User talk:Purplebackpack89/Archive 14

List of Jeopardy! contestants
In you reintroduced improper title formatting (MOS:ITAL) that was addressed in this. Please be more careful when undoing and making revisions. AldezD (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe you shouldn't mix minor style changes with massive, inappropriate removals of content then. And stop referencing WP:N: it pertains to articles, not sections of articles.   p  b  p  14:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Why do you feel it makes more sense for this article to be organized chronologically vs. alphabetically? AldezD (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Because I have a degree in history and think that way.  Also because some of the articles on later contestants contextualize their achievements relative to earlier contestants.  Though I will concede that the order of the contestants is not as important as making sure many of the influential contestants are mentioned in the article.  p  b  p  15:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * For those contestants who once held records that were later eclipsed, do you feel it is still important to break them out into separate sections within the list article? (This does not apply to the WP:N status of the stand-alone articles, since WP:N). For example, is it necessary to list Larissa Kelly in a separate section within the list article, or can her records that were later eclipsed by Roger Craig and Julia Collins be incorporated into those specific sections? AldezD (talk) 15:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * IMO, each contestant should have his/her own section. p  b  p  17:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. However, specific to those whose records have since been broken, do you feel those individual sections are necessary to be retained? AldezD (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I see no reason not to. Would you delete Roger Bannister's Wikipedia article?  His record's been broken. Frankly, I don't really understand why you want the Jeopardy! contestants article to contain as few people as possible (and please don't say navigability; there are plenty of ways around that).  p  b  p  18:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting an article be deleted. I'm suggesting removing entries from List of Jeopardy! contestants if the individual's record has been broken or surpassed by another, and then noting the prior record that was broken in the new record holder's entry. AldezD (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016: Game On!
We are about to enter the second week of the 2016 WikiCup. The most recent player to sign up brings the current total to 101 contestants. Signups close on 5 February. If you’re interested, you can join this year's WikiCup here.

We are aware that in some areas the scoring bot’s numbers are a little bit off (i.e., overly generous) and are working to have that corrected as soon as possible.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016: Game On!
We are about to enter the second week of the 2016 WikiCup. The most recent player to sign up brings the current total to 101 contestants. Signups close on 5 February. If you’re interested, you can join this year's WikiCup here.

We are aware that in some areas the scoring bot’s numbers are a little bit off (i.e., overly generous) and are working to have that corrected as soon as possible.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

STOP.
Is there a reason why you and others like you stalk the trump page yet you have your politics on the opposite of him? STOP. Stop being biased and be neutral, we should only have independents on people's pages. Oh, and by the way, I wonder if you will make it to heaven with all that "education", get it? Thought so. :)75.172.175.106 (talk) 01:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think any of the changes I've made to Trump-related pages are particularly controversial, and, as such, I see no reason to stop editing the page. p  b  p  02:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

List of The Price Is Right pricing games
Please do not add trivia to this article. The article purpose is to describe the gameplay of each individual game. The other pricing game sections do not detail WP:IPC/WP:TRIVIA content. Additionally, the #Plinko section does not include references to the other innumerable appearances the game has made outside episodes of The Price Is Right. AldezD (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please do not remove sourced content from articles. The addition met the threshold of IPC; and IPC is just an essay and not policy anyway.  There is no reason why the Price is Right article needs to be limited to gameplay; and if Plinko is such a cultural phenomenon, it probably should be spun off into its own article, one that includes all the references made elsewhere.  Frankly, Aldez, I'm tired of you being the enforcer of all things game show; first with Bob Verini/other Jeopardy! contestants and now here.  You didn't have consensus with Verini, what makes you think you have consensus on this?  p  b  p  17:32, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Just because it's sourced does not mean it belongs there. The article does not contain other trivial appearances or pop culture references to the game. The article's purpose is to detail the rules of each individual game. AldezD (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no reason for the article to be limited to that one specific purpose, and no policy that dictates that it must be. You're really just single-handedly making up a purpose for the article, and removing anything that doesn't fit your self-appointed purpose.  What's completely unfathomable is that the content I added was some of the only sourced content in the article, and you're removing it.  p  b  p  17:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The parent article has sections that detail incidents unrelated to gameplay. The Price Is Right (U.S. game show) details an issue with the game related to usage of its props outside of production. That information is not included in List of The Price Is Right pricing games because the List of The Price Is Right pricing games article details the rules of each game and does not include pop culture references, legal incidents, etc. AldezD (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That is nonsensical organization and I oppose it. I am going to suggest that Plinko should become its own article again.  p  b  p  17:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, you are bordering on WP:HOUND and WP:HA behavior in reverting my edits to articles which you had not previously edited, a pattern of behavior that has resulted in editing blocks in the past. AldezD (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should stop removing sourced content from articles, so I wouldn't have to go around cleaning up your messes. I am entitled to browse your recent contributions, just as you are to browse mine, and if I find something I don't like, I am entitled to change it.  My block record is not really germane here as the people who performed said blocks have since resigned their tools, in part for...making bad blocks.  p  b  p  17:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, just because it's sourced does not mean it belongs there. Please review the comments above regarding Plinko and the comments regarding Ketchum. AldezD (talk) 17:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please review the comments I said that adding that content, if sourced, violates no policies, except for the "Aldez doesn't like it" policy (which isn't policy). p  b  p  17:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, and one more thing: it's not hounding if it's just two pages, and the pages are thematically related. p  b  p  18:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Jeb? listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Jeb?. Since you had some involvement with the Jeb? redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ( talk ) 00:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you should find something else to do with your time rather than patrolling redirects. IMO, it's splitting hairs.  p  b  p  01:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Leading U.S. Advertisers in 2011 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Leading U.S. Advertisers in 2011 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Leading U.S. Advertisers in 2011 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Conifer (talk ) 04:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter


That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. Forty-seven competitors move into this round (a bit shy of the expected 64), and we are roughly broken into eight groups of six. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups.

Twenty-two Good Articles were submitted, including three by, and two each by , , , and. Twenty-one Featured Pictures were claimed, including 17 by (the Round 1 high scorer). Thirty-one contestants saw their DYKs appear on the main page, with a commanding lead (28) by. Twenty-nine participants conducted GA reviews with completing nine.

If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Thanks to everyone for participating, and good luck to those moving into round 2. ,, and --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 March newsletter (update)
Along with getting the year wrong in the newsletter that went out earlier this week, we did not mention (as the bot did not report) that claimed the first Featured Article Persoonia terminalis of the 2016 Wikicup. ,, and .--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikiproject Food and Drink Newsletter – March 2016
– Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 17:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Donald Drumpf RfD close
Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 2, four issues with the close: The closure was early and lacked the proper format (WP:RFD/AI), the closure was especially inappropriate for a non-administrator (WP:BADNAC/WP:NACD), and the discussion shouldn't be closed by an involved party who has even !voted (WP:INVOLVED/WP:CLOSE). I think a revert (self or otherwise) is warranted here. Regards, — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 09:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I fixed the formatting, but there's no point in reopening the discussion. It would just be closed the way I closed it a day or two later, as the consensus was clear and the Last Week Tonight votes had policy in addition to numbers behind them.  You'll find that my vote was more of a "do not delete", rather than picking sides between Last Week Tonight and Trump himself.  Also, you yourself favored the outcome I closed it as, so I don't really see why you're complaining.  Good day.  p  b  p  14:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Donald Drumpf WP:RFD
I'll get straight to the point: Will you please reopen the RFD for Donald Drumpf? You've closed the discussion prior to the recommended 7-day discussion recommendation and you could potentially be considered WP:INVOLVED in the discussion since you have posted a non-neutral comment in the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see any point in reopening it because I don't see any possibility of it being closed any other way. It won't be closed as a disambiguation because the only person who wants that is you; and also because two of the pages have been merged.   It won't be closed as deleted because few, if anybody, want to delete it.  It won't be closed as a redirect to Donald J Drumpf, because that is now a redirect.  It won't be closed as a redirect to Donald Trump because only a handful of people support that redirect, and most of the ones who don't think that redirecting it there violates policy.  Good day.  p  b  p  19:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for Donald Drumpf
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Donald Drumpf. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Steel1943 (talk) 20:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You know, Wikipedia gets a black eye whenever a redirect is RfDed or DRVed, because people who are using it can't get where they're going. This is especially troublesome on a highly-viewed redirect. p  b  p  20:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello Purple. I just wanted to say that I have been closing deletion debates for about 10 years now and that you should not take DRV personally. Even the best closures end up in DRV sometimes, it is just a second look by the community.
 * Steel1943 was not wrong to seek a community review of your closure, and while I am endorsing the closure I do see where Steel1943 is coming from. It was closed early and there was no good reason not to let it run its full course. If you want to reduce the likelihood of a DRV then you should follow the procedure set out for closing such debates. HighInBC 16:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikiproject Food and Drink Newsletter – April 2016
– Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 17:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BLUELOCK listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect BLUELOCK. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:BLUELOCK redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 01:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Chuck Entz's misconduct
I'm not here to go troll-to-troll with Chuck Entz. I wanted him off of such an otherwise fine dictionary such as Wiktionary, and like anyone on Wikimedia that says, "no, that's not correct", and changes it, I found him not being stripped of his adminship and banned to be incorrect. I once believed that he needed the respect he'd denied to so many others, but I've slept on this, and I've realized that he needs respect all right, he just doesn't want it. He's promoting adversaries (Q3179499) or something. I no longer see any use in going troll-to-troll against him, nor do I intend to improve Wiktionary. Chuck Entz has won. All I want now is a record of what happened. I have a real reason for wanting this record. If you wish, I can apologize to everyone here. 110.55.4.163 (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC) This is Wikipedia, not Wiktionary. p b  p  15:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Your edits in "Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016"
Your recents edits, about an hour ago, seemed to put some wrong numbers in the "delegates needed to win" section on the page "Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016". They seem to favor Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton incorrectly. Me and someone else have already corrected it, because it was so obvious to even non-registered users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.114.249 (talk) 00:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The numbers I gave are the number of additional delegates needed to clinch the nomination. That is why Bernie's number is bigger than Hillary's.  p  b  p  01:07, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

WHY???
Why are you being so biased in politics? Is it because you hate Trump because he is a different kind of politician, or is it because you are a self hating white liberal? Please enlighten me. :)174.26.59.30 (talk) 02:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Btw, both parties are run by big money. I'm sure you know that. :)174.26.59.30 (talk) 02:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Politana, California, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lytle Creek. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 May newsletter


Round 2 is over and 35 competitors have moved on to Round 3.

Round 2 saw three FAs (two by and one by ), four Featured Lists (with three by ), and 53 Good Articles (six by  and five each by, , and ). Eleven Featured Pictures were promoted (six by and five by ). One Featured Portal, Featured Topic and Good Topic were also promoted. The DYK base point total was 1,135. scored 265 base points, while and  each scored 150 base points. Eleven ITN were promoted and 131 Good Article Reviews were conducted with completing a staggering 61 reviews. Two contestants, and, broke the 700 point mark for Round 2.

If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Thanks to everyone for participating, and good luck to those moving into round 2. ,, and -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Adams 2 listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Adams 2. Since you had some involvement with the Adams 2 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. The Traditionalist (talk) 00:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Vital articles
Welcome back to the project, it's good to see you return, and helpful to have another opinion as several threads seem to be stalling at 4 supports; your presence increases the chances of project moving along. I know you've only been gone a few months but I notice how much more friendly it is compared to where we were years ago.  Carl wev  00:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * My apologies for my absence; I've been taken in by other pursuits. p  b  p  01:00, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Octaviano Tenorio
Hi PBP

I am very puzzled by the discussion at Articles for deletion/Octaviano Tenorio. We have three verbose editors there who seem to have a big problem with the concept of independent sources being required to establish notability per WP:GNG.

So far, the only two explanations I can come up with are that either they are a) unable to understand that notability requires independent sources; or b) trying to erect a smokescreen. The first is a WP:COMPETENCE issue, and the second is plain disruption.

I don't want to reach either conclusion, but can't see any other explanation for what's going on. Do you have any other ideas about what might be happening? I find it weird. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * JPL is always vociferous when it comes to defending LDS articles and uses the same arguments again and again. Depending on the admin closing, it has sometimes worked, so... kudos to him? --Neil N  talk to me 13:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, NeilN. I feared that might be the case.
 * If this is part of a pattern of ignoring policy and pushing the case for en.wp to right some great wrong against the LDS, then we seem to be heading towards an RFCU. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * In my dealings with JPL, I've found him to be vociferous period. He picks a position in an AfD or CfD (where he has major ownership issues), and whenever somebody disagrees with him, he bludgeons the bajeebers out of them.  I've seen him make 5, 6, 7, 8 consecutive comments in a single AfD or CfD, sometimes 3-4 seperate bulleted comments in a row.  In this particular topic, it combines with a very right-wing pro-Mormon assessment of the media: JPL has essentially said that only Mormon sources can be trusted to properly assess Mormons.  He insists on using the most incendiary language toward people with whom he disagrees: any criticism of his stances is a personal attack; any criticism of Mormonism (very broadly construed) is bigotry.  JPL doesn't seem to be constrained by policy and guidelines.  He's already had two major incidents that should have caused him to be indeffed: the Amanda Filipacchi mess that went on for months and the attacks on Jeanne Shaheen in violation of BLP.  Plus there's all the bad articles he's created.  His problems are magnified by being a volume editor; often adding 50-100 categories to articles in a single evening.  I tried once awhile ago to rein him in and failed (that was before either of the two major incidents).  It's time to try again.  p  b  p  14:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's as much a competence issue with Montanabw. I just think he believes everybody of every religion this high up to be notable, and he's upset that people of seemingly lower caliber get more coverage.  Though he does stray into the "right wrongs" territory.  p  b  p  14:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Pbp, I agree that its time to try again to restrain JPL. I think that an RFCU is probably the best way to go, but am open to other suggestions. What do you think? Would you be interested in co-operating to put something together? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
 * RFCU no longer exists. Hasn't for a couple years. Your choices are ANI or Arbcom. --Neil N  talk to me 17:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. I was nearly 2 years out of date on RFCU.
 * OK, I will do some diff-farming, and the maybe we can swap notes and see what we got. I hope it doesn't mean Arbcom, which is a massive time-sink. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll ride shotgun on this with you. It's clear from Filipacchi and Shaheen that the user has a long-term pattern of abuse.  We could also wait for him to complain about us and then slap him with the boomerang.  p  b  p  18:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * On his previous form, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if he did that. But I think I'd prefer to be proactive. Such intense POV-pushing deserves a proactive response. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If you want to do that, I'll be a co-signatory. p  b  p  01:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , when you start a draft of this, please link me to it. p  b  p  17:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Do what you have to do as far as the one editor against whom you see a pattern, but when you make assumptions about other people's motives, such as "the only two explanations I can come up with are..." that comes pretty close to WP:ASPERSIONS. I've commented in good faith on two AfDs in support of an editor's articles, and that editor is one with whom I usually disagree (often quite strongly). So if your above remarks are in any way accusing anyone of incompetence or disruption, I suggest you slow down a bit. Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk) 07:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're incompetent, I'm more just displeased at your AfD comments. This in contrast to how I feel about JPL, who has a voluminous history of incompetence and disruption (see in particular the Filipacchi and Sheehen diffs above).  p  b  p  14:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I can live with that. Thank you. I have also had a number of disagreement with JPL which is why I wanted to try very hard to neutrally assess his articles about conservative old white men as well as the articles I enjoy reviewing on progressive modern women of color.  It's been a fascinating experiment.    Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk)  20:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * If you're still planning on acting against JPL (and I'd advise act against him rather than Montana), there's another thing to add to that complaint that Montana has jogged my memory about: his anti-woman attitude. Montana notes that he noms a lot of woman articles for deletion, I also remember the big kerfuffle he had with other editors over whether or not to have all-woman categories.  p  b  p  01:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you
I appreciate that you are making calm and cogent remarks about where you think the AfD discussions are going off the tracks. From there, here were your comments Where's the RfC? ... while I wouldn't say you've been dishonest, I would say you have misinterpreted what I and others have said in this thread and/or gone off on some bad tangents. I also get the feeling you are displeased that something like this can't be included while porn stars and minor cricketers can. That is a side effect of WP:N/WP:42: dependence on what is covered in secondary sources. This displeasure, however, is not entirely germane, and has lead you to venture into the realm of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I'd like to continue this discussion here, as I appreciate that you are thinking things through without making personal attacks. From my side, it is clear that I am not doing as good of a job of articulating what I really think. Can I run the following past you for comment?
 * 1) There are 2 RfC's both at WT:N. You have weighed in on the first, which is not mine, and that one I also opposed. I put forth the second, with the longer discussion.
 * 2) One thing that the 2nd RfC is bringing out is that the application of WP:N at AfD is not in line with policy in many cases, the AfD regulars are relying too much on the SNGs and forget that GNG trumps any individual set of criteria.
 * 3) I have no beef with WP:42, never have. I simply have a position on how to interpret "independent" and "significant" that differs from some other users. (I think that sometimes some users do not AGF on the difference between reliability and "bias."  Absolutely everything has some kind of "bias," the question is only what kind and how much.)
 * 4) I sincerely think that the actual position I hold on notability in general is not contradictory to the letter or spirit of WP:N, particularly after what I am seeing and hearing at my RfC. I simply have not properly articulated it--my position is misunderstood: I do not advocate "weakening" standards.
 * 5) I think that the pornstar and cricketers examples do not reflect the real world, they reflect WP editorship, which skews 80-85% male, mostly white, western, single, young, technically inclined, and of a libertarian/anarchist bent.
 * 6) Systemic bias is real and something WP does need to fix.
 * 7) I am open to discussion of whether there really is an OTHERSTUFF argument, I think that a lot of AfDs reflect a double standard that was written into an SNG and became "consensus." The SNGs at PORNSTAR are too lenient, while SNGs for, say NADCADEMIC are  too strict (but also consisting of fuzzy language, what is "significant"?  What is a "major" work?)  Again, SNGs do not trump GNG, but are often applied as if they do.
 * OK, that's enough. If you find this tl;dr, no worries, but I am sincerely interested in your thoughts.   Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk)  22:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Let me say that I for one am not that upset at you as BHG seems to be in the past 48 hours. It's pretty clear that your coming from a different place than JPL is, namely that JPL seems to have an anti-woman streak in him (nominating a lot of female article for deletion, fighting vociferously with other editors about whether or not to have all-woman categories).  You're coming is coming from a place that's reasonable, albeit one that's not necessarily one always supported by existing policy.  In regards to I've been mulling over what to say in your RfC for about 24 hours now, and still don't know what to do about that issue.   p  b  p  01:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Mulling things over is good. Your comments have been thoughtful and measured.  My involvement with the Mormon articles was, in part, examining my own systemic bias (in contrast see, e.g. Articles for deletion/Kanwal Ameen)  My view is that policy and the SNGs are being confused at AfD, (SNGs do not trump GNG, they provide guidance, not exclusion) and AfD has its own in-house "consensus" amongst the regulars that may not really reflect WP:N or even some of the SNGs. My RfC at WT:N is drawing a lot of very interesting remarks and some solid thinking, even where I may hold a different view.  The problem is that few of the AfD regulars are commenting there.  Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk)  03:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Unban
Thanks for the unban, it is appreciated, and seems unusual. Like I said, though, don't assume that I won't continue to remove your posts on my talk page. Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 06:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Eh, whatevs. p  b  p  15:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Criticizing me
If you want to criticize me in various places, will you please do me the favor of pinging me, so that I can defend myself? That would be the decent thing to do. I will extend you the same courtesy. Thank you very much. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  06:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, since you're here,, and since BHG's discussion is closed, lemme reiterate what I don't like: I don't like the use of IAR to circumvent existing policies and guidelines, and I don't like that you and others kind of hinted that anyone who opposed this must not like the LDS Church. I don't think you're a bad person or anything, I just don't like your arguments in that AfD.  At all.  p  b  p  15:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As for IAR, it is a core, established policy, plain and simple, and you are the one who asked me to cite policy. As for liking or disliking the LDS church, I dislike it very much individually. But as an encyclopedist, I want neutral, verifiable coverage of its leaders with worldwide authority. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  15:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Courtesy notice
See Sockpuppet investigations/Purplebackpack89.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What a hoot. User:MSJapan has a sordid history of trying to punish people he disagrees with.  First User:Kvng, then me, now this Moon King fellow who ain't me.  Did you see this?  What a waste of admin time.  FWIW, it's no skin off my nose if you perform the check to confirm that I'm not Moon King.  It may be the only thing to put this rumor to bed.  After it's confirmed that, yes, I am not Moon King, I reckon MSJapan is due a boomerang.  p  b  p  13:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

$27 listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect $27. Since you had some involvement with the $27 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

27 bucks listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 27 bucks. Since you had some involvement with the 27 bucks redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

27 dollars listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 27 dollars. Since you had some involvement with the 27 dollars redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:13, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Please merge discussion of these redirects into a single discussion. I have already voted keep in all three, with the same rationale for all three.  Your deletion rationale is nonexistent and your conversion to a disambiguation page is weak.  p  b  p  23:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

FYI
Just to let you know, I've created an article about Theodor Lewald, an article you requested here. I'd welcome additions by you or any other editors. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> 13:32, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you! p  b  p  19:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter (August 2016)
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Seven Heavens, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Enoch and Avenging Angel. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

An other CfR discussion for US city categories
There's a new Categories for Renaming discussion going on about categories of US cities listed in the AP Stylebook. As you have participated in at least one of the more recent discussions in the subject, you may want to participate in the discussion at Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 17. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom case on TRM
I invite you to discuss The Rambling Man. You might be an involved party. --George Ho (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I hope that this will resolve his continual holier-than-thou incivility. But, seeing how he reacted to the ArbCom notice on his talk page, and how he's reacted to the last 100 or so ANIs, I don't hold out a lot of hope.  p  b  p  18:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If you needed anymore proof that isn't listening to criticism, there's this  p  b  p  19:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you do that at your own section? I apologize; Banedon and I are forewarned about "canvassing". Maybe there (or at evidence subpage when the case is approved for review). --George Ho (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've beefed up my statement a little bit,  p  b  p  20:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Please stop pinging me
Please stop pinging me with your various posts relating to me and the proposed Arbcom case. It isn't required, you can easily talk about me without pinging me, and I don't need the notification, I'm well aware of your contributions here and elsewhere (where you were banned for disruption). The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should actually read the criticisms people have of you instead of just brushing them off. There are literally dozens of other people who have the same problems I do with you.  There are dozens of ANI complaints against you and your holier-than-thou-art attitude; with nearly all of them being things I'm not a party to.  There's more criticism of you at ENWP than there is of me at SEWP!  A lot more!  This isn't me, and you can't say that this problem is happening because you were a dick to me on SEWP and managed to get me indeffed there.    I am going to keep pinging you because I believe you need to take the criticisms people have of you to heart.  And since it's clear you haven't, you should be topic-banned from the places (ITN, FA, GA) where you cause the most grief, and you should also be de-sysopped because admins are supposed to be civil and set a good example.  p  b  p  20:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * No, you are not going to keep pinging him, because if you do, I will block you from editing for a while. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I am entitled to discuss his behavior. Why shouldn't I ping him when I do?  Should I just discuss his behavior with other editors behind his back?  I might as well, because he ignores any criticism anybody ever has about him.  That's why the ArbCom case against him exists.  p  b  p  20:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That's correct; discuss him without pinging him. If you truly think it is productive discussing him with other editors, I'm not going to try to stop you. I doubt it's productive, and suspect it's more like pack behavior, but that's just my instinct. But repeatedly pinging someone you know does not want to be pinged is passive aggressive pestering. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If there's a pack (or as TRM calls it, a "lynch mob"), it's there for a reason, Floq. The reason is that TRM has succeeded in pissing off a great many people, to the point of it being problematic.  You yourself know that his behavior has succeeded in doing that, and you think he should change his behavior.  But the problem is that TRM, even during this ArbCom case, brushes it off as if it's no big deal, because he somehow is always right and everybody else is a bunch of trolls.  Instead of taking a good look as his behavior, he adamantly refuses to admit that there's any kind of problem, and he ignores, sometimes even deletes comments suggesting he tone it down.  p  b  p  15:00, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

User:JohnPackLambert
Thought I'd draw your attention to this which I find utterly pathetic. He's done it plenty of times before and clearly lacks a spine. I've undone it but that won't last two minutes. PageantUpdater (talk) 01:55, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration Case opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man.

Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Evidence.

Please add your evidence by September 17, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For non-parties who wish to opt out of further notifications for this case please remove yourself from the list held here

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Where is the scope of this defined? p  b  p  12:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Dude, I just woke up. Surely it's somewhere on one of those 8000 pages. Drmies (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry I posted so early. I haven't been sleeping well.  p  b  p  18:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I was joking--it's not naptime yet here. Anyway, yeah, I see your point., can you stick that in there somewhere? We discussed it on the list, and the last thing I read was "The scope of this case is disputes involving The Rambling Man after the motion enacted January 26. The Committee will also hear evidence setting those disputes in context, particularly on matters related to ITN and DYK". I don't know if you had anything to add or to edit; if I'm citing from the wrong email thread and this is wrong, feel free to correct me and blame this awful virus that has been bothering me for over a week. Pbp, sleep tight tonight, hopefully after a big fat Alabama win. Drmies (talk) 18:18, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Alabama? ALABAMA?  God, if there's one guy I love to hate, it's Nick Saban #FightOn ;-)  p  b  p  18:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Oops, sorry about that, I thought the clerks did the scope notices but perhaps not! All set now. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks GW. PBP, can't we all get along, without the h8ing? Drmies (talk) 16:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter: September 2016
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

A discussion you may be interested in
I have just made a new nomination for renaming categories for those U.S cities where the article doesn't include the state name. Since you participated in a recent discussion about this, you may want to express your opinion at Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 6. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Ms. Rodham
Hi. I changed the good faith bibliography page move of Hillary Rodham Clinton back to include "Rodham". Even changing the name to 'Bibliography' may need an RM, but left that as is. Please see the talk page for a 2015 RM about including 'Rodham'. This and the template are the only two pages which include the 'Rodham' in the title. Thanks. Randy Kryn 13:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Adding the "Rodham" was probably a mistake, because since then (I believe earlier in 2016), there was an extensive RfC about including "Rodham" in the title of the parent article. The bibliography should follow the conventions of the parent article, and also the conventions of other bibliographies (i.e. to be called "Bibliography" rather than "List of books")  p  b  p  13:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello!
Hello! Dear User:Purplebackpack89! I've created an association which named Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Clash of Civilizations in Wikipedia. I found you an expert in history and want to know what do you think about the activity. please tell me your significant comments which can be helpful for me. <font color="#99H099">The Stray Dog <font color="#33A744">Talk Page  14:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I would advise you to stop doing that. Oh, and relax about that other guy's suggestion that you should be indeffed...it's unlikely that's in the cards.  p  b  p  18:58, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, If I have any fault please tell me to fix it, and be patient and helpful to guiding me fixing errors. It will be nice of you. <font color="#99H099">The Stray Dog <font color="#33A744">Talk Page  19:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * On the ANI, I'd just promise not to post the invites and most likely everything else will sort itself out without you being adversely affected. p  b  p  19:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Aha, I got it. Ok, I understood what just you said. I will not do it as of now. Thanks for mentioning my fault to fix it. health and wealth. <font color="#99H099">The Stray Dog <font color="#33A744">Talk Page  19:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Newsletter: October 2016
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The Rambling Man arbitration proposed decision posted
A proposed decision has been posted in the open The Rambling Man arbitration page. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. If you are not a party, you may opt out of further notifications regarding this case at Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Mass Message List. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

This
Re: wig, I was hoping you would say something about "independent coverage". ~Awilley (talk) 19:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry my jokes aren't quite up to par. p  b  p  22:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter: November 2016
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 November newsletter: Final results
The final round of the 2016 WikiCup is over. Congratulations to the 2016 WikiCup top three finalists:
 * First Place -
 * Second Place -
 * Third Place -

In addition to recognizing the achievements of the top finishers and everyone who worked hard to make it to the final round, we also want to recognize those participants who were most productive in each of the WikiCup scoring categories:
 * Featured Article – Cas Liber (actually a three-way tie with themselves for two FAs in each of R2, R3, and R5).
 * Good Article – MPJ-DK had 14 GAs promoted in R3.
 * Featured List – produced 2 FLs in R2
 * Featured Pictures – Adam Cuerden restored 18 images to FP status in R4.
 * Featured Portal – produced the only FPO of the Cup in R2.
 * Featured Topic – and Calvin were each responsible for one FT in R3 and R2, respectively.
 * Good Topic – MPJ-DK created a GT with 9 GAs in R5.
 * Did You Know – MPJ-DK put 53 DYKs on the main page in R4.
 * In The News – and, each with 5 ITN, both in R4.
 * Good Article Review – MPJ-DK completed 61 GARs in R2.

Over the course of the 2016 WikiCup the following content was added to Wikipedia (only reporting on fixed value categories): 17 Featured Articles, 183 Good Articles, 8 Featured Lists, 87 Featured Pictures, 40 In The News, and 321 Good Article Reviews. Thank you to all the competitors for your hard work and what you have done to improve Wikipedia.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

We will open up a discussion for comments on process and scoring in a few days. The 2017 WikiCup is just around the corner! Many thanks from all the judges. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. ,, and

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Trumpism listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Trumpism. Since you had some involvement with the Trumpism redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review needs your help
Hi ,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted. Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 17 November
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * On the Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=749947650 your edit] caused an unsupported parameter error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F749947650%7CHeights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States%5D%5D Ask for help])
 * On the Melania Trump page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=749946491 your edit] caused an unsupported parameter error (help) and a cite error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F749946491%7CMelania Trump%5D%5D Ask for help])

DYK nomination of Fiesta Park
Hello! Your submission of Fiesta Park at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it 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! Yoninah (talk) 01:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The USC Trojans were linked before, and now they are referred to as the Trojans, in addition to the Fighting Methodists, the moniker they used when an occupant of Fiesta Park. p  b  p  01:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Clinton 42 listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Clinton 42. Since you had some involvement with the Clinton 42 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ( talk ) 02:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Bedminster
Could you point me to some recent coverage of Trump's transition in which news outlets are referring to Trump National Golf Club (Bedminster, New Jersey) as just "Bedminster" ? I didn't come across any in a quick web news search, but that could be due to filter bubble effects. Thanks, Qwfp (talk) 19:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * See this. Also, the place I heard that was on the radio, not the internet.  p  b  p  20:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd also note that there are many other town disambiguation pages that include golf courses. (Bethpage, Augusta, St. Andrews...)

DYK for Fiesta Park
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

List of United States Presidential firsts
I am trying to notify all the editors who have edited this List or posted on its talkpage recently (so that's why you're hearing from me - yay!) I just think this List could do with a bit of improving (especially all the unsourced statements). I went ahead and posted a reminder on its talkpage about sourcing/verifiability/etc. If you could lend a hand that would be great. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 23:50, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find that most of the facts I've added, I added sources for. I'll add some sources to unsourced statements anyway.  p  b  p  01:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know your edits are fine, was just trying to cast a wide net for any/all interested editors. I was just overwhelmed when I started looking at the mountain of unsourcedness y'know?...  I am going to work my way through, one Pres at a time. and if I can't find a source for a claimed first or if the asserted statement seems too trivial - "First President to eat pickles in the White House!" etc. - then in the spirit of WP:BRD, I'll delete the statement. Shearonink (talk) 02:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Re this edit...
...to List of United States Presidential firsts. I think Jefferson was never actually UVA's "President". He is the university's founder and served as UVA's Rector but never actually served as its president. Can't look it all up now but take a look at List of Presidents of the United States by education. Shearonink (talk) 18:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You may be right, but I'd feel better if somebody found a source before adding it back. p  b  p  18:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, wasn't Garfield a college president before he was US President? Jefferson wasn't Rector of UVA until after he left the Presidency...not sure how that would all be worded though. ... the before/after aspect. Shearonink (talk) 18:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Adams 6 listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Adams 6. Since you had some involvement with the Adams 6 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Trumpism for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Trumpism is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. MelanieN (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * As you know, I created this as a redirect, and have voted that it remain one. p  b  p  21:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I realized that. This was an automated notification from Twinkle, or I wouldn't have bothered you. Thanks. It is a good and necessary redirect. --MelanieN (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected
AfC Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup December newsletter: WikiCup 2017
On 1 January 2017, WikiCup 2017 (the 10th Annual WikiCup) will begin. This year we are trying something a little different – monetary prizes.

For the WC2017 the prizes will be as follows (amounts are based in US$ and will be awarded in the form of an online Amazon gift certificate):
 * First place – $200
 * Second & Third place – $50 each
 * Category prizes – $25 per category (which will be limited to FA, FL, FP, GA, and DYK for 2017). Winning a category prize does not require making it to the final round.

Note: Monetary prizes are a one-year experiment for 2017 and may or may not be continued in the future. In order to be eligible to receive any of the prizes above, the competing Wikipedia account must have a valid/active email address. After two years as a WikiCup judge, Figureskatingfan is stepping down. We thank her for her contributions as a WikiCup judge. We are pleased to announce that our newest judge is two-time WikiCup champion Cwmhiraeth.

The judges for the 2017 WikiCup are, , and.

Signups are open now and will remain open until 5 February 2017. You can sign up here.

If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Political positions of Bill Clinton listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Political positions of Bill Clinton. Since you had some involvement with the Political positions of Bill Clinton redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BDD (talk) 20:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)