User talk:Vanished user adhmfdfmykrdyr/Archive 8

DYK for Mauritius women's national football team
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Verity Long-Droppert
Materialscientist (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Softball in Western Australia
Materialscientist (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Justine Smethurst
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Softball in Victoria
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Jocelyn McCallum
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Softball in Queensland
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

commons:Category:PD Afghan images requiring verification

 * All images in this category needs to be reviewed
 * The template used to be "anything from Afghanistan is in the public domain" because Afghanistan lacked a copyright law.
 * We now know Afghanistan does have a copyright law which requires life+50 years for copyright to expire.
 * Some images are free for other reasons such as images being in the public domain for being works of US Fed Gov employees or images tagged with CC-BY-SA.
 * Some users have overwritten existing free licenses with PD-Afghan, these can be seen in file history.

I hope this explains. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 01:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Clare Warwick
Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Softball in the Australian Capital Territory
Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Rwanda women's national football team
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Djibouti women's national football team
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Vanessa Stokes
Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Softball in South Australia
Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Michelle Cox
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Softball in New South Wales
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Kere Johanson
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Happy Belated ANZAC Day?
First, the good news: I have passed the Zoe Arancini nomination, and listed it as a Good Article. Congrats!

While looking it over, I've been trying to watch both the Stanley Cup playoff game and a (time delayed) broadcast of the Collingwood-Essendon AFL game, which featured an ANZAC Day ceremony. It kind of took me off guard, as I am used to all of that happening in November! It did remind me of a GA I worked on earlier this year, the poem "In Flanders Fields". I would like to get it to FA status at some point, but one of the things that I think is holding it back is viewpoints on the poem outside of Canada and the UK. I'm curious if there has been any media in Australia discussing the poem (or the use of remembrance poppies) in the context of ANZAC Day? If there has been, it would help that article, I think. Have you seen anything along those lines? Thanks! Resolute 00:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Andorra women's national football team
Hi Laura, incredible work with these articles. I'll take a look at reviewing one when I get chance. Sadly, my work ethic/productivity on here is about 1/2000000th of what yours seems to be! Clavdia chauchat (talk) 23:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Zanzibar women's national football team
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Gilleys Shield
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 08:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
'''Hello, LauraHale. You have more new messages at JZCL's talk page.''' You can [ remove this notice] at any time.

DYK for Sudan women's national football team
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Zanzibar women's national football team
I reviewed it here. Talk:Zanzibar women's national football team/GA1 Status is on hold pending a few minor issues with the prose and one broken link to a source. A very good article overall, just a tad confusing. Full comments at the review section. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I've noticed that a lot of your GA articles contain the same paragraph about the social and political problems that women players face. Is there a page I am missing that detail continent wide problems faced by the players? It might be a better option to refer to that then post the same paragraph in each page about the national teams. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It is true, so I can't fault you for it, but it just was a bit eye-catching to see the exact same paragraph 5x. The 1985 matter was also strange, even when the team formed prior, or later. A list of team members is probably too hard to obtain right now, but GA's do not require it. The origin and background as a whole is broad and covers enough on what is notable, but not really popular or celebrated topic due to the stigmas. I'll chip in with the edits if something jumps out at me. Just been so busy lately. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added it with the GA status. Thank you for your contributions, I learned more then a few things while checking out the article. Should I hold off on some of the other nominations for a bit? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 04:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Goalkeeper (water polo) GAN
I've fixed all the improvements on my talk page; is it ready to review now?

This Month in GLAM: April 2012
Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 19:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Peer review: multiple nominations
Laura, you currently have four open nominations on peer review. For the last several months it has been necessary to limit nominators to one open nomination at any one time. This became necessary because of the shortage of reviewers at PR and an escalating backlog. Please see the main WP:PR page. Can you decide which one of the four you wish to keep open, and close the other three? They can be fed back one by one as reviews are completed. Brianboulton (talk) 23:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Peer reviews
Hello. Good luck on your dissertation! I know you meant well by trying to help those students with their Wikipedia articles, but open peer reviews are limited to one per editor, so I closed three. Biosthmors (talk) 17:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Last batch of Polo Players
Its been a month since you have put up those articles on the players, I've begun to review the material. I'll have a couple of hours to review the material, but I'm tagging these so that I can at least keep a smooth flow in the reviewing process. I hope I don't run you ragged with all these reviews, but then again... you've been waiting for awhile for this. I'm confident that I can at least review these well, after all, I spoke to you about these nearly a month ago. Keep your eyes posted. I move quick. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll try to address comments as much as possible when made. I'll be out of town from the 19th to the 29th.   And some other things going on the week of the 14th to the 18th. :) But yeah.  Will wok on them. --LauraHale (talk) 21:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Guinea-Bissau women's national football team
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Togo women's national football team
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Zambia women's national football team
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Zambia women's national under-20 football team
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Zambia women's national under-17 football team
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Aimee Murch
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Justin Bieber on Twitter
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 08:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Lady Gaga on Twitter
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 08:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Watch n' Learn
Can you please check the review and the article. Thanks:) — Tomica   (talk)  22:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you checked it? — Tomica   (talk)  08:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Input please...
Last March you were kind enough to offer assistance in Australian-related film issues... and I have one that could use your expertise. An editor created a premature article on a film that had not (then) yet screened. The thing was sent to AFd in December 2010 with the reason that the article was created before the film had been shown... but as it was otherwise verifiable even in December that the film has screened just the month previous, this nominator's concern toward WP:NFF was invalid. As sources were just then coming forward, I suggested it be sent temporarily to the incubator... and it was. With your having access to sources I do not, might you please take a look at Article Incubator/Redback (film) and assist in expanding the article through reviews and coverage so that it might return to mainspace? Or at least offer links to such commentary and review on its talk page? Thanks in advance,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've looked through newsbank for the director, writer and actor in newsbank. I cannot find a single reference to two of them and the director only shows up for acting classes in perth. this is for the actor.  And yeah.  I don't know how notable it actually is because there aren't easy Aussie sources for it from the two major databases I checked.  As the film is recent, it should have them. --LauraHale (talk) 00:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * New director. New film. New actors. It seems I actually found more than did you. I may find more by conecting film name with production company or other actors or crew. Thank you though for the assist. In other news, care to review two DYK noms?  Best,   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah. Well, that explains my confusion. (Trying to juggle a bunch of things so not necessarily on my best at looking up sources.) Will go look at the DYK noms. --LauraHale (talk) 02:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Did one of the DYK reviews. Going to pass on the second as I don't know MOS standards for actor lists well enough and I'm worried about potential for NPOV issues being called out with the review section because it appears to be mostly glowing praise, which is fair enough in some ways. But yeah. :( --LauraHale (talk) 03:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking in. For the one, an actor's work is accepted as verifiable through the work itself. Tried hard to find someone denigrating his work. No luck.  It is that work that has gotten him the postive reception.  As for the other, the deletion rationale had some rather glaring flaws and, as the article has gone through massive improvements since the nomination, I expect the AFD to be closed as keep.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * DYK reviewing can be PITA. I've gotten in trouble reviewing a couple of times for not knowing Manual of Style issues. :(  Might have a swing at it later tonight or tomorrow afternoon my time if no one has done it.  I'm trying to prep about 20 to 25 articles for DYK at the moment for nomination by the 19th.  Hence storing up QPQs. :)  If you do need them, let me know as I can sometimes get them done.  Just actors make me nervous. :) I can inadvertently hang up pretty much any DYK trying to do things right. --LauraHale (talk) 06:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Will do, and thanks again.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Person-Situation Debate
Laura, it looks like this DYK nom needs a comment from you on whether the changes made have improved the article and where matters stand. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Re:DYK
I've rewritten the article. Is it enough? Redyka94 (talk ) 07:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Bozeman Hatchery
Found three sources. See Template:Did you know nominations/Bozeman National Fish Hatchery. Pumpkin Sky  talk  11:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

That GA nominee ...
... which you said you might do is New Forest pony. Malleus kindly pre-de-bug-commented on it for me (see his recommendations here); I fixed those up, so it should (now) be a nice easy review to do ;P  Pesky  (talk ) 07:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You've got the last sentence with out a citation. If I get to it, it won't be until Wednesday. : / I really need to stop playing with Wikipedia and work on my dissertation. :( --LauraHale (talk) 07:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ :D And tweaked, extra-reffed, etc. the other  s which you added.  Pesky  (talk ) 08:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Need to be fully cited at the GA level. (And the DYK level. I love to stick them in there for DYKs. Alas, people I am reviewing do not like them.)  I can try to get to it by Wednesday.  Have meetings tomorrow. : / --LauraHale (talk) 08:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Enjoy your meetings! And thanks for your input :o) Pesky  (talk ) 09:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 May 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 00:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Your criticism is appreciated
Thanks for giving comments at User:Pine/drafts/ENWP Board of Education. Should you have more to say or know other users who can imagine negative consequences of the proposal then anything you could do to encourage them to give comment would go a long way toward preventing future problems.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   14:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Goalkeeper (water polo) GAN
Hi Laura; I just wanted to thank you for all the effort you went to to review my article. Read my comments on the GA review to see why I don't think adding European water polo rules is worth it. Thanks. JZCL 15:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

2012-13 RFU Championship DYK
I've suggested a new hook for the 2012–13 RFU Championship DYK. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 13:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
The Bushranger One ping only 14:09, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The water polo GANs
Did you want me to go ahead and review them all right now, or are you still busy and won't be able to fix them, I've held off for the time being, but I have a minor note that all of them need some work. Some more then others, but most look pretty good. I just didn't want to throw up the reviews while you were away or unable to address the concerns. It is up to you.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed and passed 2 of them. I have to find my notes on the others. Most of them look good to pass directly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Misuse of WP:MEDRS policy
You seem to be giving WP:MEDRS feedback to students editing psychology articles related to the Association for Psychological Science's Wikipedia Initiative. Yet many of these articles have nothing to do with biomedical research, which is the focus of the WP:MEDRS policy. For example, on the talk page for the Overjustification_effect, you wrote "Why didn't you comment on WP:MEDRS and give an expert review against the WP:GAN criteria?" Yet the over justification effect has nothing to do with medical research. You also asked a main author of Overjustification_effect to give an expert review against the the WP:GAN criteria and then failed to respond to him when he asked you what you meant. I was also asked to comment on what appeared to be destructive comments you have made on other students' edits. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dimensional_approach_to_personality_disorders).

I also think you have been giving new editors bad advice about using primary sources. You may have a misunderstanding of what a primary source is. As I understand it, primary sources are ones contemporaneous with the events being described. (see Identifying_and_using_primary_and_secondary_sources and No_original_research. Research articles from peer reviewed journals are considered secondary sources and are a legitimate source to verify a claim in a Wikipedia article. (see the section on 3.2.1 in Reliable_source_examples.) Even though up-to-date review articles or textbooks may be preferable to a reference to the original research, published original research articles are legitimate sources in Wikipedia.

I think your recent reactions to students and faculty working in good faith to improve articles are driving useful, motivated editors away and harming Wikipedia, not helping it. Robertekraut (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I apologise. My understanding was medical articles are held to a higher standard and articles on the GA level need to comply with these policies.  While students may be operating in good faith to improve the articles and that is awesome and something to be encouraged, their good faith efforts should not be wrongly rewarded by allowing circumvention of normal processes where they nominate articles that at first glance easily do not meet WP:DYK and WP:GAN criteria.  If students are discouraged, it is not my intent.  Historically, student retention rates from classes have been well...  students are NOT retained as editors.  They do required course work edits and never edit again.  Thus, retaining them is not necessarily something I make a priority, especially since there is a higher expectation of student work that they are prepared better in advance than normal editors for editing on Wikipedia, having received appropriate training on editing from their instructor.  I still don't quite see the misuse of MEDRS because the sources are being used inappropriately near as I can tell, especially in cases where they are aiming for DYK and GAN. --LauraHale (talk) 04:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Laura, I am not proposing that you should wrongly reward newcomers' efforts by allowing circumvention of normal processes. But I think you have been applying the wrong standards in your comments to students and faculty.  As I noted above, many of the articles you have commented on in the Association for Psychological Science's Wikipedia Initiative have nothing to do with biomedical research. Moreover, research published in peer reviewed journals is secondary research, not primary research. Although my understanding of the relevant WP policies about medical research and primary sources which may be wrong, I think they are intended to prevent fringe science and an editor's original research and bias from damaging WP articles.  But many of the new edits you are commenting on and occasionally reverting are adding solid and verifiable material from the mainstream scientific literature; they reflect scientific consensus, not fringe science.


 * In classes where I've used WP assignments, I urge students to strive for Good Article status, because high goals make them work harder. I provide support in the form of pointers to the relevant WP policies, reviewing guidelines, data about typical Good Articles and mid-term feedback. Many of the articles they edit start as stubs or start quality. Almost all of the articles get substantially better after students have worked on them. In general, students are doubling to quadrupling the body of the article and doubling their number of verifiable references. It may well be that much of student work obviously fails to meet good article quality.   In my classes, some articles remain very far from Good Article status (e.g., Social_network_game) while I think others are plausible candidates (e.g., Text_annotation or Overjustification_effect). In the future I will use peer reviews, so there is a sanity check to prevent obviously inadequate articles from clogging up the Good Article nomination process.


 * You are correct that only a very small fraction of students continue to edit after their class is over. (I heard 4%.)  But most new editors quickly leave, whether they are students or not.  The median new editor has only a single editing session. Since the vast majority of edits in Wikipedia come from a small fraction of the editors, you only need to convince a few newbies to come back to make a large contribution to Wikpedia  As you  know Wikipedia has had more trouble retaining newcomers in recent years, in part because experienced editors have become more possessive. In your interactions with new student editors, I hope you will be careful to not violate the Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers policy


 * thanks, bob kraut Robertekraut (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Serigala Terakhir
Laura, can I ask you to stop by and decide whether Serigala Terakhir should be approved? I had a hand in ALT2, which Crisco 1492 likes, so that means we need an independent review to sign off on it (or not, if you think it needs more work). Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Commented. --LauraHale (talk) 04:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If it's okay, you need to give the final tick. I can't tick my own hook. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Whoops. Ticked off. --LauraHale (talk) 04:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/NASCAR Grand National East Series
Laura, does the response address your issues with the hook (including the addition of one word to it), or are there still problems to be fixed? Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 05:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
The Bushranger One ping only 11:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 11:59, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Saint Senara, Church of Saint Senara, Zennor
Laura, I was wondering whether Gilderien's source would help solve the issues you had with that particular DYK. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

PS: There's also a response to your WP:ESSAY concerns in Template:Did you know nominations/Minority Ownership of Media Outlets in the United States. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I've changed the lead to the Saint Senara article, and made a comment on the nom page regarding the hook.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 20:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 May 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 23:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Women's kickboxing in Australia
Hi Laura, Nice work with saving this article from deletion. I've now reviewed its DYK nomination, and have left comments at Template:Did you know nominations/Women's kickboxing in Australia. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * She's away at the moment, so I have corrected it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Puritan Sabbatarianism
Laura, as you were primary reviewer on this one, I wanted to check in with you. It seems to me that all of the issues that have been raised over the course of the review have been addressed in the past few days, but you may have different thoughts on the matter. Can you stop by, and if you're satisfied, give the final tick? Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 May 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 03:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 08:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Kristen Veal
Hello! Your submission of Kristen Veal 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! Yoninah (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomenCamp
Can I have a soundbite from you about the camp? Getting my write-up finished. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Random comments:

Canberra to Sydney to Santiago to Buenoes Aires and back. Over 24 hours in transit each way. Completely worth it. I wouldn't have traded it for the world. I met the most amazing women there who were involved behind the scenes organising things and making stuff happen on Wikimedia related projects. The conference was a renewal of faith that everything I've worked on both behind the scenes as a Wikimedia Australia board member, and as a contributor to Wikipedia and Wikinews is worth the time and effort. Other women share the same passion I do in their own areas and I could talk to them in ways that I cannot otherwise. A lot of times, on WMF projects and behind the scenes, it feels like we're in competition for limited resources. Here, we were given the chance to work together with out that sense of competition and yeah, beautiful. My personal fangirl squee moment was during Sue Gardner's speech where she mentioned my work by name. It was the icing on the cake.

We put this conference together as women who had a passion for the topic. I think it demonstrates why WMF is so successful and will continue to be successful. We're given the opportunity to do this and realise very real accomplishments that have serious and lasting and important offline connections. --LauraHale (talk) 07:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Perfect. It's at Wikipedia Signpost/2012-06-04/In the news now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Burundi women's national football team
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Kaia Parnaby
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Central African Republic women's national football team
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Gambia women's national football team
Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Anguilla women's national football team
Orlady (talk) 08:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Lauren Jackson
Yngvadottir (talk) 17:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Alicia Poto
Carabinieri (talk) 08:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Women's kickboxing in Australia
Carabinieri (talk) 08:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

autopattroled
Any reason you aren't Autopatrolled. Except for a certain Bieber article, you write great stuff. Being autopatrolled will help out New Page Patrol people by not having your article show up there.

How is the dissertation going? Don't you have one extremely short month left? Bgwhite (talk) 21:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Forgot. There is no priority parameter in the WikiProject Biography banner.  It has been replace with sports-priority, a&e-priority, filmbio-priority, etc. Bgwhite (talk) 21:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Rachael Flanagan
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Kathleen MacLeod
Hello! Your submission of Kathleen MacLeod 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! —Bagumba (talk) 05:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Netherlands Antilles women's national football team
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Natalie Hurst
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Elyse Penaluna
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

GAs
Oh yeah, I forgot about that trip to Argentina. Enjoy yourself. Now, regarding this section title... I'm thinking that it's great that these articles are up for GAN. I may review one later, but I'm not very good at sports stuff. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Discrimination
Laura, thanks for addressing this outside IRC; I did feel like the conversation got a bit heated and was disappointed with the direction of its climax. I do want to clarify I was talking about society in general, not Wikipedia. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, I've not seen any discrimination of any sort of obvious (sexism/racism/colorism/etc) on Wikipedia, so let's not confuse discrimination on Wikipedia with what I was talking about. This is a problem with society, not with the community of Wikipedia. I wish there was a shorter answer to your question for clarification, but I'm unfortunately bad with words and will need a bit of space to explain-- don't take that as anger or anything.

With regard to my comment, which was along the lines of how white males in the U.S. are one of the most common targets of discrimination in American society, I do still stand by that statement. In today's world, a good percentage of American entities make an extra effort to reach out to women and anyone considered a minority, be it by race, color, nationality, origin, etc. While this has its merits (I think it's wonderful that people make an effort to make communities more diverse), this has gone too far in many cases.

I'll use scholarship opportunities at my high school as an example. Not including merit-based and financial-need-based scholarships, which thankfully still exist, most scholarships open to the general student mass were designed such that in order to apply, you had to be a minority (i.e. not white, or not born in America). Because minorities are not nearly as prevalent in southern Indiana (they are called "minorities" for a reason), this reduced the pool of eligible students for these scholarships to around 10 students (out of over 300). Most of these students ended up getting offers for free rides from multiple universities, and high-profile job offers that they turned down, simply because they were given so many options. All this for a group of select students, because they were either not white or not American.

Now, I can't speak for your part of the world, but Indiana is known for a history of racism-- but this only lasted through the early 1900s. Over the last several generations, the topic of racism has been very heavily addressed, and the issue has diminished (at least in my hometown) to the point that a child can't even imagine treating another person of a different race any differently. Today's generation in this town thinks racism is just as cruel as slavery. When students reach their junior and senior year of high school and start applying for scholarships or jobs, suddenly the concept of race becomes relevant-- and it shouldn't.

Again, in the workplace, employers in Indiana (and other states, I'm sure) are required to be able to prove they are not discriminating against minorities. How do they do this? By favoring minorities during the hiring process. If a black man and a white man apply for a job, and both have the same qualifications, the black man gets the job each time. At the same time, women are favored during the hiring process thanks to people who believe women are treated unfairly. I have yet to find evidence of a woman being denied a job or promotion simply because of gender.

At my university, sexism and racism are further protested against by the establishment of support groups devoted for women or black people. I haven't figured out why women or black people think they need this support in my community since women and blacks have more than a fighting chance in this town. In fact, there was one point where I commented on how a certain event sounded like fun to attend, and someone said, "You can't go to that." I said, "Why not?" They said, "It's for black students only. The Black Student Association is putting it on for black people." Last time I checked, there are no events that are designated for white people; perhaps it's time to start a White Student Association... In my professional development class in college, my professor (a woman-- note that men aren't the only ones who think this) said, "Men, especially American white men, you're going to have the hardest time of anyone finding a job, because employers are looking for women and minorities. Your best move is to not include your photo on your resume unless you're really good-looking!"

It's not just me. In talking with other white men (even outside my hometown, and outside America), I've found there is nearly always consensus that white American men are given less priority and privileges than any other group of people. We take offense to this, and mutter between each other about the obvious discrimination, but we usually keep it between ourselves for fear of upsetting the minorities and women. I have yet to find the advantage that's said to still exist for being a white American male. It would seem it's become a disadvantage.

Anyway, that's my rant; I don't have a lot more to say on the topic and think it would be futile for me to say much more. I'm not saying it's bad to reach out to women or minorities, I'm just saying it's unethical to exclude majorities in doing so. Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 01:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Kristen Veal
Orlady (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Twitter counter websites
We need to get a determination on whether the twitter counter websites are WP:RS. If they are you should be including them because they have content that is encyclopedic. I have been working on Barack Obama on Twitter today. You must not have seen it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Kathleen MacLeod
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: May 2012
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 21:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The Musicians Handbook
Hi, thanks for the edits but please allow me time to pull this together on my own, this is a draft page not a final version. It's still being worked on again.

Jaimie 17:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)JaimielpJaimie 17:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaimielp (talk • contribs)

DYK for Cayla Francis
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Laura Summerton
!Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

New woman Wikipedian interested in sports at the Teahouse!
Hi Laura! I just wanted to drop by with a tip about a new woman editor who stopped by the Teahouse. She has expressed interest in sports, and maybe that means women's sports. I thought you might have interest in stopping by and saying hi to her! Her Teahouse entry is here. The more the merrier! Sarah (talk) 19:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Zanzibar women's national football team
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanzibar_women's_national_football_team

I've updated the page above and corrected a number of things, including some confusion about the subject of the article. Mcruic (talk) 20:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Samantha Richards
I made a few minor copyedits to the article; please see my edit summary and correct/undo me if I misunderstood what may have been technical terminology or a correct plural. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)