am not going to stop because 1 or 2 editors out of thousands think its not needed. Especially when those are senior editors that have a complete understanding of the rules and policies and myriads of templates and naming conventions in use in WP. I am also less concerned with the ones that aren't developing the code for the tools that hundreds of users use or that do nothing but debate everything they see so that Wikipedia never changes. Its supposed to change. Most change is good. I am getting tired of editors who do nothing but wander from discussion to discussion trolling and trying to cause a weeks long debate about anything that others are doing. You seem to be contributing some article content so this statement doesn't apply directly to you but these are relatively minor and important changes that will help in the long run. There is no reason to argue about these and force me or others to do them manually when we have tools to do it for us. As strongly as you feel against them I feel for them and even if you took AWB away all it would make me do is to manually edit every one or create a java script. It would slow me down a bit, thats it. Would you prefer that I make all these changes manually? Going into each article talk page and manually editing each one. I think you are missing the point of using bots, scripts or advanced editing tools. If more editors would actually write and develop articles rather than engage those who are trying to do so in endless debates about things that are truly pointless to debate we would have 5 million+ articles by now. So if there is some good reason that I shouldn't be doing this (like I am breaking something or breaking a better policy than the simantics of wether this is or is not a minor edit then let me know. But if the only reason you don't want me to make these changes is because you think its not necessary or because you feel offended in some way that I changed WP to WikiProject on some banner that you added then I am sorry, there is no offense intended but I am not going to stop making these changes because I hurt someones feelings. Again I apologize for having a bit of attitude but I have recently been appalled at the shocking rise of editors who do nothing but debate and discuss every change or revert an edit to an article they act as the guardian over.


 * Going back to your comments those last three are working per design. I do not agree that removing empty or deprecated parameters is a trivial change. Where does it say that a deprecated or empty parameter should not be deleted? Where does it show that when I could tell you about 20 things very quickly done by bot off the top of my head that don't change the rendering of an article so I don't believe that statement is true aside from being perhaps personal preference. Persondata doesn't change the rendering of an article either but we have logic for that! Also in the case of the middle one I added BLPO to the Wikiprojectbannershell. Yesterday I added logic to get rid of the leftover BLP others template so I will fix that in the next day or 2. --Kumioko (talk) 14:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

To be concrete: if you make any additional trivial talk page edits of the sort you have made today, I will remove your AWB access temporarily. . The AWB rules do not permit making trivial changes like these. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 20:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * To be clear back neither of those violate the rules and you still have yet to show me evidence that they do. So for you to remove my AWB access for removing the deprecated nested parameter and eliminating the uneeded and unused banner parameters when the templates themselves state specifically that if they are not used they should not be there would be an abuse of your admin powers and I would report it as such. If you do not agree with these edits then I suggest you do what you are supposed to do and bring them up for discussion on the village pump or other venue rather than bully me with unwarranted threats. --Kumioko (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I will report it to ANI myself if I removed your access. If you want to remove all unused "nested" parameters from talk pages, try to get bot approval for it. I expect the response would be that there's no reason for a bot to edit all those pages for that reason. Similarly, there's no reason to do it with AWB. You need to follow the AWB rules, which include not making minor edits and not making edits which you know are disputed. You need to get consensus first before doing bot-like editing. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 20:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * First I don't care about all the articles I am only concentrating on the ones under WikiProeject US adn I am following the rules. You have repeatedly avoided answering my question about where it says I should not remove deprecated parameters or remove parameters that the projects themselves state explicitly not to add if they are not being used is minor. You haven't answered because you know its not there. As for being disputed. 1 editor does not make it disputed. If you feel strongly that these shouldn't be made, rather than threats why don't you start a discussion and if consensus says it is a trivial edit (which I doubt) then I will stop and we can update the AWB rules to state that they should be done. Now Please quite being a watchlist stalker and quite baragging me with disussions so I can contrinute to the ecyclopedia. --Kumioko (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you please both calm down? I want to write my point of view but I ma busy in real life at the moment. I'll try to do it within the next hour. Meanwhile, both calm down. You are great editors and great contributors. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's my opinion. I am somewhere in the middle. Trivial edits should be avoided while using AWB. We downed trivial edits to those which don't change the rendering. Carl has right on this. It's also right that most of the things done right now can be done while doing other stuff. More Slowly but still. There is something interesting though in Kumioko's edits. Mass removal of empty parameters helps rendering time. Templates are rendered much faster. I am trying to find someone to perform a database scan to get an idea if the work it has to be done. If the edits are few, I guess Kumioko doesn't need a bot approval. Otherwise, we 'll have to think of a solution. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am down to about 347 from 2200+ that were on articles relating to WikiProject United States. Also for what its worth in many cases I am chopping 750 to 1000+ bytes of clutter from the talk page. As far as the bot approval I tried to get a bot but it drug on so long I finished the run 2 weeks later. Same with this case. even at a slow pace Ill finish 350 in a couple days if not a day. --Kumioko (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Blpo
Following the discussion above, I find this edit of yours really interesting. Who merged blpo in WPBS? AWB, KingbtoK or you? I like it but it has to be improved to remove Blpo and BLP others too. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I did that. Good suggestions Ill see what I can do. --Kumioko (talk) 01:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I can implement it as a general fix in AWB's code. I 'll see what I can do. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thats great. I got the regex figured out if you need it. I can't get it to work in C for some reason but it works in the DAvanced F&R. --Kumioko (talk) 13:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. If I need it, I'll tell you. Do you use AdvF&R before or after genfixes? We made some changes and disactivated AdvF&R after genfixes. Temporarily at least. I expect Reedy to upload new snapshot till tomorrow. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The normal find and replace is set for after but I don't know if I can set the advanced to be after. Its working for me though although if it stops working it will just make me finish converting the last 200 or so filters into C. --Kumioko (talk) 14:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The default is before. Now we introduced a new feature that the user can decide if a rule will be applied before or after the genfixes. Check AutoWikiBrowser/Real_user_manual and AutoWikiBrowser/Find_and_replace. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thats great thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 14:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * New snapshot. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Initial support for Blpo against WPBS. Still needs some tuning to handle co-existence of blp and blpo. It can't be done right now because maybe living=no then then blp needs removal but blpo not. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

ANI thread
Please see. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 20:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Simply appalling conduct for an admin (shaking my head). Rather than starting a discussion about a difference of opinion you strip away my AWB rights. I have to say I am rather disappointed at this first time we have really had any contact with one another. But well see what everyone else thinks. Personally I think this nonsense is just a waste of ANI's time and an abuse of admin powers. My first impulse was to just revert the change. --Kumioko (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

FA-Class biographies of Americans
Hi, I just finished updating the lists of FA-Class biographies of American for the U.S. portal. One thing I noticed as I was doing this was that lots of these bios weren't tagged as part of the U.S. project. I also compared the bio specialty and U.S. projects to see where they overlapped. Here are the links.
 * Portal:United States/Selected biography (society)
 * Biography (military)
 * Biography (politics and government)
 * Biography (science and academia)


 * Portal:United States/Selected culture biography
 * Biography (actors and filmmakers)
 * Biography (arts and entertainment)
 * Biography (core)
 * Biography (musicians)
 * Biography (sports and games)

I don't know if this is intentional or not, but I thought you might find these lists interesting. Regards, RichardF (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your absolutely right not all are currently tagged. That is because there are about 200 US related projects and several got very very sensitive to the idea that WPUS would try and gobble up all the smaller projects. Personally I view all the projects as separate even if they are related from a geographical perspective but thats just me. I would say though that if the article is tagged with an US related banner then it should be acceptable. Portal:United States does not IMO need to be tied directly to WPUS but relates to the United States as a topic. --Kumioko (talk) 23:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree the portal is under absolutely no obligation to go by what's tagged by the project. In fact, I consider the project tags to be vastly inferior to the biography project tags for people.  That's why those sections are set up using the biography subproject groupings.  It's just a real pain in the butt to track the Americans because there's so little overlap.  That's why I shared those sections with you. Enjoy your "chill time."  -- RichardF (talk) 02:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Appreciated.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your welcome. --Kumioko (talk) 23:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 21:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Trout
If You Want To Use It Yourself Type on Someones Page. Thx For Posting
 * Thanks but I find it interesting that a brand new editor knows of such things..suspicious but not my problem at this point. Happy editing. --Kumioko (talk) 16:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Minor edits and edits against consensus
What Carl says is that some edits should not be done solely but in addition with other edits. My reverting this edits you are just disturbing watchlists for one more time. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps what Carl says is right however the edits I was making are not minor and even if making edits that do not render any changes to the page are inherently minor the AWB rules of use do NOT say it. As I mentioned on your talk page the consensus from my ANI clearly shows that the previous state was preferred. But I have stopped reverting my changes because it seems 1 editor (you) disagreed so I must stop. And as far as disturbing watchlists by your own logic does reverting them and further disturbing those lists really help? --Kumioko (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What came first; the chicken or the egg? -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  16:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your probably right but chicken is delicious and so are eggs if properly prepared so does it really matter which one came first? Just eat them and enjoy:-) Editing here is much the same. If we are improving the content does it really matter if 1000 edits on a page is minor or not? I contend it doesn't. --Kumioko (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

AWB
I dug around in the, rather lengthy, AN/I thread. I have to confess that I am generally in agreement a lot of that are trivial edits of minor consequence (whether they or done or note makes little difference). The point of rules are generally to show the spirit and intent behind them; AWB's mention of trivial edit is generally accepted to mean anything of little consequence to the page (I think Carl is being too specific with page rendering). I realise this is vague, but you know we try to have vague rules which are applied with a liberal helping of common sense :) The incidents r.e. Rich Farmbrough generally set a precedent for what is a trivial edit BTW.

Bypassing redirects, for example, might be of some use. But if it all that is being done to a page it is definitely trivial. Clogging up watchlists is a massive pain, I watch thousands of articles, many within the same Wikiproject, and have woken up some mornings to see my watchlist full of hundreds of lines of "updated Wikiproject banner", or something similar.

I think the simple rule of thumb is that stuff like you are doing needs to be done on a smaller scale, with explicit consensus to go through and apply the change. Or where the change is a true "fix" - i.e. solving a problem.

BTW, reverting all those changes is the exact reasons rule #4 exists :) don't worry about it. It is done. I recommend trying your hand at something else for a while. I have found in the past that the best way to stay "fresh" on WP is to dabble at all sorts of different things. I can recommend WikiProject Wikify as a decent bunch who are ALWAYS looking for help (plus you have a few days left on their current drive to maybe earn a barnstar or two :D) --Errant (chat!) 17:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments and personally I think the ANI is far longer than it should be. I still don't agree that removing 1000 characters of garbage is a minor edit especially when removing the unneeded collapsed parameter on several of them actually did "render a change". Once my ANI is done I am probably going to hang up my WP hat and find something else too do. I just want to fix and write articles (and talk pages associated with them) but too many are too worried about discussions and things of little consequence trying to, what appears to be, a reason to complain and that's not what I am interested in doing. Cheers and happy editing. --Kumioko (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Removing unused parameters isn't the reason your awb rights were revoked. The main reasons are that you tried to skip an active discussion, and did mass edits without discussion to get more feedback at the same time. ANI started in order to help admins judge Carl decision and rise their voice. Your reverts to your own edits and your messages to other editors page show that you still haven't understood what the problem is exactly. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It may not have been the only reason but it was the catalyst and I still contend that the rules don't state what he says they do and he should have opened a discussion about it rather than revoke my access. Just because he is an admin and has access to revoke my rights doesn;t mean that he should circumvent the rules and good etiqutte. But if sending a message was the goal of this as you put it I got the message. --Kumioko (talk) 12:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't want to see you go
Hey Kumioko. I haven't got the energy to read the whole ANI thread, but suffice to say that your article-space contributions have been impressive, as far as I can see, so why not just ditch AWB and get back to regular editing? I admit to having a bit of a fad with AWB several years ago, but it just became a "press okay" exercise and was ultimately unfilfilling. Get back to developing good articles, featured lists, etc. Ignore the tidying up, leave that to someone else, and use your skills to build, not repair the Wikipedia. Just saying. Wouldn't want to see you go. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks but its only the most recent evidence that people have become too worried about the process than the product. --Kumioko (talk) 20:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, after nearly 66k edits and all that jazz, I can still confirm that content is king. Stay cool, take a break if you need, but don't throw in the towel.  This place needs good content editors like you. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with TRM; I've been following your ANI with great interest and would hate to see an editor such as yourself quit completely - you're a net good to the project, definitely. GiantSnowman 20:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I also have to cocur with the above assessments, you are too valuable for the project, esp. in maintaining WPMILHIST content and working with the GLAM cooperations in the DC area. Take a break and come back. I personally, don't have as many worries about the AWB stuff as they are bringing up in the ANI. Sometimes boldness walks us into very problematic holes, but their are plenty of places where you would be very useful in editing. Have you taken a look at some of the Category:Wikipedia backlog, we have tons and tons of work to do that can use your expertise. Lately, I have taken to taking big chunks out of Category:Orphaned articles, I could use your help! Sadads (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * (pile on) I'm hoping that you get a good well-deserved break and that you choose to come back when you are ready. You will be welcome, of course. You may have a touch of burnout that will subside with a small vacation. You have done wonderful service and your contributions are well-appreciated. Look forward to greeting you if & when you come back, <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 21:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * +1. Please don't leave forever ... take a break, write an article. But don't quit for good. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  04:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hope you feel better about Wikipedia after a break, Kumioko, you do great work on MILHIST articles. - Dank (push to talk) 20:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree - hope you come back after a pause and with some peace of mind. jmcw (talk) 00:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't really know you, but we crossed paths on one piece, and you were fine to work with. I don't like seeing anyone leave the project who has the 'awesome wikipedian' logo on their page, and you have two of 'em. I well understand wikipedia burnout, but as others have suggested, I think you should take a break. My guess is that you'll start missing this old beast. :-) Good luck, whatever your choice. MarmadukePercy (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ditto Marmaduke Percy's excellent comment. You are a fine Wikipedian, an excellent organizer and bringer-abouter. I've had Wikipedia burnout too; it can get contentious here; in a way, it's kind of like ice hockey -- a venue which encourages people to fight -- rather than something more amiable such as football. But I encourage you to be like a duck, and let it roll off. My WP article "History of citizenship in the United States" was recently deleted (I initially wrote it in a day or so, but within a few months it had come under attack for WP:OR and being essay-like) but I actually felt good about the deletion, because I figured out a way to keep it alive on Google here. Now, I have the ONLY version on the web, plus a byline and bypicture. So, things work out for the best. Still, overall, I think Wikipedia is the best place because of the high readership.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks but its more than just simple burnout. It has gotten to the point where WP has become a rule and policy mill rather than a group of editors trying to develop articles of content. Add to that the fact many of the rules are written in such a vague manner they are left completely open to interpretation and then factor in all the exceptions like WP:BOLD and WP:IAR, etc. Then you get scenarios like the one were I am in that I am trying to clean up garbage from articles and get ANI's by an Admin who does at most 20 edits a day. I've just had enough of the drama. I will miss editing I admit but I can't do that without all the drama and pettyness that is so prevelant these days so that forces me into retirement. --Kumioko (talk) 01:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I left another comment at ANI. You have made 75k edits since October and you get aggravation instead of thanks. You can see that people (like Magioladitis) publicly support your work. AWB is a like a chainsaw rather than a scalpel - you need to talk a little bit before switching it on rather than a lot of yammer afterwards - it is part of the common sense for the tool. Don't go, don't get into wiki drama - a few sentences and get back to productive work. Minimize your aggravation. jmcw (talk) 09:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hiya Kumioko. I just wanted to add my voice to those above. Don't leave forever! Fuck "them", don't give them the satisfaction by leaving. you're correct that Wikiepdia seems to be becoming "rules bound" recently, so let's work on collectively snubbing our noses at that mindset. AWB is a great tool, and besides, any "damage" that it can do can easily be undone at at a later date. Just... don't leave, please? — <span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 04:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Rights
Per your request, I've removed all your user rights. If you change your mind before it's too late, feel free to let me know if you want any of them back; policy says that any rights that you resign voluntarily can be restored at your request. Nyttend (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks I just don't want anything to get messed up if someone gets ahold of my account once I close up shop. --Kumioko (talk) 22:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Help needed
I think this is the perfect task for you. We need to replace WikiProject Space. Check instructions. Can you please help? I'll restore your awb rights if you are interested in this task. :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A couple of days ago I would have been glad to help and honored you asked but the ANI has completely destroyed any interest I would have had. Thanks anyway. --Kumioko (talk)
 * ANI is to control if the admin did the correct action so you don't have be so sad about it. I think the conclusion is that the action was necessary in order to catch your attention. Revoking wasn't meant to be a permanent action against you and it's related to the active discussion in WikiProject Council. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It caught my attention all right but the effect is going to be more long term than CBM may have expected. I don't blame him I blame the whole absurd ANI process that followed and the unending string of bickering and debates that I have been sucked into since I restarted WPUS in October. WP is turning into nothing but a bunch of cliques and people looking for things to complain about. IMO that's why WP has been hemorrhaging so many editors and I don't see that trend ending anytime soon unfortunately. I also still think it was absurd to revoke my AWB access for the reasons stated but in the end it doesn't really matter. Wikipedia went on with all the other editors that left and it will certainly go on without me. I feel like I could have done a lot of good things but whether I stay or not those things will get done without me eventually it just may take longer and I will certainly find other things to do with my time. --Kumioko (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I advice you not to quit now. We did a lot of progress since last year in standarisation in all directions. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that 1.5 year ago nobody would approve general fixes as part of bots job. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks but I'll leave it to you from this point. I am sure that the coming year will bring many changes. My leaving will just be the first. --Kumioko (talk) 01:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry!
I looked at WP:ANI today and sad to see the thread about AWB. I tend to stay away from there, but see a need for sensible + content people to pay some more attention, try to change the balance some back towards emphasis on content rather than policy. You have put in an incredible amount of time on Wikipedia. I need to do more of my part to pay attention to ANI, to speedy deletions and AFDs and participate in these discussions, but can't do it alone either. It's daunting but hope the balance and culture here shifts a bit more away from focus on policies. We do need your help, if/when you feel like coming back. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 18:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Please don't go. Wikipedia is a big place; there are also enclaves and minor empires. Cleaning up with AWB or bots invariably upsets someone, as this bot application shows. That is no reason to get discouraged. My 'thang' with AWB is to align dates and English spelling, reduce the extent of overlinking, and deal with style issues, fix problems within reference tags. I guess so far I've been lucky, with only the occasional complaint – I could do with your help these enormous jobs. I know that you have also been upset at the apparent harassment of Rich Farmbrough, who reacts mostly to the tirades and blocks as if they were all water over a duck's back. I think that his is the right approach, and I hope you take a leaf out of his book and not let it consume you. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks and I agree Rich has taken this very well. I enjoy editing and I will miss WP but I have a very stressful day job and I edit here because its enjoyable but the last few months have been far less than enjoyable and it seems that no matter what sorts of improvements or initiatives I take on to improve the quality of content in WP editors seem to have a problem with it. Unfortunately the rules seem to favor those that complain and not those actually trying to do the work. I may come back some day. Good luck though and happy editing. --Kumioko (talk) 02:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yea, I know what you mean. I've had my dog days too... Not what you need when your job brings a lot of stress too. Hopefully, see you around! -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I know you say you're retired; however I have to give you this

 * Thank you very much. Retired or not I appreciate it. --Kumioko (talk) 02:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The February 2011 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive Needs Your Help!
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 04:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC).

Service Award
Here's your current service award. If you're really leaving, I guess it's not much use to you now. You might try to flash it to get a free Grand Slam Breakfast at Denny's. You never know.

I don't know anything about you, but I saw your note on Jimbo's talk page. It's not a good thing when a veteran editor feels ill-used like this, and I'm sorry that that happened to you. I wish I could do something, and I hope you change your mind. If not, best wishes, and thank you very much for your many contributions. Herostratus (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --Kumioko (talk) 01:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go.
I know not why you are leaving, but I am sorry to see you go. On pretty much a daily basis, I have noted your edits on articles in which we participated. I do not recall ever finding a flaw in your work. Your departure means I have one fewer good influence.

I wish you happiness and success in your future.

Georgejdorner (talk) 00:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind words. --Kumioko (talk) 01:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Kumioko don't go!! Maybe you just need a Wiki-cation? Don't let other editors bother you. You've done a fantastic job. --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm just tired of the editors who do nothing but find things to complain about. For months I have been pulled into constant discussions about every edit or action I seem to take by those who are more worried about filling watchlists, Wasting server resources, hurting feelings or some other equally ridiculous complaint. I edit WP because I enjoy it and because I think the work we do here is useful, needed and wanted. But I also believe that WP will go on without me and the 1000+ edits a day I do or the numerous other tasks I performed. The arrogant side of me thinks that WP is weaker for it but it will go on. Good luck and thanks again for the kind words. --Kumioko (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I hear you and I agree. I've slowed my involvement too. However, I'm starting to re-engage a bit. I urge you to step back for as long as you want. The wiki will be okay without you. Poorer, but okay. I hope this is not the last time I see your datestamp, dude. If it is, know that you have made a difference here. You and I are way different users, but I hope we're alike in that we value the work we put into Wikipedia. Your value remains in spacespace even when you're not here to defend it. For my part I'm most proud of the tiny contributions which are still in place years after I made them. They must have been good choices to survive untouched, I think to myself. You have made thousands of good choices. I will miss your good choices, look forward to seeing your datestamp and hope to do so when you're ready. BusterD (talk) 23:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You took on a monster job. One that no one had ever tried to address before. It was needed. Sorry to see you go. Yes, the carpers will always be there. (BTW, we are having our hands full with one on MOS policy discussion, so they are a determined lot! And then there are trolls. Hard to determine the difference sometimes!). Student7 (talk) 13:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

We really need the work you have been doing on Civil War Medal of Honor recipients. I hope you come back to continue that work someday. Randy Fletcher (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC).
 * I'm sorry but I probably won't be doing much although I may do some here and there. Nearly every edit I do these days provokes a complaint from someone and since having many of my tool accesses removed I am not particularly useful and have basically lost my drive. editing these days just involves too much red tape. Keep up the good work though. --Kumioko (talk) 01:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Question about WP USA
Hey, how necessary is adding the WP USA box to pages? I mainly edit pages in the state of Georgia. I was wondering if the tag needed to be stuck on every single page that is dealing with any part of America? I know it sounds like a stupid question but better ask it now before I go edit a few hundred pages in the future. Anyway, thanks! T amer_of_Hope  talk  02:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Its really not necessary unless WP Georgia is added to the list of projects supported by WPUS. Really the only time you need to add it is if the article related to WPUS or one of the supported projects; if it contains United States, US, U.S. or potentially even American. Other than that it probably doesn't need it. I hope that answers your questions. --Kumioko (talk) 00:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, my main concern was whether or not I needed to add cities to the WPUS group because the county pages are already listed as a work group of WPUS. I guess that answers my question. I was just wondering what the difference was between the state(s) individual WikiProjects versus the overall WP USA. T amer_of_Hope   talk  01:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Lance Kennedy
Would you help weigh in on the deletion article for Lance Kennedy? Seems to meet notability requirements.Theseus1776 (talk) 18:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Can you close the debate or is there a minimum time frame on keeping it open?Theseus1776 (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Could I close it yes, but since I'm not an admin and it hasn't been open that long it would be better to wait a little. --Kumioko (talk) 19:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Kumioko is this article worth saving? If you like I could trim it substantially and try to save it, perhaps finding new references, but I would need to know that this is a priority for you.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the comment and feel free to clean it up. It definately needs it but its not really a priority for me. Thanks for asking though. --Kumioko (talk) 00:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok then it is not a priority for you so I will leave it alone; it it gets trimmed down perhaps I will change my vote.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 18:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

NARA collaboration of the month
Hi Kumioko. I've been working on this idea, which I'll begin floating within NARA, for a monthly NARA-related article collaboration. The idea is to pick an article where a National Archives subject matter expert could provide an informed article review and suggest sources, while the Wikipedia community improves it over the course of the month (the current articles listed there are just examples). You can take a look at it at GLAM/National Archives and Records Administration/COTM. If we were going to do this, I think I'd need a lot of help at the beginning—maybe direct WikiProject US assistance—to make sure we get enough Wikipedians involved to make it worth the staff's time. I was wondering if you had any thoughts on how to make this successful. Thanks! Dominic·t 19:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think its a great idea and a great way to improve articles. The bad news is that when I tried doing a monthly collaboration, and what seems to happen over and over, is that a couple start doing it and then within a couple months they lose interest. The only way I see this working is if we can get a stable group of individuals that are working on the project and regardless of some stats that people are throwing around saying things are good, we seem to be losing active editors at a rate faster than we can enlist them. Almost all the projects are floundering trying to stay active (most are all but inactive now). I would be glad to help any way I can though just let me know. If you want I can send out a message to folks and see who's interested. If you want to draft up a message I could send it. Just let me know what you want me to do. Kumioko (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Your unsubstantiated accusations
Either provide some diffs to demonstrate my alleged connection with Fram, and his connection with WP:USRD, or retract your accusations immediately. This is entirely unsubstantiated, and beyond the pale. But my block was my block, and mine alone, and I alone should bear any consequences for it if it was improper. Not WP:USRD. You can do what you want to me, try and get me desysopped, or whatever, but leave USRD out of this. --Rschen7754 08:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)