User talk:Reywas92/Archive 12

Welcome to the 2011 WikiCup!
Hello, happy new year and welcome to the 2011 WikiCup! Your submissions' page can be found here and instructions of how to update the page can be found here and on the submissions' page itself. From the submissions' page, a bot will update the main scoresheet. Our rules have been very slightly updated from last year; the full rules can be found here. Please remember that you can only receive points for content on which you have done significant work in 2011; nominations of work from last year and "drive-by" nominations will not be awarded points. Signups are going to remain open through January, so if you know of anyone who would like to take part, please direct them to WikiCup/2011 signups. The judges can be contacted on the WikiCup talk page, on their respective talk pages, or by email. Other than that, we will be in contact at the end of every month with the newsletter. If you want to stop or start receiving newsletters, please remove your name from or add your name to this list. Good luck! J Milburn and The ed17 12:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

 * Welcome to the project. --Kumioko (talk) 04:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

File:112th United States Congress Senators.svg
The colors on this map have been modified to match the colors in the old PNG map. Most US maps on wikimedia are being phased over to new vector-based SVG maps that do not lose quality when stretched, this map should be no exception. This map can easily edited by opening up the image with an XML editor (even notepad works) and changing the "xlink:href=" value.

Now that the colors have been fixed, please do not revert to the old image. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:24, 8 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. If you do not want to recieve a monthly message please put an * before your name on the members page.--Kumioko (talk) 04:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Benjamin Harrison and stamps, continued
This discussion is still on-going and I've proposed a compromise. I'd be interested in your opinion, if you have a moment. --Coemgenus 12:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/List of Premiers of the Soviet Union/archive2
Hi Reywas. You commented at the above FLC on its first go-round, which failed due to lack of consensus. If possible, can you take a quick look at the list again and ensure that your concerns have been resolved? Thanks for all that you have done for the FL process. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 23:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 January newsletter
We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. Signups are now closed, and we have 129 listed competitors, 64 of whom will make it to round two. Congratulations to, who, at the time of writing, has a comfortable lead with 228 points, followed by , with 144 points. Four others have over 100 points. Congratulations also go to, who scored the first points in the competition, claiming for Talk:Hurricane King/GA1, , who scored the first non-review points in the competition, claiming for Dognapping, and who was the first in the competition to use our new "multiplier" mechanic (explanation), claiming for Grigory Potemkin, a subject covered on numerous Wikipedias. Thanks must also go to Jarry1250 for dealing with all bot work- without you, the competition wouldn't be happening!

A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round two is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 22:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

List of Indiana state symbols
Boy, when I create a firestorm, I really create one.

Background: I saw you updated Indiana symbols to get it off the  FL cleanup page. Thank you for that... I copied your format to get the Maryland and  Kentucky page upto date and off the list. I then turned to Oregon's symbol page to make it the same format as Indiana's.  One problem, Oregon's page had become a FL after Indiana was updated. In Oregon's FL candidacy archive it was determined that a single table would be best. As the symbol pages should be of the same format, I moved Indiana's page to a single table. Another of the changes Oregon has, but not brought up in FLC,was moving unofficial symbols (ie nickname and slogan) out of the table. The Oregon's symbol page was done by Another Believer. We've been a pain in each other sides as to how to deal with this. Another Believer also made Washington's symbol list into a FL.

Oy vey, what to do? I have some different views on how to deal with symbols than Another Believer, but as Oregon/Washington was the the last FL done, I'm doing my hardest to follow those pages (somethings I like other I don't). I'm sure you have different views from the two of us. I don't think anybody else cares about symbol lists as Kentucky and Maryland were abandoned. 1) I can have Utah's page finished tonight as long at it gets copy edited by one of you (I'm a bad writer).  Send that into FLC and let reviewer's give their opinions and go from there?  2)  We hash it out? 3) something else?

(fyi I updated United States congressional delegations from Indiana page to current FL standards. It was based off of  Utah's, which is based off of the 24 FL governor lists.  Please talk on anything you don't think is right or why I did something.) Bgwhite (talk) 22:29, 1 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. --Kumioko (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.

Semi-pro football discussions need feedback
Hello! You have participated in WP:AFD disucssions involving semi-pro football teams in the past. The following two AFD discussions could use additional weigh-in as they appear to be stuck in "relisting" mode:


 * Articles for deletion/Seaboard Football League
 * Articles for deletion/Northeastern Football Alliance

I am placing this notice on talk pages of users who have shown interest in the past, regardless of how they !voted in the discussion. If you do participate, please mention that you were asked to participate in the discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the constructive feedback
Regarding the proper use of commas on 2011 Wisconsin budget protests. I truly appreciate you pointing that out. Best, Midlakewinter (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI
The user whose making all those edits on the Olympic pages,, is a sock of banned user. If you see similar edits being made, please feel free to message me. Elockid  ( Talk ) 23:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

ty for move
THANKS!TCO (talk) 05:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Sacagawea dollar
Hi Reywas. Thanks for the comments over at the FAC for Sacagawea dollar! I just wanted to let you know that I addressed your concerns and responded there.-RHM22 (talk) 04:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the very useful edit on Sacagawea dollar! I thought the table was a little lengthy, but I didn't know exactly how to condense it. You wouldn't happen to have a 2011 Red Book, would you? As you can see, I don't have an accurate source for the 2009 or 2010 proof mintage figures for the Sacagawea dollar.-RHM22 (talk) 03:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I don't, but until we have those numbers you may want to put in Unknown instead of a dash. Reywas92 Talk 03:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought about that, but I chose the dash because I'm sure those numbers are known by some people, if not by me. I'm confident that some reliable source must have those numbers somewhere, though. I'm going to check an issue of Numismatic News and see what I can find.-RHM22 (talk) 03:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 February newsletter
So begins round two of the WikiCup! We now have eight pools, each with eight random contestants. This round will continue until the end of April, when the top two of each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers of those remaining, will make it to round three. Congratulations to (first, with 487 points) and  (second, with 459), who stormed the first round. finished third with 223. Twelve others finished with over 100 points- well done to all of you! The final standings in round one can be seen here. A mere 8 points were required to reach round two; competition will no doubt be much more fierce this round, so be ready for a challenge! A special thanks goes, again, to for dealing with all bot work. This year's bot, as well as running smoothly, is doing some very helpful things that last year's did not. Also, thanks to for some helpful behind-the-scenes updating and number crunching.

Some news for those who are interested- March will see a GAN backlog elimination drive, which you are still free to join. Organised by WikiProject Good articles, the drive aims to minimise the GAN backlog and offers prizes to those who help out. Of course, you may well be able to claim WikiCup points for the articles you review as part of the drive. Also ongoing is the Great Backlog Drive, looking to work on clearing all of the backlogs on Wikipedia; again, incentives are offered, and the spirit of friendly competition is alive, while helping the encyclopedia is the ultimate aim. Though unrelated to the WikiCup, these may well be of interest to some of you.

Just a reminder of the rules; if you have done significant work on content this year and it is promoted in this round, you may claim for it. Also, anything that was promoted after the end of round one but before the beginning of round two may be claimed for in round two. Details of the rules can be found on this page. For those interested in statistics, a running total of claims can be seen here, and a very interesting table of that information (along with the highest scorers in each category) can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

NRHP
Hi, I see you have an FL article. I'm trying to make National Register of Historic Places listings in Downtown Davenport, Iowa an FL, what kind of information should I put in the "summary" section? C T J F 8 3 17:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Dan Quayle
I can see you've been making edits to the Dan Quayle page. I just made a major change to the post-vice presidency section and I thought you would be interested. I significantly altered the corporate board participation paragraphs and added several citations. You may want to make your own modifications to my contribution. Tucoxn (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

U.S. state reptiles


Hey man. I know we did not impliment your recommendation, but I respect you for making it and hope that we can interact in the future to build content for Wiki. Like Reagan said, a guy who disagrees with you on 10% is not your 10% enemy, he is your 90% friend.

WikiCup 2011 March newsletter
We are half way through round two of the WikiCup, which will end on 28 April. Of the 64 current contestants, 32 will make it through to the next round; the two highest in each pool, and the 16 next highest scorers. At the time of writing, our current overall leader is with 231 points, who leads Pool H.  (Pool G) also has over 200 points, while 9 others (three of whom are in Pool D) have over 100 points. Remember that certain content (specifically, articles/portals included in at least 20 Wikipedias as of 31 December 2010 or articles which are considered "vital") is worth double points if promoted to good or featured status, or if it appears on the main page in the Did You Know column. There were some articles last round which were eligible for double points, but which were not claimed for. For more details, see WikiCup/Scoring.

A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round three is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 01:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 01:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 April newsletter
Round 2 of the 2011 WikiCup is over, and the new round will begin on 1 May. Note that any points scored in the interim (that is, for content promoted or reviews completed on 29-30 April) can be claimed in the next round, but please do not start updating your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. Fewer than a quarter of our original contestants remain; 32 enter round 3, and, in two months' time, only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. , who led Pool F, was our round champion, with 411 points, while 7 contestants scored between 200 and 300 points. At the other end of the scale, a score of 41 was high enough to reach round 3; more than five times the score required to reach round 2, and competition will no doubt become tighter now we're approaching the later rounds. Those progressing to round 3 were spread fairly evenly across the pools; 4 progressed from each of pools A, B, E and H, while 3 progressed from both pools C and F. Pools D and G were the most successful; each had 5 contestants advancing.

This round saw our first good topic points this year; congratulations to and  who also led pool H and pool B respectively. However, there remain content types for which no points have yet been scored; featured sounds, featured portals and featured topics. In addition to prizes for leaderboard positions, the WikiCup awards other prizes; for instance, last year, a prize was awarded to (who has been eliminated) for his work on In The News. For this reason, working on more unusual content could be even more rewarding than usual!

Sorry this newsletter is going out a little earlier than expected- there is a busy weekend coming up! A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 19:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

May 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
. --Kumioko (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 May newsletter
We're half way through round 3 of the 2011 WikiCup. There are currently 32 remaining in the competition, but only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. , of pool D, is our overall leader with nearly 200 points, while pools A, B and C are led by, and  respectively. The score required to reach the next round is 35, though this will no doubt go up significantly as the round progresses. We have a good number of high scorers, but also a considerable number who are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. Also, an important note concerning nominations at featured article candidates: if you are nominating content for which you intend to claim WikiCup points, please make this clear in the nomination statement so that the FAC director and his delegates are aware of the fact.

A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gwillhickers
You are invited to join the discussion at Requests for comment/Gwillhickers. Coemgenus 15:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC) (Using )

June 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 22:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

July 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Awards and prizes
Please be advised of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Awards and prizes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Federal subjects of Russia
Care to merge/redirect this one, too? If so, 2010 population figures would need to be added to the main list. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 2, 2011; 16:49 (UTC)
 * I think the historical populations on that list are nice, and it doesn't really need to be merged. Reywas92 Talk 17:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I was hoping to see all three population columns (2002, 2010, and the delta) merged, but it is obvious that my attempt to offload some of the tasks on my to-do list onto a complete stranger has failed miserably :) Thanks for taking care of the rest of the mergers all the same. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 2, 2011; 17:42 (UTC)
 * By the way, republics of Russia needs to be merged in, too. I understand that it contains a lot more information than the corresponding articles on the oblasts/krais/etc. did, but that's only because no one ever got to expanding those to the same level of detail. If we are to have it all in one place, the republics need to be merged, too. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 2, 2011; 19:34 (UTC)

September 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 03:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

NRHP Photo Contest
Just a reminder that the WP:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Fall 2011 Photo Contest

will start on Friday, October 21.

Smallbones (talk) 01:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

2011 WikiCup participation


It was good to have you on board this time around- we hope you enjoyed the competition! In case you are interested, signups for next year are open. Thanks, J Milburn and The ed17 20:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

People's Library merge debate
Hello Reywas,

The opposition in the merge discussion is rising. Would appreciate your continued support for pro-merge. Thanks--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 16:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC))

December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 01:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2012 WikiCup
Hello, and welcome to the 2012 WikiCup! The competition officially begins at the start of 2012 (UTC) after which time you may begin to claim points. Your submission page, where you must note any content for which you wish to claim points, can be found here, and formatting instructions can be found in hidden comments on the page. A bot will then update the main table, which can be seen on the WikiCup page. The full rules for what will and will not be awarded points can be found at WikiCup/Scoring. There's also a section on that page listing the changes that have been made to the rules this year, so that experienced participants can get up-to-date in a few seconds. One point of which we must remind everyone; you may only claim points for content upon which you have done significant work, and which you have nominated, in 2012. For instance, articles written or good article reviews started in 2011 are not eligible for points.

This round will last until late February, and signups will remain open until the middle of February. If you know of anyone who may like to take part, please let them know about the comeptition; the more the merrier! At the end of this round, the top 64 scorers will progress to the next round, where their scores will reset, and they will be split into pools. Note that, by default, you have been added to our newsletter list; we will be in contact at the end of every month with news. You're welcome to remove yourself from this list if you do not wish to hear from us. Conversely, those interested in following the competition are more than welcome to add themselves to the list. Please direct any questions towards the judges, or on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn (talk) and The ed17 (talk) 17:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

United States Senate election in Missouri, 2012
Hello Reywas92. Before you possibly make a 3rd reversion of the "declined" candidates on the United States Senate election in Missouri, 2012. I urge you to discuss the issue and make your case for it on that Wiki's discussion page. Skier, myself, and a couple of other Wikipedians are the ones who do most of the work on Missouri related political Wiki's and including declined candidates -- at least until such time as filing has officially opened -- has been our standard format. Frankly, I'm surprised someone from Indiana would have such strong interest in a Missouri article. Are you "cherry picking" or can we count on you to help out with the heavy workload to come once Missouri political redistricting takes effect in January 2013? Sector001 (talk) 18:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * (posting Reywas92's reply since they saw fit not to respond here but rather on my talk page. Just so we have a public record of the exchange.) --- Really, you're critizicng me for being from Indiana yet editing a Missouri article? I am interested in all the Senate elections, and I have removed the irrelevant declined candidates from many other articles as well. If you want to keep them up until filing officially begins, fine, but I hope to see the section gone then. It's just that if someone is not runing, it's pretty damn obvious that they aren't running. They do not need to be included. If it was truly assumed, not simply widely speculated, that someone would run, but decided not to, or else said they would but changed their mind, then it could make sense. But when a local politician, under no assumption that they would run, states prompted or unprompted that they decline, it is not warranted to include them. The exception proves the rule, and when a person is not running, it would only make sense that his absense from the 'Running' section implies the same. Reywas92Talk 19:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well evidently many other Wikipedia political editors disagree with you, Reywas92. Here are a few examples created by others that do consider it noteworthy to include them: United States Senate election in Texas, 2012, United States Senate election in California, 2012, United States Senate election in Minnesota, 2012, United States House of Representatives elections in Pennsylvania, 2012. ALL of those list or make mention of the declining candidates. This seems to be a common format & style for all similar articles. But hey, I suppose you're the only one correct and the rest of us are wrong, huh? If this is such a pet peeve of yours I suggest you kick it upstairs to a Wikipedia Admin. or put it before the community as a whole for a vote or something. Sector001 (talk) 00:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 January newsletter
WikiCup 2012 is off to a flying start. At the time of writing, we have 112 contestants; comparable to last year, but slightly fewer than 2010. Signups will remain open for another week, after which time they will be closed for this year. Our currrent far-away leader is, due mostly to his work on a slew of good articles about The X-Files; there remain many such articles waiting to be reviewed at good article candidates. Second place is currently held by, whose points come mostly from good articles about television episodes, although good article reviews, did you knows and an article about a baroness round out the score. In third place is, who has scored 200 points for his work on a single featured article, as well as points for work on others, mostly in the area of pop music. In all, nine users have 100 or more points. However, at the other end of the scale, there are still dozens of participants who are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly!

The 64 highest scoring participants will advance to round 2 in a month's time. There, they will be split into eight random groups of eight. The score needed to reach the next round is not at all clear; last year, 8 points guaranteed a place. The year before, 20.

A few participants and their work warrant a mention for achieving "firsts" in this competition.
 * was the first to score, with his good article review of Illinois v. McArthur.
 * was also the first to score points for an article, thanks to his work on Hurricane Debby (1982)- now a good article. Tropical storms have featured heavily in the Cup, and good articles currently have a relatively fast turnaround time for reviews.
 * was the first to score points for a did you know, with Russian submarine K-114 Tula. Military history is another subject which has seen a lot of Cup activity.
 * is also the first person to successfully claim bonus points. Terminator 2: Judgment Day is now a good article, and was eligible for bonus points because the subject was covered on more than 20 other Wikipedias at the start of the competition. It is fantastic to see bonus points being claimed so early!
 * was the first to score points for an In the News entry, with Paedophryne amauensis. The lead image from the article was also used on the main page for a time, and it's certainly eye-catching!
 * was the first to score points for a featured article, and is, at the moment, the only competitor to claim for one. The article, "Halo" (Beyoncé Knowles song), was also worth double points because of its wide coverage. While this is an article that Jivesh and others have worked on for some time, it is undeniable that he has put considerable work into it this year, pushing it over the edge.

We are yet to see any featured lists, featured topics or good topics, but this is unsurprising; firstly, the nomination processes with each of these can take some time, and, secondly, it can take a considerable amount of time to work content to this level. In a similar vein, we have seen only one featured article. The requirement that content must have been worked on this year to be eligible means that we did not expect to see these at the start of the competition. No points have been claimed for featured portals or pictures, but these are not content types which are often claimed; the former has never made a big impact on the WikiCup, while the latter has not done so since 2009's competition.

A quick rules clarification before the regular notices: If you are concerned that another user is claiming points inappropriately, please contact a judge to take a look at the article. Competitors policing one another can create a bad atmosphere, and may lead to inconsistencies and mistakes. Rest assured that we, the judges, are making an effort to check submissions, but it is possible that we will miss something. On a loosely related note: If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance
Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this list know that it will be appearing as the main page featured list on March 5, 2012. You can view the TFL blurb at Today's featured list/March 5, 2012. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured list directors, or , or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured list. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  19:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

 

The United States has 58 protected areas known as national parks, which are operated by the National Park Service, an agency of the Department of the Interior. National parks must be established by an act of the United States Congress. The first national park, Yellowstone, was signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grant in 1872, followed by Sequoia and Yosemite in 1890. The Organic Act of 1916 created the National Park Service "to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and wildlife therein, and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations." The newest national park is Great Sand Dunes, established in 2004.

WikiCup 2012 February newsletter
Round 1 is already over! The 64 highest scorers have progressed to round 2. Our highest scorer was, again thanks mostly to a swathe of good articles on The X-Files. In second place was, thanks an impressive list of did you knows about racehorses. Both scored over 400 points. Following behind with over 300 points were, , and. February also saw the competition's first featured list: List of colleges and universities in North Dakota, from. At the other end of the scale, 11 points was enough to secure a place in this round, and some contestants with 10 points made it into the round on a tiebreaker. This is higher than the 8 points that were needed last year, but lower than the 20 points required the year before. The number of points required to progress to round 3 will be significantly higher.

The remaining contestants have been split into 8 pools of 8, named A through H. Round two will finish in two months time on 28 April, when the two highest scorers in each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers, will progress to round 3. The pools were entirely random, so while some pools may end up being more competitive than others, this is by chance rather than design.

The judges would like to point out two quick rules reminders. First, any content promoted during the interim period (that is, on or after 27 February) is eligible for points in round 2. Second, any content worked on significantly this year is eligible for points if promoted in this round. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which would otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

List of conservation issues
The Afd that you placed on List of conservation issues is incomplete. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 March newsletter
We are over half way through the second round of this year's WikiCup and things are going well! , of Pool B, is our highest overall scorer thanks to his prolific writings on television and film. In second place is Pool H's, thanks primarily to work on biological articles, especially in marine biology and herpetology. Third place goes to Pool E's, who also writes primarily on biology (including ornithology and botany) and has already submitted two featured articles this round. Of the 63 contestants remaining, 15 (just under a quarter) have over 100 points this round. However, 25 are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly. 32 contestants, the top two from each pool and the 16 next-highest scorers, will advance to round 3.

Congratulations to, whose impressive File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg became the competition's first featured picture. Also, congratulations to, who claimed good topic points, our first contestant this year to do so, for his work on Featured topics/1982 Atlantic hurricane season. This leaves featured topics and featured portals as the only sources of points not yet utilised. However, as recent statistics from show, no source has yet been utilised this competition to the same extent it has been previously!

It has been observed that the backlogs at good article candidates are building up again. While the points for good article reviews will be remaining constant, any help that can be offered keeping the backlog down would be appreciated. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Geography of Monaco
I understand where you our coming from, but there are some valuable things like the wiki box that cannot be transferred onto the main Monaco page. Furthermore every other country has its own geography page, so why should Monaco not have the right for its own. Please consider keeping this page on till I able to finish rewriting the page.B-watchmework (talk) 02:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Fort Ord National Monument
It is an interesting question as to whether Fort Ord should have two entries, one page reflecting its Army heritage and one its National Monument status. The former certainly has a long and proud history, and I can imagine that many veterans would prefer to continue to see a page dedicated primarily to that. Conversely, many visitors in the future will doubtlessly think of Fort Ord primarily as a National Monument and view its Army heritage as a part of the history of the National Monument, not a separate entity.

I thought the solution I stubbed out --- two cross-linked pages --- was a reasonable one, at least for the moment. Per your edit comment, you thought about perhaps moving the Fort Ord page to become the new Fort Ord National Monument page. Definitely an option, although I do think I'd give that some time --- there are still many living veterans that served at Fort Ord. I notice that the Fort Union primary page is its National Monument page (i.e., there's no separate Fort Union page), but a difference there is that its military history is of course much more distant. There is a separate Fort Ord Dunes State Park page however, which which seem to bolster the case for a separate National Monument page (unless you propose collapsing the state park page as well).

Bradley Betts (talk) 04:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

An article on the WikiCup in the Wikimedia Blog, "Improving Wikipedia with friendly competition", was posted at the end of April. This may be of interest to those who are signed up to this newsletter, as well as serving as another way to draw attention to our project. Also, we would again like to thank and, for continued help behind the scenes. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:United States House of Representatives elections, 2012#Thaddeus McCotter
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:United States House of Representatives elections, 2012. —GoldRingChip 20:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

"Human genetic diversity: Lewontin's fallacy" (scientific paper)
After I moved this at your request yesterday, it was pointed out that the existing title was the result of considerable talk page discussion, the point being to make clear that the emotive word "fallacy" was Edwards's, not ours. So I have moved it back. If you are concerned about it, you will have to try and achieve a new consensus on the article talk page; but I advise against that. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Getting Wikimedians to the Olympic Games
Hi. I am part of an effort to get Wikimedians access to the 2016 Summer Olympics as accredited reporters and photographers. Part of this effort includes covering the 2012 Summer Paralympics. Two Wikimedians have credentials to attend these games as reporters through Wikimedia Australia. As English Wikipedia does not allow original reporting, this is largely through Wikinews with a project page found at Wikinews:Paralympic Games. If you are interested in helping to get Wikimedians to the next Summer Olympics,I'd encourage you to assist with Wikinews efforts, and also to work on all language 2012 Summer Paralympic Wikipedia articles before, during and after the Games to demonstrate a track record of success. Thank you. --LauraHale (talk) 04:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

"Indie rock"
In the interests of a world view, I have used quotation marks with the term, "indie rock", on the Two Door Cinema Club page. However, since your query, I have also added an explanation. I think it is safe to say that many people throughout the world will not be familiar with this term. Let me know what you think, as I am always open to change.--Soulparadox (talk) 02:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Why are the quotation marks meaningless in this instance?--Soulparadox (talk) 03:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you tell me what they do mean? Are they supposed to tell me that I might not know what indie rock is? Whether or not I'm familiar with the term, I see indie rock with a link and I now see brief definition. Giving me quotation marks in no way helps me better understand the sentence. Also, the commas in your first sentence are unnecessary because indie rock is a restrictive appositive, meaning that it is integral to the sentence and non-removable. Thanks, Reywas92 Talk 03:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Happy Birthday (2012)
AFisch99 (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United States presidential election debates, 2012, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Social Security (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Changing 26th Alaska State Legislature to redirect
Why? The purpose of such an article is to chronicle that particular legislature. Plenty enough material to fill this article was originally added to other related articles, then removed when the current legislature convened. It's still there to be found in the revision history. Whoever created this article (an SPA, from the looks of it) chose the easy way out by creating a sub-stub rather than the properly-constructed article it could be, leaving it to someone like me to do the real work. As it is, "real work" for me is what pays my bills and keeps a roof over my head. I haven't had the time to do all the work I'd like to do on here, much less do everyone else's work for them. I may have started on compiling material from revision histories which is relevant to this article some while back, then abandoned it because of the time involved. Still, making this a redirect when it's a legitimate subject for an article just takes it further in the direction of "easy way out." RadioKAOS –&#32; Talk to me, Billy  02:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to recreate the article at any time. I do not believe a single sentence and a couple dates passes Wikipedia's requirements for a stand-alone article. Reywas92 Talk 04:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That smacks of "If you feel passionately about it, then you can do all the work", which to me appears to be some editors' notion of what "collaboration" is about. No wonder that it seems as if interest in actually expanding and maintaining the encyclopedia is at an all-time low.  All the material needed for this article already exists in past revisions of other articles.  WP:STLEG has demonstrated an obvious bias against anything not having to do with current state legislatures, which I view as a problem.


 * There is also the matter of nearly twenty other legislatures which require articles. The 12th Legislature is especially historically important.  If everyone is standing around waiting on me, it may be a long time if I have to worry about paying bills.  While Wikipedia may not have a time limit, many of its contributors sure do.  Free and easy access to quality source material (as opposed to what one randomly finds lying about on the web) also often comes with a time limit. RadioKAOS  –&#32; Talk to me, Billy  06:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Sandy Split
I thought the same. I'm the guy that stayed up for over 24 hours updating. I LOVE IT!!! Have been in Radio and TV for 40 years. AGREE TOTALLY... the so called split should split. Redundant...don't know where to put stuff, so info seekers can get the latest, IN ONE PLACE. Just put the link under New York or whatever and BAM your in....no info... THAT'S WHAT THE LINK IS FOR! Did I say redundant? God Bless and see what you can do to do it correctly. Ken Kennvido (talk) 18:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

charles p. white
Reywas92,

I am going to begin whatever appropriate proceedings against this page you.have created about me. It is interesting how this is a page about me yet you want not past biographical data and you reject suggestions about the fact I continue to live in Fishers. Why do you not put a pdf of the recount commission decision or the supreme court decision yet you will put up a civil that was overturned.

Most of your sources are from the same biased reporters who leave out critical facts and misstate the case law. Why are you opposed to putting in the fact that the court of appeals has remanded my case? Why are you opposed to removing a false statement that I moved out of fishers or that I was convicted also because of my "before" address on a marital application. It also surprised me that you do not want anyone else mentioned who have similar issues that the media does not want to talk about. In fact for these other people, the same reporters will either refused to write about it or again leave out critical facts to make them look better.

It is not self promotional to add in completely facts of what I did for the community. My entire life did not consist of this controversy. I am also curious why you are afraid of content about Dan Sigler, Sr. That would have put him put him in the same situation...which is one reason why he changed his voter reg between days 2 and 3 od the grand jury proceedings.

I have a right to put everything about my life in and not what you have cherry picked from a few biased reporters who have admitted to me they never read any of the controlling case law in this area. I have no idea why you guys continue to shield the pay to play republicans I fought in the past. Why would.you not want content about what I did in the gop in the past or what I did at the DNR? I guessi will be in contact more as I file a complaint about your page and how you have cherry picked facts, law and favorable rulings in the civil. I am sure you are probably one of a handful of local reporters.

charles p. white
Reywas92,

I am going to begin whatever appropriate proceedings against this page you.have created about me. It is interesting how this is a page about me yet you want not past biographical data and you reject suggestions about the fact I continue to live in Fishers. Why do you not put a pdf of the recount commission decision or the supreme court decision yet you will put up a civil that was overturned.

Most of your sources are from the same biased reporters who leave out critical facts and misstate the case law. Why are you opposed to putting in the fact that the court of appeals has remanded my case? Why are you opposed to removing a false statement that I moved out of fishers or that I was convicted also because of my "before" address on a marital application. It also surprised me that you do not want anyone else mentioned who have similar issues that the media does not want to talk about. In fact for these other people, the same reporters will either refused to write about it or again leave out critical facts to make them look better.

It is not self promotional to add in completely facts of what I did for the community. My entire life did not consist of this controversy. I am also curious why you are afraid of content about Dan Sigler, Sr. That would have put him put him in the same situation...which is one reason why he changed his voter reg between days 2 and 3 od the grand jury proceedings.

I have a right to put everything about my life in and not what you have cherry picked from a few biased reporters who have admitted to me they never read any of the controlling case law in this area. I have no idea why you guys continue to shield the pay to play republicans I fought in the past. Why would.you not want content about what I did in the gop in the past or what I did at the DNR? I guessi will be in contact more as I file a complaint about your page and how you have cherry picked facts, law and favorable rulings in the civil. I am sure you are probably one of a handful of local reporters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1008:B001:AE32:EA0B:8452:4289:70B2 (talk) 23:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

WHS lists disc.
Hey, I saw your message at User talk:HIDECCHI001, and I just wanted to let you know that I'm trying to centralise discussion here. Thanks. Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  20:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Reply
Hi Reywas. Thanks for the comment on my talk page. I don't really know what to write in the lead. Perhaps you (or Eric, or Bamse) have some suggestions?  Night w   01:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Would appreciate your input: World Heritage lists
Hi Reywas92,

I noticed that you are one of the active people on the World Heritage lists. As you may have noticed I started a discussion at the WikiProject talk page a while ago about adopting a different structure for the lists. The templated structure would allow to build upon the pages more effectively with external tools. I hope that you would be willing to give some feedback on the design and implications. You can find a sample page on My Sandbox and you will find the appropriate discussion on the talk page of the template. I look forward to your input!

Kind regards, effeietsanders 18:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

State pie and beverage
I understand that a dead link isn't necessarily grounds for removal; my point is that I can't comment on it. I've been contacted by people at the IHB via email, who have pointed out the pie and the beverage as examples of "newspaper articles that jumped the gun on these later-dead pieces of legislation". Resolutions by themselves cannot make anything official and should never be used as evidence that something is law. Nyttend (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to quote the whole letter, if for no other reason than the copyright policy on emails. Basically, my contact notes that people in the IHB office have been finding numerous inaccuracies in Indiana history and culture articles, and she mentioned the water and the pie as good examples.  She also mentions a page on their website listing state symbols (presumably this), noting that it says nothing about beverages or pies.  I've yet to see an existing reliable, published source stating that Indiana's state symbols include beverages or pies; it's original research to take something about a Senate resolution and convert that into it becoming a state symbol.  Unless you have legal sources proving that they omitted something (e.g. the holidays or the rifle, Indiana Code 1-2-13, it's not appropriate to tell the state's website that it omitted something from its official website.  Nyttend (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm the staff member at the IHB that pointed out this issue. State Emblems must be enacted into law to be "official"--once enacted into law, IHB solicits art to represent the emblem, publishes the emblems (virtually, though in years past, there was a print publication), and archives historical information about them. Senate Concurrent Resolution 0005 failed to pass both chambers, and was followed with a new single-chamber resolution, Senate Resolution 0059, which named "sugar cream pie as the unofficial state pie of Indiana." This resolution was successful, but not signed into law by the governor, so while the Senate resolved that it be so, a law did not result. The Palladium Item reporter cited covered the success of SR0005 in the Indiana Senate in January of 2009, but the article was published before the bill failed to pass the House--a concurrent resolution does not have to be signed by the governor to become a law, but it must be successful in both houses. It was 3 months later that the SR0059's first reading in the Senate was approved by voice vote, but this resolution was not signed into law by the governor, as is required of a single-chamber resolution. The Indiana Senate similarly resolved to recognize "water as the official beverage of Indiana," in SR 0020, but this resolution, too, was not signed into law. A similar situation occurred years ago with the Bison, wherein reporters editorialized about the vote as a forgone conclusion before the resolutions died in committee, and many Hoosiers mistakenly believe Indiana to have a state mammal as a result. Indiana does have an official state rifle, the John Small Rifle, which will be added to the State Emblems list once art for the emblem is complete. Perhaps the appropriate course of action, if you feel it necessary to recognize unofficial emblems alongside official ones, is to list the food as "Sugar Cream Pie (unofficial)" and cite the IN Senate Resolution rather than a news article? The Senate resolution for SR0020 (water), which could be used as a source to substantiate both the existence of the push for a state beverage and its failure to become officially recognized, is also online. Aroseformo (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

tag removal
you removed the current event tag from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI. why? he is the subject of a current event, at least until the 28th, and information is still being released. stuff IS changing fairly rapidly, but at the moment, it is waiting to see what happens regarding his status. Aunva6 (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

List_of_people_on_United_States_banknotes
I've made many of the changes (not all though) that you suggested for the list. Could you let me know if you may be willing to support it in the direction it is going? Thanks. - Godot13 (talk) 06:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I just thought I would check in and see if, in its current state, you would be willing to reconsider your opposition to the list (not suggesting support). In any event, I appreciate the feedback you provided. Thanks--Godot13 (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Sally Jewell
Carabinieri (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Winter storm naming
I just wanted to make you aware of this discussion I started at Winter storm naming. I have no intentions of making any changes to the article myself, but was just hoping to get input from editors previously involved in the article (or recently-closed AfD) in an effort to improve the article and clarify its purpose. I will leave any changes to the consensus of other editors who decide what's best. Your participation would be welcome, regardless of your views on the issue. Thank you. 76.189.111.199 (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

List of NFL tied Games FLN
 Toa   Nidhiki05  23:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Reywas92/Trivia
User:Reywas92/Trivia, 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:Reywas92/Trivia and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Reywas92/Trivia 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. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In case you're wondering how I found the page, it was by checking backlinks to Uncle John's Bathroom Reader. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

List of people on United States banknotes
Any chance you could let me know your outstanding concerns which mean you are still opposing this FLC? Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for revisiting your comments. I made changes and left a response. I changed everything except the Thanks of Congress (TOC). I understand how the other stuff falls under WP:TRIVIA. But I see the TOC differently: it directly supports at least some of the factors that were involved in their selection to appear on currency. Quoting the text also clarifies (for I believe the majority of readers) exactly what a TOC is. Is there a way we can find a middle-ground on the TOCs?--Godot13 (talk) 22:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * My thanks also for revisiting Reywas92, much appreciated. Hopefully we can make some progress here.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * All of your comments/concerns have been addressed (i.e., changed as per your specifications).--Godot13 (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Reywas92- Every edit you suggested has been made. If it is not too much trouble, could you please indicate whether you still oppose this FLC, whether you are willing to remove the oppose, or if you might consider giving support to the list. Thanks.--Godot13 (talk) 13:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Reywas92- After leaving what I believe was an apology on my talk page for “being so tough,” I attempted to contact you twice to ask you if the additional revisions I had made to the FLC were sufficient. These inquiries (spaced six weeks apart) went unanswered. When asked by TRM about your opposition to the FLC you provided a comment which included specific mention of 4 points. You did not state that these were examples of a larger issue, therefore I made the changes incorrectly interpreting your comment. In all honesty, I found your response frustrating. However, I made all the changes you suggested (the four outstanding trivia items were an oversight and have been dealt with).


 * You express concern over the fact that many of the items have been commented out and suggest that perhaps I may want to insert them in the future. You are clearly not assuming any good faith with such a statement. If I ever add a hidden or commented out fact to a list that (after community discussion and consensus) is promoted to FL, I waive any right to appeal its immediate demotion (if such a right exists). I hope you get the point.


 * In any event, I expect to be generating FLC on numismatics regularly so I hope we don’t have to go through this every time. I bent over backwards to revise issues that you alone found objectionable. While I am happy with this list, I feel its quality has suffered as a result of the changes. That you continue to object is, well, disappointing.--Godot13 (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * First, I apologize for the bad faith about commenting out. I understand that they can be helpful in developing an article. A partial reason for the delays was that I was hoping others would weigh in on the notes, whether they find them useful or irrelevant, but it appears other reviewers didn't share an opinion on them, but I was wrong not to reply to you sooner. I guess I wasn't clear enough, but the specific mention of four more points (after three examples in the original review and six examples in my first response) were indeed just examples of a larger problem I saw, as cued by the general criticism of the entire section ("Please carefully go through the article and only keep what is important to the article's topic of United States banknotes." "The notes just seem random and include little factoids rather than meaningful, relevant content." "I consider this to be a WP:TRIVIA section" "Notes in an article are...not simply miscellanea").


 * To TRM ({talkback}ed), I would be glad to see the other lists that contain trivia. None in my experience at FLC have been similar to this list. Context for a global audience is great, but that's what Wikilinks and the rest of the table, covering positions the people held, are for. I don't think the many examples I gave would be very good context for unfamiliar readers, nor are notes the best way to share such material. Perhaps Godot in this or other lists may consider highlighting people's major accomplishments in the table's body to aid understanding and reasoning for putting them on banknotes, but the notes and even TOC quotes seemed inconsequential.


 * Godot, you did do a fine job on this article, and I look forward to future lists. I love numismatics and there is so much to be said about currency (I have some older US money but I have more world notes and coins), but I hope it remains pertinant to the article's topic. Reywas92 Talk 01:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Fair enough ;-) --Godot13 (talk) 02:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Just saw the support of the FLC. Much appreciated...--Godot13 (talk) 02:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Symbols of the United States Department of the Treasury
Would you mind looking at this article (it's short) and the recent move history and let me know if you find any issue with it. I left comments on the article talk page and I'd like to know your opinion. Thanks--Godot13 (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I have done everything that you commented
I have done everything that you commented, to promote List of Academy Awards for Walt Disney, to featured list status.


 * I have changed the structure of the first paragraph in the list in a way that satisfies the first and third comments that you made.


 * Seeing your second comment, I have also added hypen in 'twenty-two'.


 * Based on your fifth comment, the sentence: "In the seven Academy Award ceremonies that followed (6th–12th), Disney consecutively earned nominations in the same category (Best Short Subject (Cartoon)), and consecutively won the Academy Award", has been changed to "In the seven Academy Award ceremonies that followed (6th–12th), Disney consecutively earned nominations and won in the same category (Best Short Subject (Cartoon))". This is what I understood that you wanted me to do.

Thank you. Surge_Elec (talk) 08:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

84th Academy Awards proofread
Can you proofread the 84th Academy Awards list? I'm trying to promote it to featured list status. I followed closely the 1st Academy Awards and 82nd Academy Awards. Leave comments here.

Thanks. Birdienest81 (talk) 14:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion notice
You participated in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people) so I thought you might want to comment at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

RFC/U on user:Arzel
You took part in a discussion that dealt with user:Arzel, which took place here. Based on that discussion, I started a WP:RFC/U, here.Casprings (talk) 03:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Proxy error

 * I can't see any block on account or IP. Can you try editing again? Peridon (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure there's a block on the IP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BlockList?wpTarget=137.132.250.13&limit=50 --jpgordon:==( o ) 22:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It should be possible to give you IP Block Exemption, but I am just checking with the blocking admin first. JohnCD (talk) 09:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

My IP address must have changed yesterday so I could edit then, but I am back on this blocked one. Can I get an exemption thing please? Thanks! Reywas92 Talk 08:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

IP block exempt
I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions.

Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this newly-granted right to edit Wikipedia via anonymous proxies, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a serious concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator.

Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires).

I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. JohnCD (talk) 09:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC) JohnCD (talk) 09:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Haze
Hi Reywas92, regarding the 2 haze articles, perhaps I will try to shorten the one on the S.E.A article then restore the Singapore article. This haze is the worst in Singapore so far, so I think it really deserves an article. Yienshawn would also not have created the article for nothing. Cheers. Arctic Kangaroo (  ✉  •  ✎  ) 08:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Arctic Kangaroo: I think it's quite likely that Yienshawn did not know that the SEA article already existed. What is the purpose of having a short article on the SEA haze and a separate article on the subset of that same haze in Singapore, when a single article can still perfectly cover the entire topic? The haze has set a record and does deserve an article, but the particulate matter in SG is no different than that in JB or Riau across the straits so it should all be covered in the same article. Thanks, Reywas92 <b style="color:#45E03A;">Talk</b> 08:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, you are invited to participate in the discussion here. Thanks. Arctic Kangaroo  (  ✉  •  ✎  ) 09:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

And based on your current editing times, are you in Singapore right now? I would like to know so that I can expect what time you will reply to a discussion etc. Thanks. Arctic Kangaroo (  ✉  •  ✎  ) 09:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, trying to stay indoors ;). Reywas92 <b style="color:#45E03A;">Talk</b> 09:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * For work or as an expat? Arctic Kangaroo  (  ✉  •  ✎  ) 09:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Studying at NUS for the semester. Reywas92 <b style="color:#45E03A;">Talk</b> 09:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok. Arctic Kangaroo  (  ✉  •  ✎  ) 09:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

BTW, I have updated your userpage. Hope you don't mind. Arctic Kangaroo (  ✉  •  ✎  ) 09:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Arctic Kangaroo (  ✉  •  ✎  ) 01:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

FLC lands at AfD today
Hi Reywas92- Somehow my FLC nomination has today wound up at AfD with some comments on the list talk page. Is anything in addition to my response that I should do? Many thanks.--Godot13 (talk) 19:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

your recent edit to United States National Park Service
One example of a non-US "National Park Service" can be found in the "Nigeria National Park Service." I renamed the US article because the phrase "national park service" is very generic and can apply to other nations besides the USA. Also the main national park article is international in scope. M2545 (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Technically, you have a point. But in the larger view, Wikipedia has been criticized for its geographic imbalance. One way to correct the USA-centric bias is to name articles to reflect USA's position as one country among many with "national" institutions. M2545 (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a Disambiguation page would help. A quick search for the phrase "national park service" in en.WP yields articles that refer to non-US countries' national park services:
 * Germany: Königsstuhl National Park Centre
 * Sweden: List of national parks of Sweden
 * Korea: National parks of South Korea
 * Ecuador: Galápagos National Park
 * Nigeria: List of national parks of Nigeria
 * Canada: List of National Parks of Canada

Also perhaps the USA article could be renamed "National Park Service (United States)" to specify its country of origin. Your thoughts? M2545 (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to create a dab page, but do not move the NPS article. Canada's national parks are run by Parks Canada, Sweden's by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, and Germany's by the National Office for Nature Protection. The website for the Galapagos is run by the 'Directorate of the Galapagos National Park' but no Service, so I believe the article has misnamed who manages the park. Nigeria and Korea both include the country name as part of their official names, but yes, the similarity may be enough for a hatnote or dab page. Reywas92 <b style="color:#45E03A;">Talk</b> 17:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/List of states and territories of the United States/archive1
Thanks for you comment; I have responded to all of the issues you listed.  Toa   Nidhiki05  15:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

2000 Oscars
Hi,

I fixed everything you asked for regarding the 72nd Academy Awards for Featured List status.
 * -Birdienest81 (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities/archive1
Hi Reywas92- When you have a moment, could you please let me know if you have any additional comments or suggestions. Many thanks--Godot13 (talk) 13:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012
The standard format for electiosn articles is to keep both persons who run, and those that declined, as long as it is sourceable. Bearian (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

524 BC
Hey, just wanted to apologize for the disrespect I showed you when editing this year. I could have undone your version of the page in a less disrespectful way. Bananapeel89 (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)Bananapeel89Bananapeel89 (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/List of Florida state parks/archive1
Thanks for your interest. I just returned from a two-week vacation and I'm slammed at work. I hope to catch up by the end of this week, which will allow me to return to Wiki. Mgrē@sŏn ( Talk ) 14:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

62nd Oscars
Hi there.

I was wondering if you will be could proofread: Featured list candidates/62nd Academy Awards/archive1. Please note that because of some limitations on older Oscar ceremonies, this list follows the 1st Academy Awards format done by User:Tbhotch rather than others such like the 82nd Academy Awards and such. I would be grateful for the extra help and support. Thanks.
 * –Birdienest81 (talk) 18:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Give comments
If you are interested, would you be able to give comments on my FLC? I approach you because of the comments you to Birdinest81 and was wondering you could do the same forme. — SoapFan12 (talk,  contribs ) 10:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I have replied to you're comments, would you please responded when you have a chance? Thanks again for comments! — SoapFan12 (talk,   contribs ) 19:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

62nd Oscars
I fixed everything you listed regarding Featured list candidates/62nd Academy Awards/archive1. Thank you for your help!
 * -Birdienest81 (talk) 14:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Fractional currency
Hi Reywas92- I wonder if you could have a quick look at this list article. I revamped and significantly expanded and existing article, made it into a list, and would like to bring it to FLC. I don't feel right changing the existing "start-class" to "list-class" (doing a self-assessment). If you have no objection, would you mind? Many thanks-Godot13 (talk) 23:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated, thanks!-Godot13 (talk) 13:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Respond to comments
Hey, it has been a week you have not respond to my FLC. I was wondering if you could comeback ASAP. — SoapFan12 (talk,  contribs ) 11:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

64th Oscars
Hi there.

I was wondering if you will be could proofread: Featured list candidates/64th Academy Awards/archive1. I understand your busy schedule (I usually wait ten days until I ask you a request), but I would be grateful for the extra help and support. Thanks.
 * -Birdienest81 (talk) 17:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

68th Oscars (1996)
Hi, I was hoping if you can give me opinions and comments on Featured list candidates/68th Academy Awards/archive1 as you have done for my other Oscar ceremonies? I would like to receive feedback so I could make necessary improvements. If no problems, would you please lend me your support? It will be greatly appreciated! Regards.
 * --Birdienest81 (talk) 07:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

RE:68th Oscars (1996)
I fixed everything you listed regarding Featured list candidates/68th Academy Awards/archive1. Thank you for your help!
 * --Birdienest81 (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of national mottos, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chinese (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Fractional currency
Hi Reywas92- If you have the time, I would appreciate your comments (positive and negative) about the FLC I have nominated. Thanks-Godot13 (talk) 20:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Your comments are much appreciated. I have made the changes you indicated. Thanks-Godot13 (talk) 04:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Your reversion of my edits at List of federal judges appointed by Barack Obama
Please explain why you reverted my edits at List of federal judges appointed by Barack Obama. I have restored my edits there. Those edits were all quite valid and you gave no reason for reverting them. In the future, at the very least you should note in the edit summary why you are reverting someone. Safiel (talk) 14:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Safiel: I apologize, I admit I honestly have no idea why I reverted that; I must have clicked rv on accident when opening the page to view changes (and hoping the Senate will get its act together and confirm some more). Thanks for keeping the article up to date! Reywas92 <b style="color:#45E03A;">Talk</b> 07:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

61st Oscars (1989)
Hi, I was hoping if you can give me opinions and comments on Featured list candidates/61st Academy Awards/archive1 as you have done for my other Oscar ceremonies? I would like to receive feedback so I could make necessary improvements. Thanks. --Birdienest81 (talk) 06:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

61st Oscars
Hi there,

I adressed your concerns regarding Featured list candidates/61st Academy Awards/archive1 and I made some corrections.
 * --Birdienest81 (talk) 03:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Something is wrong with the Andersonville article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andersonville_Prison

What is wrong with this? All of the sections has been moved to the right instead of in the middle.XXzoonamiXX (talk) 07:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/List of currencies in Europe/archive1
Hi, I left you a question there. Thanks, Mat  ty. 007 15:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

68th Oscars
Hi there,

I adressed your concerns regarding Featured list candidates/68th Academy Awards/archive1 and I made some corrections.

BTW, I agree with you on Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Drama Series Writing Team. Aside from the table, the looks kinda bare and the winners are incomplete. Also, where are the references to the notes?
 * --Birdienest81 (talk) 03:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Fractional currency set FPC
The images from the FLC Fractional currency have been nominated as a Featured Picture Set on English Wikipedia. As you were involved in reviewing the FLC, you may or may not wish to comment or review the FPC. Thank you.-Godot13 (talk) 06:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Apologize and Favor
Hey, remember me? The nominator of Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Drama Series Writing Team. I want to apologize for being rude from a start. The reason why I kept fighting back is I did not understand what you wanted me to do, so I got someone to do it for me. I am just missing the writers names, which by the way can you help me with that, so it could go a bit faster? Again, I apologize. :( — SoapFan12 (talk,   contribs ) 14:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)