User talk:SquidSK/Archive 2

Disruptive edits?
I fail to see how my edits are disruptive but someone else's edits which are exactly the same are not disruptive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajna01 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In reply to your reply on my talk page, I understand maybe, but I don't get how someone else can make articles that have the same concept as mine (finding links) and not get their articles deleted. Also, I assume that I can delete the "speedy deletion nomination" notices on my talk page once the article in question has been deleted or someone decides to keep the article? Or do I have to keep them there? Ajna01 (talk) 22:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I know for a fact that around a month ago, there was a user who had a concept similar to mine in which you click on links, it had been around for some time and no-one had wanted for it to be deleted. Maybe it has been deleted now, I'm not sure. It doesn't help that I can't remember the user's name. Can I at least have a hidden page? This page is a hidden page, and checking through the history, it has not been nominated for deletion at all. Ajna01 (talk) 22:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: The Userpage Shield
Thanks! Always happy to help. --Rrburke(talk) 16:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

'N Sync
Check it out, Squid--we are in sync! Drmies (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Your revert
Hey. I noticed your revert to Dhx advertising. Although the user blanked the page, it was not vandalism. The reason why it is not vandalism is because that user was the main author of the page. For future instances where this happens, place a CSD G7 tag (in this case  on the page instead. --Addihockey (t/c) 01:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but usually when the author blanks the page it means that they achknowledge that the page isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. Blanking the page is their way of "deleting" it. Keep up the good anti-vandalism work! Just a tip, I urge you to consider applying for rollback. --Addihockey (t/c) 01:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the  rollback  you see in the recent changes isn't the "actual" rollback. It's the Twinkle version. The version of rollback I'm refering to is the one that looks like this : [ rollback ]. It reverts vandalism in a single click. You can also use a vandalism detection tool called Huggle. You need the Wikipedia rollback to use it though. You may apply for the Wikipedia rollback here. If you are confused with this message, leave me a message on my talk page again :P I can be confusing at times. --Addihockey (t/c) 01:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

RE: Rollback rights request
✅ -- No problem. You've shown a long history of constructive edits and have my support. Best of luck and happy editing. If you have any questions feel free to ask me. --Merovingian (T, C, L) 01:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Congrats on the request. Now I strongly urge you to download WP:Huggle and use your rollback abilities to the best of your abilities! Make sure to read the manual on how Huggle works first :) --Addihockey (t/c) 01:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Help
Hello, im new to wikipedia and i will delete that Devils Rejects (band) page but how do i do that?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megabar09 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah the bands name is Devils Rejects not Devil's Rejects. We have undergroud success in Farsley and Pudsey in Leeds but i guess that doesnt really count? Megabar09 (talk) 15:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Re:Carol clause
Oops! I'm sorry! Either way, I shouldn't have CSD'd it, the redirect was the right thing to do. My bad. I hope I didn't cause too much trouble for you. A little insignificant Bloated on candy 18:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ooh, you little... insignificant... oh bugger...  Blarg. Anyways, bye!  A little insignificant Bloated on candy 18:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Geeza, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Wikiscient 18:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies -- meant to hit "the bad guys" lol ;) (though with this page, it looks like it's ALL vandalism...!) Wikiscient  18:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

BLP blanking
Hello SquidSK. I feel compelled to point out this edit, which restored some seriously dodgy content. If you see a new editor blanking a BLP, please take extra care with reversions. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 03:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleting my Wik page
Dear Petty Officer SK,

Thank you for noticing my comment. I have posted several comments on the talk pages of the other Wik administrators who have joined the discussing page on deleting my Wik page entry. If you have such power, please go ahead and deleted my Wik page. My ex-girlfriend as you have read in my comment is waging war on me these days (we haven't been together for TWENTY YEARS) and I have no idea why. But these things happen and unfortunately she is very jealous and bitter even after two decades and there is nothing I can do about her and even my lawyer says there is very little he can do at this stage unless she kills my dog or something fatal attractionish.

So if you can help speed the removal of my Wik page entry I would be very grateful. Best regards,

Harold von KurskBigYalie (talk) 06:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome. For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 08:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Oooh, thanks!
... for the Barnstar - my first. I shall glue it onto my main user page, I believe that's the normal thing to do. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Wellcome Trust Centre
Yeah, that article was borderline. To me, the burden of proof is on the article creator to present a clear assertion of notability. That's why I left the OE the talk message I did: create the article again, but make it clear how it's a notable organization and where I can verify that.

I'd restore it, but I don't think anything's gained by using that stub of the article. —C.Fred (talk) 15:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I've got a draft of the article going right now. *pause* Under GFDL, I have to acknowledge the original editor for the idea that got me on the track. I'm restoring and tagging . —C.Fred (talk) 15:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It's up and set free on the world. :) I have fixed the title to Wellcome Trust Centre for Stem Cell Research, and I've got it on my watchlist. —C.Fred (talk) 15:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Please Assume Good Faith
this warning did not assume good faith. Just because he/she was unaware of the template, does not mean that their edits were vandalism. Please have a bit more care when you hit the "revert and warn" button instead of taking the time to explain the problem. Tim1357 (talk) 03:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Kirsty Louise Hargreave
Hi, SquidSk. You tagged Kirsty Louise Hargreave as db-bio. While this criterion is correct, a better tag would be db-attack. The information in the article contained many attacks on this individual and was a massive WP:BLP violation. A db-attack would expedite the process of deleting the article. This is just a friendly note. Thank you for speedy tagging! Best, Cunard (talk) 21:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Armorial of the communes of calvados
Just so you know... I speedily deleted it under the A2 criterion. Lady of  Shalott  19:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

From Beetle Nut
Thanks for your email SquidSK!

I will try my best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beetlenut (talk • contribs) 21:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

db-g7
Hi SquidSK! Another user just told me that if the user who made a page deletes its content, you should tag the page with, not tag it for deletion, and bring back the original content. *Pepper piggle*  *Sign!*  21:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

vandalism?
I reverted Daniel Tosh's page back to how it was prevandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cubsbz (talk • contribs) 20:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

how...
was that not constructive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cubsbz (talk • contribs) 20:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

chateau marsyas
Hi, Does the same apply to Chateau Musar and Ksara, other two wineries in Lebanon? As for Chateau Marsyas, should we look for other references such as Decanter's for example? thanks Fanitimers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanitimers (talk • contribs) 21:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

hi,

My best friend has struggled to accept it as a page on me in Wikipedia. If it's a problem or if it does not conform, I agree you throw this article. I understand. Best regards

Jeylina —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeylina (talk • contribs) 19:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"Ho Ho Ho (film)" page marked for deletion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ho_Ho_Ho_(film)

The page for "Ho Ho Ho (film)" has been marked for deletion and I just want to know under what circumstances is it possible for the film to have a wikipedia page. What other info should I add? —Preceding unsigned comment added by George Lupeanu (talk • contribs) 15:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Interviews: 3 questions
You deleted my addition to the interview page. Why? Over the past several years I've had a large number of people tell me it's the best framework they've used and that they've found it to be extraordinarily helpful. Here's the quote:
 * In some ways, all questions in any interview are really subsets of one of three questions: 1) Can you do the job? (Strengths); 2) Will you love the job? (Motivation); 3) Will we work well together? (Fit). Given this, candidates for interviews can likely do a better job of presenting themselves if they think through answers to those questions in advance - and use their own questions to reinforce the same points.

Let me know Gbradt (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Telefonica Multinational Solutions
Hi

I have created a page for Telefonica Multinational Solutions - this mirrors services pages that exist on Wikipedia for BT and Verizon etc, who also have stand-alone pages for their corporate divisions.

Can you confirm why you continue to delete this page and re-direct to the corporate stand-alone page?

Thanks Brian —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian.latham (talk • contribs) 14:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

You're in the States 'Squid'. Mind your own business. And don't try to define what a notable author is. Mr Lodato is based in London, Uk. Accordingly, I would prefer it if somebody Uk based were to contest the veritability of this article. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pegasuspublishers (talk • contribs) 16:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Gibraltar Airport time-lapse panorama
I saw your comment on the featured picture candidate page and wanted to let you know that I have added some more information to the. The software I used is PanoramaStudio by a German developer. --xGCU NervousEnergy 01:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: 2009 North American Under 21 World Qualifier
Hello SquidSK, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of 2009 North American Under 21 World Qualifier - a page you tagged - because: '''Context seems pretty clear to me. .''' Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Ged UK  11:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: 2009 AMA National Speedway Championship
Hello SquidSK, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of 2009 AMA National Speedway Championship - a page you tagged - because: context is clear in the title. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Ged UK  12:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi! I'm glad you know what these things are, but I've looked at them for a few minutes each, and even gotten my wife to look, and we have no idea what they are.  The AMA?  American Medical Association?  Academy of Model Aeronautics?  It seems to be a race of some sort, but what kind?  Motorcycles?  Hot rods?  Shouldn't an article be able to sufficiently identify its subject to someone who is not a fan or enthusiast of the subject?  --SquidSK (1MC•log) 02:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Town Idiot25
Town Idiot25 is my Bro, and I made the article for him. I think he deserves having the article. Its not something about myself. Ben Ginsburg (talk) 03:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
&mdash;ShadowRanger (talk 21:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

AFD of Chateau Marsyas
I tagged the article Chateau Marsyas for CSD A7. I'm not too experienced with AfD so hopefully this will not interfere with everything too much. Thought I would let you know about my action.  Smithers   (Talk)   02:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Sy Smith
Thank You! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sysmithfan (talk • contribs) 16:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Adding unrefBLP template
Thanks for catching and fixing that! [Belinrahs|talktome⁄ ididit] 17:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Self-blanking
When the creator of an article blanks the page he created (usually, in response to a CSD nom), you don't have to revert the blanking as vandalism. Rather, you probably should just re-tag it with, per WP:G7. Cheers! --SquidSK (1MC•log) 18:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed that he created it. LeilaniLad (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I would indeed appear to be out of practice, pulling it back a gear. Thanks for the heads up. LeilaniLad (talk) 18:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Coal Porters article
Hi, perhaps you can help me. I have just posted an article for the first time, and now it is coming up with various error messages and question about a possible conflict of interest. I haven't a clue how to correct the errors or sort out the conflict of interest. The article is on a London-based music group, the Coal Porters, and I am a music journalist in Southern California. I suspect the question of conflict of interest arises from the fact when I established a log-in to Wikipedia, I followed an old newspaper habit of using a story slug as a sign-on. I called myself Coalporters. It didn't dawn on me that someone might think I'm connected to the band. When I realized that this morning, I put in for a change of user sign-on (to billwasser), but I'm not sure I did it correctly or when it will take effect. Anyway, any advice you can give me on sorting out the error messages and clearing myself of conflict of interest will be appreciated. Coalporters (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

inre Articles for deletion/Ho Ho Ho (film)
I have made improvements and added a few citations to the article Ho Ho Ho (film). Perhaps you might revisit your nomination? Thanks,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Coal Porters Article
Thanks for sorting me out on the Coal Porters piece. I'm glad you enjoyed the LEO citation. My wife grew up in Kentucky (Ashland area), so I see some KY pubs courtesy of her relatives. (We're in California.) I did put in for a user name change, and if I did it correctly I should be billwasser soon. All the best, Bill —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coalporters (talk • contribs) 21:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Colin Evans Article
Hi,

Thanks for your help. Can you explain the problem with the article, it was my first, so realise I might have messed something up.

Thanks Bangui (talk) 01:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

Please take a look at those changes I have made, see what you think.

ThanksBangui (talk) 02:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Totally new to this. I'm the marketing director for Waldron Mercy Academy. What other citations do I need? Trishlockett (talk) 20:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
Thank you for your comments on my talk page. I have read the section on 'Conflicts of Interest' and will henceforth no longer make any further edits to the page in question, as you suggest. Best wishes. Strawfair (talk) 14:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Question for administrator
adminhelp I'd like to request that Forecastle Festival be un-salted. I'm not sure of the circumstances of the original salting, but I have created Forecastle (festival), and would like to move it to the correct namespace. (I didn't create it at Forecastle (festival) to get around the salting - I was going with that as the official title until I got some clarification.) Thanks! --SquidSK (1MC•log) 14:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC) SquidSK (1MC•log) 14:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's done. It was protected in 2007 because a user had created it as a blatant spam ad multiple times (and it was clearly a copyvio also, though that wasn't placed in the deletion rationale). Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way I just cleaned up the article's references; just note that the parameter accessdate has no space in it and breaks if placed as "access date", Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Anytime!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Leonard Hokanson photo
Hi. I believe the photo you questioned is in the public domain, since it's been around a long time and is used on record jackets, concert programs, etc. But I have written to Hokanson's widow to learn its status conclusively and will provide that info when I get it. Chemyanda (talk) 21:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Chemyanda

Your request has been posted
Hi Squid - Your request that I post the link you had suggested for all marketing/communications people has been done. It's on the Ning of a school group we all belong to. Hopefully they'll learn from my battle scars. :-) Thanks again for your guidance and I'll keep working! By the way, Kentucky's a great place. My husband's family is from Murray, so we make a trip almost every year. Trishlockett (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Forecastle Festival
Hello! Your submission of Forecastle Festival at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!  Jolly  Ω   Janner  20:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

New Page CSD's - Friendly Note
Hey there,

Just a friendly side note, when tagging new pages with CSD's or what not, it would be helpful to other new page patrollers if you could mark pages as patrolled. My apologies if this is not the case, and you already do so. Keep up the great work!

PoinDexta1 |  Talk to Me  13:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That is probably the case. My apologies to you, I assumed you were a regular NPP. PoinDexta1  |  Talk to Me  13:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent; it's great to see some good ol' patrollers on the beat. =] PoinDexta1  |  Talk to Me  13:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Diwe = Daeva?
Were you able to get confirmation that they are indeed the same? Lady of  Shalott  14:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I put notes on several project talk pages, and finally got a response here . It's just one editor, but it was enough for me to be bold. I'm open to reverting it if a sourced objection is put forward.  --SquidSK (1MC•log) 15:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah good, at least you got some kind of response finally. Lady  of  Shalott  15:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Smart Alec books
I noticed you nominated this page for PROD saying that it doesnt fulfill the requirements of WP:NB. But this isn't really a book, it's a distributor. Also, I note that it says in section 6 of that page that "notability should rely on whether it is published by an academic press". On their home page they show that they have some books that are published by McGraw Hill, which is surely a well-known publisher. However it still isn't on the list of university book publishers given on the NB page, perhaps because that page doesn't deal much with grade-school level books. What is your advice? Do you think the page passes notability requirements after all? -- Soap Talk/Contributions 18:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Atlantic-acm
Hello SquidSK, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Atlantic-acm - a page you tagged - because: '''There are a lot of sources that refer to this company, if only briefly. Enough to assert notability. PROD or take to AfD.''' Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Ged UK  13:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Spam
This user is making a huge volume of small changes that are clogging up the recent changes list. I've warned him and asked him to stop, but that has had little effect. Could someone please give him a friendly nudge? --SquidSK (1MC•log) 11:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nudge applied. GARDEN  11:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And blocked. Thanks for the heads-up!  GARDEN  11:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Andrew Phillips (musician)
Hello SquidSK, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Andrew Phillips (musician) - a page you tagged - because: '''Lead singer of band with its own article is credible assertion of notability. PROD or take to AfD if required.''' Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Ged UK  13:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

David Scott Stober
Hello, thanks for your note. I re-checked the criteria for speedy deletion page and it does say "The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible" under A7 so in accordance to this I felt A7 still applied as of course the claim for notability wasn't in the least bit credible. miss r a i n(talk) 18:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, details are very important in a place such as this :P miss r a i n(talk) 18:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Kyūjūkyū Kakun
You beat me to it! See Talk:Kyūjūkyū Kakun. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Fukuoka junior high school attached to Fukuoka University of Education
Hello SquidSK, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Fukuoka junior high school attached to Fukuoka University of Education - a page you tagged - because: Schools are not eligible for deletion under A7 as stated on the template. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Nancy talk  16:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Henry Clay
I'm new to Wikipedia. If I neglected to thank you for those links you sent me, I'd like to express my thanks now. You offered to help me, so if you don't mind, I have a brief question. I've been fixing the the article on Henry Clay and am having trouble with the "office held" boxes. I'm pretty sure I've correctly fixed them, but for some reason, his first term as a congressman, representing the 5th district of Kentucky between 1811 and 1813, won't show up, even though it's coded identically to all the other offices that do. Additionally, if you have time to provide me some input on the changes I've made, that would also be great.

Again, thanks for the help early on, and if you could give Henry Clay a quick glance, especially his first term as a congressman, that would be great.

In.Lumine.Tuo.Videbimus.Lumen 19:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Immune Network Theory
Hi SquidSK,

Thanks for taking notice... I was actually was sitting next to the author as he was typing it up tonight, so it would surprise me a lot if it really does violate copy write.

Perhaps a very small section or couple of phrases do?

Could you tell us which part and we can edit?

As Network Theory is fundamental to the field of Adaptive Immunity, may I ask how we can publish this information best?

Thank you!

George

Jorgito79 (talk) 09:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Immune Network Theory
To my knowledge none of the material is from a published journal article. I witnessed the author write the entire article himself this evening. However I will ask the author (who is also my co-worker; and is an immunologist himself) if he did indeed take any sections out of any previously published material and ask him to remove those sections accordingly, if they are indeed in there.

Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorgito79 (talk • contribs) 10:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Yas logo.JPG
 Thanks for uploading File:Yas logo.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 06:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The 2010 WikiCup begins tomorrow!
Welcome to the biggest WikiCup Wikipedia has yet seen! Round one will take place over two months, and finish on February 26. There is only one pool, and the top 64 will progress. The competition will be tough, as more than half of the current competitors will not make it to round 2. Details about scoring have been finalized and are explained at WikiCup/Scoring. Please make sure you're familiar with the scoring rules, because any submissions made that violate these rules will be removed. Like always, the judges can be reached through the WikiCup talk pages, on their talk page, or over IRC with any issues concerning anything tied to the Cup. We will keep in contact with you via weekly newsletters; if you do not want to receive them, please remove yourself from the list here. Conversely, if a non-WikiCup participant wishes to receive the newsletters, they may add themselves to that list. Well, enough talk- get writing! Your submission's page is located here. Details on how to submit your content is located here, so be sure to check that out! Once content has been recognized, it can be added to your submissions page, from which our bot will update the main score table. Remember that only articles worked on and nominated during the competition are eligible for points. Have fun, and good luck! Garden, iMatthew, J Milburn, and The ed17 19:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Delta Chi Chapter of Delta Kappa Epsilon
I think you pasted the wrong link into the CSD - the link was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Chi_Chapter_of_Delta_Kappa_Epsilon#DKE_Depository (which is part of the same page), when I think it should have been http://dspace.library.cornell.edu:8080/bitstream/1813/3931/1/DX%20Handbook%202006.pdf. Anyway I deleted it.  Ron h jones (Talk) 22:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 January newsletter
We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. We've had some shakeups regarding late entries, flag changes and early dropouts, but the competition is now established- there will be no more flag changes or new competitors. Congratulations to, our current leader, who, at the time of writing, has more listed points than and   (second and third place respectively) combined. A special well done also goes to - his artcle Jewel Box (St. Louis, Missouri) was the first content to score points in the competition.

Around half of competitors are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. 64 of the 149 current competitors will advance to round 2- if you currently have no points, do not worry, as over half of the current top 64 have under 50 points. Everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places in round 2! 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, by email or on IRC. Good luck! J Milburn, Garden, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
An article that you have been involved in editing, Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Avic enna  sis  12:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 February newsletter
Round one is over, and round two has begun! Congratulations to the 64 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our first round. A special well done goes to, our round one winner (1010 points), and to and , who were second and third respectively (640 points/605 points). Sasata was awarded the most points for both good articles (300 points) and featured articles (600 points), and TonyTheTiger was awarded the most for featured topics (225 points), while Hunter Kahn claimed the most for good topics (70). claimed the most featured lists (240 points) and featured pictures (35 points), claimed the most for Did you know? entries (490 points),  claimed the most for featured sounds (70 points) and  claimed the most for In the news entries (40 points). No one claimed a featured portal or valued picture.

Credits awarded after the end of round one but before round two may be claimed in round two, but remember the rule that content must have been worked on in some significant way during 2010 by you for you to claim points. The groups for round two will be placed up shortly, and the submissions' pages will be blanked. This round will continue until 28 April, when the top two users from each group, as well as 16 wildcards, will progress to round three. 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; thank you to all doing this last round, and particularly to those helping at WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. 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, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 March newsletter
We're half way through round two, and everything is running smoothly. leads overall with 650 points this round, and heads pool B. currently leads pool C, dubbed the "Group of Death", which has a only a single contestant yet to score this round (the fewest of any group), as well five contestants over 100 points (the most). With a month still to go, as well as 16 wildcard places, everything is still to play for. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Although unrelated to the WikiCup, April sees a Good Article Nominations backlog elimination drive, formulated as a friendly competition with small awards, as the Cup is. Several WikiCup contestants and judges have already signed up, but regular reviewers and those who hope to do more reviewing are more than welcome to join at the drive page. 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, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) 22:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Patrolling Help.
Please tell me how to do rc patrol. Kiko4564 (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 April newsletter
Round two is over, and we are down to our final 32. For anyone interested in the final standings (though not arranged by group) this page has been compiled. Congratulations to, our clear overall round winner, and to and , who were solidly second and third respectively. There were a good number of high scorers this round- competition was certainly tough! Round three begins tomorrow, but anything promoted after the end of round two is eligible for points. 16 contestants (eight pool leaders and eight wildcards) will progress to round four in two months- things are really starting to get competitive. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Judge iMatthew has retired from Wikipedia, and we wish him the best. The competition has been ticking over well with minimal need for judge intervention, so thank you to everyone making that possible. A special thank you goes to participants and  for their help in preparing for round three. Good luck everyone! 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, Fox and The ed17 17:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 May newsletter
We are half way through round 3, with a little under a month to go. The current overall leader is, who has 570 points. He leads pool C. Pools A, B and D are led by, and  respectively. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Two of last year's final 8, and, have dropped out of the competition, saying they would rather their place went to someone who will have more time on their hands than them next round. On a related note, a special thank you goes to for his help behind the scenes once again. There is currently a problem with the poster, perhaps caused by the new skin- take a look at this discussion and see if you can help. The competition has continued to tick over well with minimal need for judge intervention, so thank you to everyone making that possible. Good luck to all! 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, Fox and The ed17 20:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 July newsletter
We are half-way through our penultimate round, and nothing is yet certain. Pool A, currently led by has ended up the more competitive, with three contestants (,  and ) scoring over 500 points already. Pool B is led by, who has also scored well over 500. The top two from each pool, as well as the next four highest scorers regardless of pool, will make it through to our final eight. As ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Planning has begun for the 2011 WikiCup, with open discussions concerning scoring and flags for next year's competition. Contributions to those discussions would be appreciated, especially concerning the flags, as next year's signups cannot begin until the flag issue has been resolved. Signups will hopefully open at some point in this round, with discussion about possible changing in the scoring/process opening some time afterwards.

Earlier this round, we said goodbye to, who has bowed out to spend more time on the book he is authoring with his wife. We wish him all the best. In other news, the start of this round also saw some WikiCup awards sent out by. We appreciate his enthusiasm, and contestants are of course welcome to award each other prizes as they see fit, but rest assured that we will be sending out "official" awards at the end of the competition. 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, Fox and The ed17 22:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 August newsletter
We have our final eight! The best of luck to those who remain. A bumper newsletter this week as we start our home straight.


 * Pool A's winner was . Awarded the top score overall this round, Sturmvogel_66 writes primarily on military history, favouring Naval warfare.
 * Pool B's winner was . Awarded the top score for featured articles this round, Casliber writes primarily on natural sciences, especially botany and ornithology.
 * Pool A's close second was . Awarded the top score for featured pictures this round, Sasata writes primarily on natural sciences, favouring mycology.
 * Pool B's close second was . Awarded the top score for good articles and topics this round, ThinkBlue primarily writes content related to television and film, including 30 Rock.
 * The first wildcard was . Awarded the top score for did you knows and valued pictures this round, TonyTheTiger writes on a number of topics, including baseball, American football and Chicago.
 * The second wildcard was . Someone who has helped the Cup behind the scenes all year, White Shadows said "I'm still in shock that I made it this far" and writes primarily on Naval warfare, especially U-boats.
 * The third wildcard was . Awarded the top score for featured lists and topics this round, Staxringold primarily writes on sport and television, including baseball and 30 Rock.
 * The fourth wildcard was . Entering the final eight only on the final day of the round, William S. Saturn writes on a number of topics, mostly related to Texas.

We say goodbye to the six who fell at the final hurdle. only just missed out on a place in the final eight. was not far behind. was awarded top points for in the news this round. contributed a variety of did you know articles. said "I'm surprised to have survived so far into the competition", but was extactic to see Finland in the semi-finals. did not score this round, but has scored highly in previous rounds. We also say goodbye to, who withdrew earlier this month after spending six weeks overseas. Anyone interested in this round's results can see them here and here. Thank you to for these.

Signups for next year's competition are now open. Planning is ongoing, with a key discussion about judges for next year open. Discussion about how next year's scoring will work is ongoing, and thoughts are more than welcome at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring. Also, TonyTheTiger is compiling some information and statistics on the finalists here- the final eight are encouraged to add themselves to the list.

Our final eight will play it out for two months, after which we will know 2010's WikiCup winner, and a variety of prizes will be awarded. As ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page. 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, Fox and The ed17 23:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 September newsletter
We are half-way through our final round, entering the home straight. leads at the time of writing with 1180 points, immediately followed by with 1175 points. closely follows in third place with 1100 points. For those who are interested, data about the finalists has been compiled at WikiCup/History/2010/finalists, while a list of content submitted by all WikiCup contestants prior to this round has been compiled at WikiCup/History/2010/Submissions. As ever, anything contestants worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Despite controversy, the WikiCup remains open. Signups for next year's competition are more than welcome, and suggestions for how next year's competition will work are appreciated at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring. More general comments and discussions should be directed at the WikiCup talk page. One month remains in the 2010 WikiCup, after which we will know our champion. Good luck everyone! 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, Fox and The ed17 23:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 October newsletter
The 2010 WikiCup is over! It has been a long journey, but what has been achieved is impressive: combined, participants have produced over seventy featured articles, over five hundred good articles, over fifty featured lists, over one thousand one hundred "did you know" entries, in addition to various other pieces of recognised content. A full list (which has yet to be updated to reflect the scores in the final round) can be found here. Perhaps more importantly, we have our winner! The 2010 WikiCup champion is, with an unbelievable 4220 points in the final round. Second place goes to, with 2260, and third to , with 560. Congratulations to our other four finalists –, , and. Also, congratulations to, who withdrew from the competition with an impressive 2685 points earlier in this round.

Prizes will also be going to those who claimed the most points for different types of content in a single round. It was decided that the prizes would be awarded for those with the highest in a round, rather than overall, so that the finalists did not have an unfair advantage. Winning the featured article prize is, for five featured articles in round 4. Winning the good article prize is, for eighty-one good articles in round 5. Winning the featured list prize is, for six featured lists in round 1. Winning the picture and sound award is, for four featured pictures in round 3. Winning the topic award is, for forty-seven articles in various good topics in round 5. Winning the "did you know" award is, for over one hundred did you knows is round 5. Finally, winning the in the news award is, for nineteen articles in the news in round three.

The WikiCup has faced criticism in the last month – hopefully, we will take something positive from it and create a better contest for next year. Like Wikipedia itself, the Cup is a work in progress, and ideas for how it should work are more than welcome on the WikiCup talk page and on the scoring talk page. Also, people are more than welcome to sign up for next year's competition on the signup page. Well done and thank you to everyone involved – the Cup has been a pleasure to run, and we, as judges, have been proud to be a part of it. We hope that next year, however the Cup is working, and whoever is running it, it will be back, stronger and more popular than ever. Until then, goodbye and happy editing! 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, Fox and The ed17 03:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011
Hello. You are being contacted because you have previously shown interest in the WikiCup but have not yet signed up for the 2011 WikiCup, which starts at midnight. It is not too late to sign up! The competition will remain open until at least January 31, and so it is not too late to enter. If you are interested, simply follow the instructions to add your username to the signup page, and a judge will contact you as soon as possible with an explanation of how to participate. The WikiCup is a friendly competition open to all Wikipedians, old and new, experienced and inexperienced, providing a fun and rewarding way to contribute quality content to Wikipedia. If you do not want to receive any further messages about the WikiCup, or you want to start receiving messages about the WikiCup, you may add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the WikiCup talk page or contact the judges directly. J Milburn and The ed17 06:51, 31 December 2010 (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 22:43, 31 January 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 23:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)