User talk:Richwales/Archives/2012-10

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ceviche
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ceviche. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 16:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka
I have comment to your post on Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka. Can you please show How some one can write Pentagon should accept Obama's requests over Rachiels requests in a wiki page ? --Himesh84 (talk) 12:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I posted a comment on this issue on the article's talk page (see [ here]). —  Rich wales 17:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

would you mind if I nominated United States v. Wong Kim Ark for the main page?
Hi,

I'm new at this, but I think it's a fine article and would like to nominated it for the main page. What do you think?

Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 18:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the compliment. :-) In principle, I'd love to see Wong Kim Ark make WP:TFA someday.  I'm not really familiar with the process (either?), but as I look at the scoring criteria at WP:TFAR, it seems this article would probably get about 2 (maybe 3) points on the scale.  If I (the primary contributor to the article) were to make the request, I think that could give it one additional point.  Would you like me to be the one to nominate it, in order to give it the extra point?  —  Rich wales 18:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * great! Below I've copied a sample nomination that you can use if you want. I think Wong Kin Ark makes a nice variation from the usual main page, plus citizenship is an issue in the upcoming US election. Plus the US Supreme Court is currently in session! MathewTownsend (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

 United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that virtually everyone born in the United States is a U.S. citizen. This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Wong Kim Ark, who was born in the United States to Chinese parents around 1871, had been denied re-entry to the U.S. after a trip abroad, under a law restricting Chinese immigration that prohibited immigrants from China from becoming naturalized U.S. citizens. He challenged the government's refusal to recognize his citizenship, and the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, holding that the citizenship language in the Fourteenth Amendment encompassed essentially everyone born in the U.S.—even the U.S.-born children of foreigners. (more...)


 * Thanks. I'll take a closer look at this when I get home from work tonight.  One thing that occurred to me right away was that instead of the SCOTUS seal, a photo of Wong Kim Ark himself might be more appropriate.  —  Rich wales 19:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * That's a good idea. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Guess we missed our chance, as the queue has filled up again. Too bad. It would've been a good one! Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 00:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. OK, well, I'll keep an eye on it now, and I'll also work on getting up to speed on the process.  Thanks for the suggestion/encouragement.  —  Rich wales 00:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've substituted the photo as previously discussed. I also verified that the blurb (including all markup) is 1,183 bytes long (so under the limit).  I'll keep an eye on the request queue and be ready to nominate this as soon as a space opens up.  I calculate 2 points for no similar article in 6+ months, plus 1 point for a significant contributor's first TFA, for a total of 3 points.  —  Rich wales 04:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding possibly similar articles, Smith Act trials of Communist Party leaders was TFA on August 20, and Mumia Abu-Jamal was TFA on July 11, but I think it would be stretching things to say these other US law cases are "similar" to Wong Kim Ark. What do you think?  —  Rich wales 05:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I nominated Wong Kim Ark last night. One of the "nonspecific date" nominations had failed (per the rules), and I replaced it.  —  Rich wales 01:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Coming soon, Today's featured article/October 19, 2012 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Wonderful! MathewTownsend (talk) 13:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think your change to the blurb is fine. I made sure the blurb was within the character limits (the important thing). We're all sort of winging it. The size is right and making the birth place more specific is fine. Only the two delegates, Raul and Dabomb87 have any final say in the matter! And Dabomb87 chose it. So all's ok. Best wishes and congratulations.  MathewTownsend (talk) 22:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
WhiteWriterspeaks 16:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. In my opinion, this issue has been [ adequately covered], and there is no need for my further participation.  —  Rich wales 21:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Congrats on the TFA!
Really nice work... it's great to see a well-written legal article on the main page, and as Matthew pointed out, it's very timely. Keep up the great work. Cheers, Lemurbaby (talk) 03:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

You statement at arbitration
The SPI is being done off wiki as this particular master is highly proficent at evading detection. That is all I am willing to say on the matter. Darkness Shines (talk) 04:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

SPI help?
(copied from talk page of Timotheus Canens)

Hi. I was wondering if there might be some way I could get involved in the SPI process. I've skimmed through WP:SPI/C. I hope I'm not getting in over my head by asking about this. :-) —  Rich wales 06:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * We should be taking on a batch of new trainee clerks pretty soon. Feel free to post on WP:SPI/CN if you are interested. T. Canens (talk) 00:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)