User talk:William Saturn/2010

Re:Obama
I did copy my post and insert the missing text, and never saw that entry(since it was well above the section I was editing. That had nothing to do with me and was added by someone else(which you well know). In other words, it was an edit conflict and not the least bit my fault.DD2K (talk) 20:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If you just copied your post, then why was the vandalism restored? --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ask Wikipedia software. Anyone can look at the edits and see what happened. It had nothing to do with me.DD2K (talk) 20:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

DKY nomination
Hello! Your submission of Redfish Bay 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! In short, it's short ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Fort Hood Shooting investigation
Check out the update of the evolution of the investigation. Bachcell (talk) 04:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Please stop your personal attacks
You don't know me, and nothing gives you the right to attack me in the way that you did with this comment of yours. I just disagreed with your definition, that's all, so please let's keep it at that, and also be civil. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, it wasn't meant as a personal attack, just a badly worded criticism of a particular viewpoint.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment
Hey William, we don't agree often (ever?), but good work on the Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin 2008 election articles.  Grsz 11  05:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I appreciate the comment. Also, I realized during an encounter today that my tone may be a little uncivil. I apologize if I ever used an uncivil tone during discussions, it was never meant in a personal manner. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Why sucide attack in Afghanistan?
Read full message. Sucide bombing is a reaction of civilian anger because in mostly air strikes mostly civilians killed.Watch one of the video in which a man said that he wear bomb and blast himself on international forces.They only want extreme revenge and they doesnt want to guns and other assaullt fight, they only want revenge as early as possible. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCCYJwLw3ik&feature=player_embedded Same thingin drone attacks in Pakistan, in which mostly civilian killed.And that base in which near a sucide bomber blow himself.And killing 5 CIA agenst and 2 blackwater agents.And that attack is prepared by Pakistani taliban as a reaction of drone attacks in which 97% civilians killed.And Us always said that militants killed but actually mostly civilians killed. Icasualities add them in military casulalities.Why?Think.At starting of attack when the news said that 8 CIA agenst killed then icasulaites add 8 casualities in US military casulaites.But when CIA siad that 7 people killed and 6 wounded then they add 7 casulaties in US military casulalities, then in news they said 2 Blackwater agents and 5 CIA agents killed so they add 5 in US caualities because Blacwater is a private military contracters whereas CIA is a US military branch. http://www.icasualties.org/OEF/index.aspx http://www.icasualties.org/OEF/Fatalities.aspx You people always speak 9/11, but you doesnt know why Al-Qaeda become aagainst Us.During Afghan jihad i mean Russian invasion of Afghanistan, Usama bin ladin and Al-Qaeda respect america because america support Al-Queda.But after war a civil war start, Al-Qaeda want to stop but they cant and thus they go to Sudan and in 1991 Us start war in Somalia a neibour country of Sudan.More than 20 thousands civilians killed.And a Somalia civil war start which is still ongoing.When America withdraw from Somalia, Al-qaeda want revenge of killing those 20 thousands civilians who kill in air strikes.So they start attacking on Us ambesays and other US buildings in Africa and at last 9/11.So 9/11 is a revenge of Somalia war in which during US invasion of Somalia 20 thousands civilians killed. Whats about Iraq war?In which more than 1 million people killed. I think next 9/11 is from Iraq. Only your 3 thousand people killed on your soil but compare it with the tens of millions of innocent civilians killed by US armies in Phillipines, World war 2, Vietnam and Iraq.In every war where US enter is always deadly for that country.But Afghanistan is in war from 3 decades so Afghan people know how to fight and how to protect.So when during ongoing war in AFghanistan 36 thousands civilians killed.If Afghanistan was in peace and 2001 war in Afghanistan is first war then war beceom extremely deadly. Sucide bombing is used when on one side super power and on 2nd side weakest people. Suicide bombing is also in World war 2 when countries are same power but slightly difference. Sucide bombing is at extreme point in Vietnam war. Sucide bombing is also in Sovient invasion of Afghanistan. And now sucide bombing when US invasion in Afghanistan. It is mostly the civilians which want revenge because their family killed. Hezbollah doesnt use suicde bombing because they have enough amunation and guns.Whereas Hammas in Palastein was use sucide bombing because of israili air strikes which kill hundreds civilians in every air strike because israil use illigal cluster bombs in which is full of small bullets. Now Hammas cant sucide bombing because israil made a wall similar to Berlin war, i mean whoever cross the wall will die.israil have several cheackpoints in West band and Gaza. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.59.58 (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm glad the terrorists can no longer attack Israel with suicide bombers, that sure is a cowardly way to fight a war. And I agree with you on Somalia being the basis for the idea of a 9/11-type attack, but I don't feel it is because of the civilians killed, but rather the fact that the U.S. withdrew from the nation, causing bin Laden to view Americans as weak and vulnerable (Read Lawrence Wright's The Looming Tower).


 * I'll admit that I was wrong on one point, all suicide bombings do not constitute terrorism. It is terrorism when the target (regardless of intention) is non-military/guerilla or includes civilians in any way. The CIA is not a military force, therefore the act back in December was targeted on non-military forces and constitutes terrorism. It is always sad when civilians are killed in airstrikes, but civilians are not the target. The U.S. military tries to make sure that a mission will not result in civilian deaths, but they're not perfect. That is the difference between them and the mujahideen. The mujahideen just doesn't care, they will attack even if it means civilians will die. The taliban specifically is using the people's "terror" of civilian death to maintain or gain control of an area. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I watch several videos on youtube which made in 1995 in which bin ladin clearly said thatt he want revenge from US because of Somalia and Gulf war.
 * Dont refrence tose books which are made by your own people.Because you people only know those things which your media channel said.
 * Their are hundreds of magzine and hundreds of websites which said 9/11 is an inside job.Have you know that the WT7 also bomb down on the same day.How?Ask the enginners who fit the bombs and interlink it that when and why and how you pot the bomb?If you want more things then read this. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ak.SxSftqYgtfGtroY0c34Xty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20091121113249AA6dKWD Or search 9/11 inside job on google.
 * 9/11 is a secret.Only some people know truth.less than 5% americans know that 9/11 is an inside job and there is a WT7 which will demolish at same day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.32.188 (talk) 08:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you doesnt hear news clearly or your news channel doesnt tell you ull story.Every attack of Mujaheddin is on two things military, and goverenment.See a few days before a sucide attack in which 4 childrens killed.Maybe your media channel just tell that 4 childrns killed.And doesnt tell you that 1 policemen and several Natoo soildiers wounded.Think?That if their target is just civilians then how several Nato soliers and a policeman killed.
 * 2nd thing which is a major casualities of Nato and also civilians is unremotable-IED which cant controlled, bomb blast whenever a vehicle pass over it.But now-a-days mostly Ied are remotable and Mujaheddin watching that if military vehiicle pass over it then they blast the IED.
 * Sucide bombing in ongoing war in Afghanistan is not so much.It is at extreme when Russia invade Afghanistan because at that time hundreds of thousands cvilians killed so Mujaheddin strength increase and america use them against russia.
 * Watch this comparison between casualities of Palasstein civilians and israil civilians.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Israelis_killed_by_Palestinians_in_Israel_and_Palestinians_killed_by_Israelis_in_Gaza_-_2008_prior_to_Gaza_War.png
 * Above is casualities camparison in 2008.In 2009 is most worse at starting, israil attack on Palastein without any reason.1500 Palasteini people killed.Over 50,800 Gaza residents displaced.[16]Over 4,000 homes destroyed; around $2bn worth of damage to Gaza.Whereas only 13 israili killed 10 soldiers and 3 civilians in which 4 soldiers klled by friendly fire and maybe other killed by rocks which thrown by Palasteni young people.And in full year no sucide attack but some mortor and missile attack in which less than 10 people killed whereas as a reaction israil throw cluster bombs which kill hundreds in Palastein.Think who is terrorist?Who spread mucjh terror?Who kill much civilians?Who cappture areas of other countries?Who make his checkpoints in the other counry?israil or Palastein.
 * Watch the bomb.What happen if this type of bombs throw on your city?
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gazasmoke.JPG
 * Watch the loss of Gaza.And see which area is safe in Gaza.I mean israil bombs in full Gaza.If youu are in Gaza then where you run.
 * http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/UNOSAT_GazaStrip_Damage_Review_19Feb09_v3_Lowres.png —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.32.188 (talk) 08:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2010
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24h for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule&#32;at Iran and state terrorism. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC) William, I do not think WMIV is a sockpuppet of Kurdo. If you have reasons to believe that he indeed is the correct routine is to request WP:RFCU or alert an admin with your suspicions. Blind reverting is not an option here. In future try to discuss and seek compromises rather than start sterile revert war Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

OK I will unblock you if you promise to self-revert and in future edit cooperatively Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I will agree to self-revert, and edit cooperatively in the future. However, I still believe this is sockpuppetry. Kurdo has a record of being a sockpuppeteer, and the account WMIV was created four days after he was unblocked for sockpuppetry and promised to stop. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You better file a checkuser request. Unsubstantiated accusations might be seeing as a personal attack Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Still Auto-Blocked. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Cleared autoblock Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Iran at Iraq War
There's a discussion about whether or not to include Iran in the infobox at Iraq War. I don't know enough about the involvement for an informed opinion, but I thought you might care to comment. The discussion is here.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 03:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
for the kind words, and invite for Wikipedia: WikiProject United States presidential elections. I don't know that I will have sufficient time for it, but may peek in from time to time. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're Welcome. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

US Secretary of Energy
I have replied to your comments at WT:FLC. In the meantime, I would ask that you refrain from reverting constructive edits at the above article while the discussion is in progress, and that you act in a civil and productive manner. Thank you. KV5 ( Talk  •  Phils ) 20:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Read Reverting. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I suggest that perhaps you should read that section yourself, specifically the bolded first line: "revert a good faith edit only as a last resort". You removed a good-faith edit in your initial reversion while disparaging another editor's contributions and violating WP:CIVIL. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 02:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The status quo reigns until a consensus is established to make a change --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Dabomb87 (talk) 05:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 and Dermatology-related content
I noticed that you are participating in the 2010 WikiCup. I have been working on the Bolognia push which is a project to make sure Wikipedia has an article (or redirect) on every know cutaneous condition. With that being said, there are still many cutaneous condition stubs to be made, and Bolognia could be a source for a lot of DYK articles, etc. Therefore, I was thinking maybe we could help one another... a competative WikiCup that also serves to improve dermatologic content on Wikipedia. I could e-mail you the Bolognia login information if you have any interest? ---kilbad (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:NODRAMA/2
Just a quick reminder that the Second Great Wikipedia Dramaout has begun. Please log any work you do at The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd/Log. Good luck! -- Jayron  32  01:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: ?
Well, so long as they have an account and it's auto-confirmed then yes. However, if it is apparent that the report is false, then it will be closed by a clerk. What should not happen to it is it getting deleted by an admin, because: A) Admins aren't as likely to recognise what marks a real report out from a false one as a clerk is. B) and at SPI all cases should be archived for future reference, not deleted. As soon as another Clerk wakes up I'll ask them to look over the case and see what to do with it (or may even do so myself), in the meantime, nothing will happen. Checkusers will not go over the case until it has passed the initial clerk review. So please, just sit back and let this go through the correct processing. Kindest regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 06:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Head above water
A lot of rain here and some flooding. Please remember to stay cool and don't get baited by anyone. As I'm sure you know, civility enforcement is often used as a cover to go after those with unpopular opinions. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It's too bad, this all caused me to have to quit the Drama-out. At least two of this troll's accounts have been blocked. --William S. Saturn (talk) 07:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * One thing they can't take away is that I'm currently in 4th position at the WikiCup. --William S. Saturn (talk) 07:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm hoping the Dramaout can be postponed. I too am having scheduling conflicts. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

re: Just so you know
LOL unbelievable. such a ridiculous, unsupported claim. please keep me posted on what happens. EATC (talk) 14:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC) yah so i guees this was over my trying to CORRECTLY edit scott brown's page (as i guess you were as well)...unbelievable. also, i created my account, what, three or four years ago? that's a hell of a lot of time to put into a sock puppet. EATC (talk) 14:36, 22 January 2010 (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 00:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Editing against consensus
Your POV reversions at Fort Hood shooting are unacceptable. The current discussion is on the talk page, and previous discussions are in the archives. The subject of categories has been discussed before and there is no consensus to support your position. Disruptive edit warring against current consensus may result in a block. Regards, wjemather bigissue 19:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Edit warrior, I am trying to engage with you on the talk page but you seem to be more inclined to revert rather than discuss. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You would do well to be civil and assume good faith. You cannot simply go ahead and make controversial edits by cherry picking sources to suit your point of view. wjemather bigissue 19:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am hoping to disengage from terrorist sympathizers (not to say you are). Thank you and good luck. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I am disappointed that like so many you cannot understand the need for neutrality (one of Wikipedia's five pillars), and the problem with calling anyone who commits a violent crime a terrorist. wjemather bigissue 19:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The guy was a follower of Anwar al-Awlaki just like Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. I will amend my previous statement and assume you did not know this. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, that remains speculation based on ongoing investigations. Many of the articles on WP that concern these type of incidents rely heavy on such speculation and have major POV issues as a result. wjemather bigissue 19:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Read this article and this. There's no dispute that the two were in close contact over the internet. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately many of your comments on the talk page have been less than helpful. I'm right/wrong, prove it, etc. do not usually make for constructive discussions. wjemather bigissue 23:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * All you have to do is provide a source to prove that what you are promoting is not a fringe view. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

AFG
Regarding one of your comments on another page, I just dropped by to mention that AGF does not require that one assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Fatwa?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wjemather#Time_for_the_next_step

GA Review
I've re-nominated the Brian Moore presidential campaign, 2008 article, i'm telling you this because you said you would give it review if i dropped you a line. --TIAYN (talk) 08:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the untimely response. I've been very busy as of late. I will be able to review the article in the near future. Thank you for your patience. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :D --TIAYN (talk) 19:37, 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 00:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

another topic
http://www.wltx.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=84222&catid=2 Friday Update on Fort Jackson Investigation of Poison Threat

Fort Jackson, SC (WLTX, CBS) - Three of the five Fort Jackson soldiers being investigated for claims of making threats have been cleared, CBS News reports.

Late Thursday, the Christian Broadcasting Network's website and Fox News reported that some soldiers were under investigation on claims they threatened to poison food at the training base. Previous Coverage: Reports Surface of Investigation of Food Poison Plot at Fort Jackson

Fort Jackson officials confirmed to WLTX Thursday night that the investigation started in December to look into "potential verbal threats against fellow soldiers."

BTW, I appreciate your anti-terrorism edits, epecially when WP says it's not terrorism. Bachcell (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

List of terrorist incidents, 2009
You're getting into edit-war territory again. There is no consensus, either here or in the valid sources, for labeling the Fort Hood incident a terrorist attack. If you persist, you are likely to be blocked yet again. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I think a visit to WP:ANI is in order. See you there. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The ball's in you and O'Fenian's court. I'm not the one who refuses to discuss on the talk page. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

List of terrorist incidents, 2009 continued
Hello William S. Saturn. If I see another revert from you on the above page, I'm going to block you, regardless as to when that revert happens. I see a lot of edits which attempt to circumnavigate our normal editorial processes in a deceiving way. Two examples are here, where you fail to use an edit summary and here, where you marked an edit which was obviously going to be controversial as minor. Knock it off please.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think you fully understand the situation. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you accept that you're edit warring? Do you also accept that the two diffs I showed you above were aimed as stopping other editors from noticing what you were doing? Those are both grounds for a block.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Like I said at ANI, I don't know if it can be considered edit warring since O'Fenian was ignoring the page's criteria for inclusion, which may be considered disruptive. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll give you a hint; it was edit warring and you did purposefully attempt to deceive your fellow editors by not providing an edit summary and marking an edit as minor.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Now I will admit that I used a blank edit summary in the hope that it would prevent an edit war while conforming to the page's criteria. However, the minor edit marking was purely an accident since I used the minor tagging several times earlier in the day.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In good-faith defense of Saturn on the one point, I've occasionally stutter-stepped and accidentally clicked the "minor edit" box just before clicking save-page. It can happen, due to close proximity. Like the old version of MS Outlook, where they had "save" and "send" next to each other. Ugh! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you Bugs. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Why don't you knock the article off your watchlist and go and edit something else. It's not worth getting blocked over whether one particular incident is labeled as terrorism or not. You made a great series of edits to San Antonio Bay here - It's really good work. Why don't you spend your time doing some more stuff like that rather than continue this silly dispute? Honestly, you're a very productive editor and your time would be better spent elsewhere.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I will do that. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Good work William - thanks for understanding. If you ever need any help or advice, feel free to drop by my talk page.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments invited
As an occasional or frequent editor of the Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012 article, your participation in this discussion would be welcome and appreciated. Thanks.--JayJasper (talk) 18:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of San Antonio Bay
Hello! Your submission of San Antonio Bay 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! Storye book (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I responded to your comment at the DYK page. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Done.--Storye book (talk) 06:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

United States Secretary of Energy
Please do not continue to remove information from this article without valid justification. You do not own it, and do not unilaterally decide what stays in and what stays out of the article. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * An author requesting deletion is a speedy deletion rationale. I am free to revert my own edits to a page. You can easily make your own edits to the page United States Secretary of Energy, but it is discourteous to restore edits that I made to the page and have chosen to remove. Thank you. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It is a speedy deletion rationale only if they are the sole contributor to the page. You are not the sole editor of the US Secretary of Energy article. Further, even if we accept the argument that you are free to revert your own edits to a page, Dabomb87 is equally free to add the text back to the page, since it is freely-licensed text under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL. —C.Fred (talk) 23:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * And I am free to remove it. Dabomb, Reywas and yourself are simply being discourteous and disrespectful, which although legally acceptable, is morally wrong. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * But since multiple editors have objected to the removal, you will need to provide a better reason than wanting to remove it—and lest you run afoul of guidelines prohibiting repeated reversions in the same article. —C.Fred (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I added the content, the multiple editors are simply running afoul of the moral guidelines that we expect others to follow. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:03, 27 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) 22:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Aransas Bay
Hi there. I've started proceedings  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  09:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

GA nomination on hold
Please see Talk:San Antonio Bay/GA1 for more information. Nomination is on hold for GA. Chris (talk) 14:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It passed for GA. Congratulations. Chris (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Article Probation
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed is on article probation. PhGustaf (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Re:3RR
Go ahead and report the 3RR, maybe the page will get some needed attention. The mass canvassing and edit wars that you and the rest of the POV editors are disrupting the article and making changes without consensus. You need consensus to change the article, especially while discussions are ongoing on the talk page. I count 3RR for you also, except mine are to keep consensus and you are trying to change the article to a version not agreed upon. DD2K (talk) 01:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: I made one revert. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:24, 25 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 17:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The Flag in your photo
What does the flag in your photo represent? What does the number '76' mean? 90.211.133.201 (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * 1776. See Bennington flag. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Hochheim, Texas
The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you! --William S. Saturn (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
 Chzz  ►  21:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Hubert Humphrey 1968 presidential campaign/GA1
Hi, I have reviewed your GA nomination and made a few comments at Talk:Hubert Humphrey 1968 presidential campaign/GA1. In general, it is a well written and interesting article. Thanks, Xtzou ( Talk ) 21:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Added one more comment. Xtzou ( Talk ) 16:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * One more comment: you have two Fair use logos, but they don't each have a proper fair use rationale. You need to show why the logos are necessary to the understand of this article.      Xtzou ( Talk ) 17:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it is stricter than that, per Non-free content. You have to say why the logo is necessary and integral to the understanding of the article content, and why leaving it out would be detrimental to the article. I wish I could think of a good model. <b style="color:navy;">Xtzou</b> ( Talk ) 18:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is an example File:John and Cynthia on car.JPG from the John Lennon article. <b style="color:navy;">Xtzou</b> ( Talk ) 18:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Eugene McCarthy presidential campaign, 1968/GA1
Hi, I have started a review of your GA nomination at Talk:Eugene McCarthy presidential campaign, 1968/GA1. It appears to be a well written and comprehensive article, but I am some what off put by the organization. See if you can help me out! Regards, <b style="color:navy;">Xtzou</b> ( Talk ) 18:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, I passed the article with a suggestion for a pullquote and a caption. Very nice job. Best, <b style="color:navy;">Xtzou</b> ( Talk ) 20:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Ron Paul presidential campaign, 1988/GA2
Hi, I started a review of your GA nomination at Talk:Ron Paul presidential campaign, 1988/GA2. It is a little hard to follow, and I wonder if the organization could be tighter with more informative headings. Best wishes, <b style="color:navy;">Xtzou</b> ( Talk ) 19:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Bob Barr presidential campaign, 2008
You're welcome. Good luck with the FAC! <B>Torchiest</B> talk/contribs 00:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Given the significant differences we have had over the last several years, including one item of personal interest to you, I appreciate your invitation to include me in conversations and article reviews. Yellowdesk (talk) 00:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Matagorda Bay
Gatoclass (talk) 06:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Tres Palacios Bay
Gatoclass (talk) 12:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Matagorda Bay/GA1
Hi, I have commenced a review of your GA nomination Matagorda Bay Regards, <b style="color:navy;">Xtzou</b> ( Talk ) 23:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You and I have both worked on the article. I am satisfied and am passing it as a GA. Nice job! Best wishes, <b style="color:navy;">Xtzou</b> ( Talk ) 17:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks again Xtzou. --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:49, 26 May 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 20:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Gene Amondson
Hi, I am reviewing your GA nomination, and have asked a question at Talk:Gene Amondson/GA1. It is a wonderful little article. Very nice job! <b style="color:navy;">Xtzou</b> ( Talk ) 19:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's passed. I put him under "Artists and architects" on the Good article page, but perhaps a political category would be more fitting. Doesn't this article exist because of his political activities? <b style="color:navy;">Xtzou</b> ( Talk ) 13:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes that would probably be more appropriate. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Ross Perot presidential campaign, 1992
Hi, I have begun a review of your GA nomination, and entered some comments at Talk:Ross Perot presidential campaign, 1992/GA1. Regards, <b style="color:navy;">Xtzou</b> ( Talk ) 22:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Ross Perot presidential campaign, 1992
<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 00:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
That section you removed on Talk:Barack Obama had some weird formatting error that was preventing my new section (which was added automatically using the "new section" button) from being visible. Thanks for saving me time figuring out how to solve it. --Evice (talk) 23:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

USer:Xtzou
If you didn't know Xtzou has been indefinatly blocked which means you will need to find someone else to finish the GA nomination. -- Nascar 1996  02:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Corpus Christi Bay
<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 12:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

logo
See also Wikipedia_talk:Reviewing. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 00:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have opened a thread here. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Dude...
You removed way too much from the Ronald Reagan article. That is a featured article, so please consult the discussion page before making such a drastic edit. PokeHomsar (talk) 04:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I removed an unnecessary list that can be found at Ronald Reagan filmography. The list was added recently without talk page discussion.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Reason?
What's the reason for your request?Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Identification purposes.--William S. Saturn (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Check thine email.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. I understand. Good luck. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Ronald Reagan‎
Please don't bait the other editor "to remove the info". He's liable to take you up on the offer and cite your post as consensus which could start an edit war. moreno oso (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't tell him to "remove the info" from the article, that's a misquote. I was referring to my talk page post that he had removed.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Laguna Madre (United States)
<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 00:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure why this came here- I was flagging your alternate account- your main account got this flag several days ago. Courcelles (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

GA review
Sure thing - will just go and do it now. Shouldn't have too many problems - I actually was just reading that article a few days ago and it was terrific. Rebecca (talk) 02:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. It is greatly appreciated.--William S. Saturn (talk) 02:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay - had a real-life crisis blow up about half an hour after I posted that. Thanks for the reminder - reviewing right now. Rebecca (talk) 06:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Passed. You've done a superb job with that one - it's well past GA status as it is, and you might want to think about taking it straight to FA. Rebecca (talk) 06:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I certainly will after the article I currently nominated runs its course.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Carancahua Bay
Hello! Your submission of Carancahua Bay 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! Atmoz (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Carancahua Bay
<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 18:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Lavaca Bay
<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 00:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Re:Request
Regarding Corpus Christi Bay GAC review, I was only in GAN as a metter to kill some time. I understand your interest in wanting me to review, but I suggest you get someone else to avoid any potential bias. Thank you the offer though. Chris (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for West Bay (Texas)
<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 06:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for The Victoria Advocate
<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 18:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Bob Barr presidential campaign, 2008/archive2
Hi, thanks for responding to my comments in this review, could you unembolden your comments or else append them with annotation that they are from the nominator, not a reviewer. Sandy has a difficult job to do in dealing with the volume of information in all the FACs, and we try and make things as easy as possible for her to assess them. Fasach Nua (talk) 06:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Galveston Bay
''I think we might have gotten off on the wrong foot a few months ago on Clear Creek (Harris County, Texas). I apologize for that. Lately I've been editing articles about Texas bays, and I was wondering if we could collaborate on Galveston Bay and help it reach GA status. What do you say? --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)''


 * No worries.
 * My real life has gotten a bit more busy of late so my involvement in Wikipedia is more sporadic at this point. Nevertheless I can see what I have time for. Any particular plan of attack you have in mind? --Mcorazao (talk) 14:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

3RR
I'd recommend more consensus building, and less edit warring, please. BigK HeX (talk) 16:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd recommend paying attention to what's going on, rather than inserting material twice. --William S. Saturn (talk) 16:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd recommend self-reverting, instead of reaching the clear edit-war threshold. I will fix the double posted material, should you choose to self-revert.  BigK HeX (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That would be unnecessary since I was not edit-warring but fixing the mistake you are now asking me to reintroduce.--William S. Saturn (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

2012
Fine I will put the 20 currently speculated candidates back.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Green Lake (Texas)
<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 12:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Re:OTRS
OTRS is a lot slower than it should be, but searches for "Carancahua", "Jenna Hooker" and "William S. Saturn" have all thrown up nothing, I'm afraid. Which address did you send it to? J Milburn (talk) 18:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I sent it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've found it after a manual search, replied and updated the image pages. No idea why the OTRS search engine didn't work. Apologies for the delay- OTRS really is far slower than it should be. J Milburn (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 June newsletter
We're half way through 2010, and the end of the WikiCup is in sight! Round 3 is over, and we're down to our final 16. Our pool winners were (A),  (B, and the round's overall leader),  (C)  and  (D, joint), but, with the scores reset, everything is to play for in our last pooled round. The pools will be up before midnight tonight, and have been selected randomly by J Milburn. This will be the toughest round yet, and so, 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.

Though unaffiliated with the WikiCup, July sees the third Great Wikipedia Dramaout- a project with not dissimilar goals to the WikiCup. Everyone is welcome to take part and do their bit to contribute to the encyclopedia itself.

If you're interested in the scores for the last round of the Cup, please take a look at WikiCup/History/2010/Round 3 and WikiCup/History/2010/Full/Round 3. Our thanks go to for compiling these. As was predicted, Group C ended up the "Group of Death", with 670 points required for second place, and, therefore, automatic promotion. This round will probably be even tougher- again, the top two from each of the two groups will make it through, while the twelve remaining participants will compete for four wildcard places- 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

DYK for East Bay (Texas)
<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 06:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Copano, Texas
Hello! Your submission of Copano, Texas 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! Thelmadatter (talk) 00:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK
Thank you for stating articulately what I had thought was obvious in the DYK discussion.

Among the various things that caught my attention, was that when you approved hook -- you were quickly reverted, with the reverter admonishing you that you were not allowed to do so, as conversation was ongoing.

But when another editor disapproved the same hook, he was not reverted -- though obviously the conversation was still ongoing then as well.

I'm a bit confused as to how that can happen.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It's ridiculous how some editors believe that jihadists intent on killing innocent civilians must be cast in a positive light.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think its frankly even worse than that. The same editor who deletes a hook, because the underlying article references spelling errors, pushes to DYK (sucessfully) his own hook, where the underlying article discusses vaginal penetration of a 23-month-old.  See here.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Copano, Texas
<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 00:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Copano Bay
<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 00:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Laguna Madre (United States) GA nomination
Hello, I am considering reviewing this article and just want to know if you are able to put in the time and effort to improve it. It needs much work and expansion as it stands now. I, personally, would not even nominate anything assessed lower than B-class to save effort and time. I'll watch your talk page for your reply. CheersMarcia Wright (talk) 22:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the interest. Please note that the assessment tags are a bit outdated. The article was written in the same manner as Aransas Bay, San Antonio Bay and Matagorda Bay, which have all passed as GA's. While I agree the article is not comprehensive, it is broad without going into excessive detail. I look forward to seeing your suggestions.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but I have decided not to start a review. After reading the reviews of the above examples and skimming the articles, there appears a formula used which does not fit the content. The lead in each example article above does not meet MOS Lead that states in part:

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies...


 * Best of luck, Marcia Wright (talk) 02:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

You're saying I am vandalizing someones talk page?
They follow every single of my edits and revert them regardless of their content! What am I supposed to do? Be happy about that? 70.162.236.74 (talk) 00:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Nueces Bay
The DYK project (nominate) 12:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Alvin Greene
I have listened to Greene's speech in Manning, SC. Close to the end of the speech, Greene says something about reclaiming the country from "terrorists and communists". That sounds a bit misplaced in the context of the speech, as most of what Greene proposes is some kind of New Deal policies, together with an emphasis on ecology and education. I think that we cannot deduce that anti-communism would be a notable position of his, just based on this sentence. I'd suggest that you remove the category, for these reasons. Alternatively, let's wait how reliable sources report on the speech. If a significant amount say that Greene's speech was anti-communist (compared to those sources that point out other positions only), then the category would be correct, of course. Cs32en  Talk to me  18:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * How often do we hear this kind of rhetoric from a contemporary American politician? This is rare and should only be removed if he retracts the comments.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You should at least find a valid reliable secondary source for the statement. We shouldn't add categories to articles that are completely unrelated to the text of the article. Also, the relative abundance or scarcity of a position within the general public doesn't make that position notable. It may be remarkable, in your personal view, but thus far, it's not notable. Cs32en   Talk to me  18:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I figured it would be added to the article eventually. Most coverage seems to be on blogs at the moment. So I guess it should be removed for now, but I would support its inclusion once more news reports surface.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I generally agree with that approach. Cs32en   Talk to me  19:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

A little help
Hey, I was wondering if you could help me out with my home page. I'm trying to use my page to create a history section for the Gamecube article which I hope to eventually expand into its own article. However I keep getting this message: Cite error: There are ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a template or a tag; see the help page.

Even though I have created a reference section with that template the message continues to show and the reference section is strangely absent(but if you go into editing the page it says it is there). Could you take a look? Thanks.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 00:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Edit: Nevermind I just realized I wasn't closing a reference tag up above so everything beneath it(the reference section) went blank.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 00:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually I have another problem. My reference keeps coming out like this: Kent, Steven (2004). "Gamecube Timeline". when I'm hoping for it to come out like this: "Gamecube Timeline". Kent, Steven (2004). I've copied the citation's format from another article which ends up like that, but for some reason it's not linking to the webpage I enter. If you could take a look I'd appreciate it.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 00:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

2012 elections
First of all, you can't threaten to block me. You don't have the authority to do that. As far as consensus is concerned yes it is true that you need 2 reliable sources, we have consensus on that. But we don't have consensus on on whether or not Cain and Patreaus, not because they don't have 2 reliable sources, but because the articles that talk about them don't explicitly state whether or not they will run. If you actually read what I'm saying and think about, I'm sure that you will understand.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have read the articles pertaining to Petraeus. They explicitly mention the speculation surrounding a potential presidential run. If you continue to edit war, I will report you to the edit warring noticeboard and see that your disruption ends.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I put Patreus back in the article. Please withdraw your report.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 21:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I wish you would have done that sooner so that you didn't have to be blocked. Hopefully this will teach you to read sources before reverting and to refrain from edit warring. I've been there, so I know what an excellent wake-up call, a block is.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Obama talk talk
I've been bold. I hope you don't mind. (If you do mind, then please take up the matter on my own user talk page, rather than on that talk page.) -- Hoary (talk) 04:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for doing that. The talk page for Barack Obama is probably one of most viewed talk pages on wikipedia, and it is important to remain professional so that the project can be taken seriously.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I suppose that that's true. I was thinking more in the shorter term: this threatened to bring on yet more charges of bias, humorlessness, etc, and thereby to waste yet more time and set the regular denizens more on edge. Anyway, I'm glad that you agreed with my action. -- Hoary (talk) 06:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Four award
Ucucha 11:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you.--William S. Saturn (talk) 14:49, 31 July 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 22:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Original research
Hello William. I beg to differ on whether the edit is original research"The term 'original research' refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources." or not, and it is surely synthesis. First, RCP is an aggregate for polls, and referencing the numerous polls there and then creating your own analysis is in itself original research. In any case, I've sat back and watched the anon ip and the registered user currently calling himself JahnTeller07 disrupt and attack editors and articles for days now. I think time would be better spent on trying to find a solution to remove the disruptions and those who are initiating the obvious attacks. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 04:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I feel this is a case of WP:CALC, but I understand now where you are coming from on this.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't really agree with that(I do believe CALC is for basic numeric adding and ages, and not anything that could be controversial), but it's a valid point to argue. I try not to edit pages where there is too much controversy(Climate change, etc.) or living people I may have a bias against, but realize that if everyone took the same route Wikipedia would suffer for it. So there has to be critics as well as proponents to give more neutral editors both views. But sockpuppets and single purpose accounts degrade Wikipedia and the content, no matter what issues are involved and no matter what political stripe the offenders are. Thanks again. Dave Dial (talk) 14:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

VPC
— raeky  T  11:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Stop wasting your time
Please don't waste any more of your time throwing non-specific templates at me. If you have a particular point to make, please do so in your own words. Approaches such as yours only work to convince me that I am succeeding in making others think. That tends to lead to better WIkipedia articles, my primary objective here. HiLo48 (talk)

Corpus Christi Bay
You nominated Corpus Christi Bay for GA. I signed up as reviewer a few days ago.

I honestly believe you were doing good faith, but you put that the bayfront was extravagant. I don't mean to be mean, but I reworded it, taking extravagant out. I identified it as puffery. See WP:W2W(words to watch) for more information.Us441 (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lavaca Bay
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Lavaca Bay you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S.
You're awesome. Just thought I'd let you know. PokeHomsar (talk) 22:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the comment.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Black Republicans
It would be nice to have a little discussion about this before reverting.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 01:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There is discussion on the talk page.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: A3RO's votes
You may wish to see this. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notification.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Aransas City, Texas
<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 00:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Guadalupe Bay
The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Admin at WP:RFA
I see why not. I would support you. See seem to pass my standards. Bearian (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you I have done so.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Your RfA
I have closed your RfA as "Withdrawn" per your request.

Without commenting either way, my advice (should you ever consider going through RfA again in the future) would be to read the comments left by both the supporters and the opposers - see what you need to continue doing, and what you need to change/do in addition.

Regards, -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 22:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I presume that you are probably becoming tired of me and my constant talking, but i wanted to leave a final comment: Don't give up Wikipedia because of this, and don't presume that the RFA votes are some sort of community evaluation of an editors worth to the project. RFA is an inherently negative process because it comments on the contributer and its contributions instead of talking about content. Some people leave permanently after a failed RFA, some vow never to run again and some run again later (Sometimes they pass, sometimes they don't). Whatever you decide, keep in mind that RFA's and administrator are really nothing special, and that Wikipedia benefits from all kind of productive editing. Administrators are merely one piece of the puzzle. In other words, keep your own enjoyment of the project in mind as well.


 * Best of luck, and kind regards, Mr. Talktive ( I mean, Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 23:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC) )
 * I will remain on wikipedia. I have to finish the WikiCup.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Failed RFA's are never fun, but I think you have what it takes to be a great administrator in the future. Best of luck, <font color="#960018">Tyrol5 <font color="#960018"> <font color="#960018">[Talk]  23:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I am so sorry for putting you through that. So next time.... Bearian (talk) 15:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Green Lake (Texas)
I was looking at this article again earlier this evening after having read your message on my talk page. My inclination was to close the GA review as a fail, but I see that you've already had a bit of a bruising at RfA tonight so I'm not going to do that. Are you prepared to work with me to get this article through GA? There's quite a bit of work needs to be done, and you'll have to do most of it. Malleus Fatuorum 02:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am prepared.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've left a few more points for you to look at and struck those I think have been dealt with now. Malleus Fatuorum 19:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This review's been open for over a week now. Are you going to be able to deal with the outstanding issues? If not, then I'll close it in the next day or so. Malleus Fatuorum 17:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations! I must admit I wasn't sure you were going to make it, but you came through, so very well done. Malleus Fatuorum 21:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for St. Mary's of Aransas, Texas
The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for James Power (empresario)
The DYK project (nominate) 18:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thank you very much for the barnstar.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/cup
It appears that you are one of the finalists. I have put together a summary chart for us to sort of get to know each other. Feel free to come by and fill in User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/cup.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you get a chance link your historical submissions so we can see what you have been doing.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:15, 1 September 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 23:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Re:OTRS
Sorry, a search for your name brought up only old tickets, while a search for "Preacher Gene" showed nothing. Roughly what time/date was it sent, and to what address? J Milburn (talk) 09:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It was sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on September 5 (I don't have the exact time), and the title was "Permission to Use http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Preacher_Gene.jpg". --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Kendrick7
Kendrick7 has been told by serveral admins to drop it and is currently working against consensus Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That doesn't mean there can't be discussion.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Administrators protected it as a redirect for a reason. Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not to end discussion.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It is near impossible to Write a BLP on the individual. Kendrick is upset his contributions to the the article were removed and the article redirected. Kendrick is now moving against consensus what several admins have communicated to him. Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please move on. It is never unacceptable to write a BLP for a notable individual. Goodbye.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2010_Qur%27an-burning_controversy#NAME:_2010_United_States_Qur.27an-burning_controversy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2010_Qur%27an-burning_controversy#NAME:_2010_United_States_Qur.27an-burning_controversy Truth And Relative Dissention In Space (talk) 21:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of straw polls
Thank you for your kind words, as always. If you still want to go for featured list status, the userfication is finally complete with all histories properly restored at User:John J. Bulten/Straw polls for the 2008 United States presidential election and its two subarticles. My first chance to review this today indicates that it's in better shape than I thought. For a proposal for reinsertion into main space, we need: merge all 3 into 1 article, I think; review all dead links, find as many as possible on Wayback, and make decisions about the others, particularly with reference to how dead links are now handled in the opinion polls articles; do a bit more Google-trawling for additional polls we haven't found, and run the numbers and map; double-check all data (not triple-, I hope) and tie up loose ends; and perform the move (of main, talk, and 2 main and 2 talk redirects), preferably with more input than just us two. Anyway, feel free to edit to your heart's content there and we'll see what happens. Naturally, the elections WikiProject will be back in season very soon too, although the minor amount of help I provided last time is probably indicative of the same this cycle. JJB 05:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Richard Nixon presidential campaign, 1968
The article Richard Nixon presidential campaign, 1968 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Richard Nixon presidential campaign, 1968 for things which need to be addressed. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 01:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The article Richard Nixon presidential campaign, 1968 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Richard Nixon presidential campaign, 1968 for eventual comments about the article. Well done! King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:31, 5 October 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 23:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Copano Bay/GA2
I have undertaken a review, if you want to have a look and respond. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 23:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Tancredo
Please see Talk: Tom Tancredo; I left an explanation there of why I think he belongs in Category: Conspiracy Theorists. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: Talk: Tom Tancredo. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Linking to your own words is not a "personal attack".--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:46, 1 November 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 03:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the vandalism and vandalizer at Rand Paul
And also for your message at my talk page. I mistook the duplicate comments at the talk page for somebody vandalizing it and a different person requesting cleanup. I did not notice the article vandalism until you had already cleaned it up. I will look more carefully before leaping next time. betsythedevine (talk) 15:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

User:KooKooGajoob
Thanks for your note. I had seen some edits that looked at least somewhat productive. However the recent edits are so bad that perhaps you're right. I'll change it.  Will Beback   talk    00:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocked
To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for disruptive editing and edit warring on the page Talk:Waterboarding. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC) Notice to administrators: In a 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee." The relevant case is Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding; more discussion is at Administrators' noticeboard. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, because I'm an administrator that overturned an administrative decision. Nice call by an uninvolved admin.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The "Notice to administrators" isn't addressed to you, the blocked user, it's to an administrator who may feel inclined to unblock.  Grsz 11  22:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I misread it. Anyways, its funny that I am blocked because I dared to question someone's decision to remove valid talk page discussion. And that the person that made the block is involved.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I will copy the above unblock request to the discussion.  Sandstein  23:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * done.  Chzz  ► 00:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I will not hold you to removing yourself from that article, but if you do decide to return at some point I urge you to be especially careful in your editing. I also urge you to be especially careful to assume good faith on the part of your fellow volunteers. I believe that no further purpose would be served by leaving this block in place, and so have lifted it. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but I am still autoblocked.--William S. Saturn (talk) 08:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Try it now. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It works now. Thank you very much.--William S. Saturn (talk) 09:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

ANI
I have just opened a thread at WP:ANI following your rather scurrilous personal attack on me. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

your inappropriate csd tagging
Don't act like I don't know you had that reverted already. You have an explanation for repeated tagging for CSD? The redirect is appropriate, If you don't think so, take it to WP:RfD. Thanks. Dloh cierekim  04:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? The "campaign" is a hoax. It is not appropriate. Please delete.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm
Perhaps I need to add to the thread Ohconfusious has started? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim (talk • contribs)


 * Perhaps you need to sign your posts.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Why, does it hinder you in deleting them? Good night. Dloh  cierekim  04:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please be better informed before posting on here again. Ohconfusious' thread was closed a long time ago. Sarah Palin does not currently have a presidential campaign and adding a speedy deletion tag for an appropriate reason should not be rollbacked or identified as vandalism.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

No prob let someone who isn't to tired to type sort this out. Good nitght, sir!
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim (talk • contribs)


 * Just to short circuit any need for further discussion, the redirect in question is now at RfD; see Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 December 3. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Main page appearance
Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on December 12, 2010. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/December 12, 2010. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director,. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! <font color="#C40233">Tbh®tch Talk <font color="#007000">© <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">Happy Holidays 06:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

<div style="background-color: #D4AF37; border: 1px solid #1234aa; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -moz-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -webkit-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); border-radius: 1em; -moz-border-radius: 1em; -webkit-border-radius: 1em; padding: 8px; height: 1%;"> <div class="plainlinks" style="background-color: #FFFFFF; border-width: 1px; border-style: solid; border-color: #88a; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -moz-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -webkit-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); border-radius: 1em; -moz-border-radius: 1em; -webkit-border-radius: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding: 1em 1em .5em 1em;">

The Ross Perot presidential campaign of 1992 was an effort spawned by grassroots supporters to elect Texas industrialist Ross Perot as President of the United States as an independent candidate. Perot focused the campaign on the federal budget, economic nationalism, an escalation of the war on drugs and implementation of "electronic town halls". He largely financed his own campaign and relied on marketing and widespread grassroots support to spread his message. In certain polls, Perot led the three-way race with Republican nominee George H. W. Bush, the incumbent President, and Governor Bill Clinton of Arkansas, the Democratic nominee. He dropped out in July 1992 amid controversy, but reentered in October, and surpassed the 15% polling threshold to reach his goal of participating in all three presidential debates. Despite an aggressive use of campaign infomercials on prime time network television, his polling numbers never fully recovered from his initial exit. On Election Day, Perot appeared on every state ballot. He won several counties and finished in third place, receiving close to 19 percent of the popular vote; the most won by a third-party presidential candidate since Theodore Roosevelt in 1912. (more...)

thanks
Many thanks for your gracious note on my talkpage. Especially coming from an editor I can't recall dealing with before much (if ever), it was highly appreciated. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? We've interacted countless times on here.--William S. Saturn (talk) 09:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I was working on memory, not on a computer check, and thought I remembered your name I could not recall our interactions. But I'm sure you're correct (again without checking) -- and that's a sign of my aging memory.  Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Question
How exactly would you respond to Epefleeces statement that |When the blocking admin reviewed my response as to the 65 notices, and presumably the guideline language and the interpretation clarifying that leaving 50 neutral notes comported with the guideline, he sagely dropped his determination that that was canvassing? Making blatantly false statements about why I unblocked strikes me as needing a firm correction.&mdash;Kww(talk) 05:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Rather than analyzing his comments, I would focus on improving the encyclopedia.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Additionally, defiance on his part is a predictable result of a poor decision on your part. Your unilateral action turned the user into a victim of one person, eliminating admonishment from the community at large. This action prevented any chance that the canvassing issue would be resolved in a mature manner.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks ...
... for another barnstar. But I'm confused ... is User:Southern Texas "back"? With a talk page that redirects to User talk:William Saturn? Which is separate from User talk:William S. Saturn?

As for working on Rudy Giuliani presidential campaign, 2008, unfortunately I'm already overcommitted, with several other articles I'm trying to get to GA. I've sort of lost my enthusiasm for a lot of the 2008 presidential campaign articles ... they were written as it happened, full of detail of varying levels of importance, filled with cite links that have disappeared or gone behind paywalls ... and the articles really need to be updated to make use of Game Change and the other books that have been written about the campaign ... it's a lot of grunt work for pretty low readership – this one gets about 30 views a day, compared to about 1,200 a day for Rudy Giuliani. If I spent more time on Rudy, it would be to make that main article better, but there's other things on the queue before that. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I did it just for kicks. Take a look at the time and date of creation and compare it with the time and date of the first edit of the account. Now look at the date of when you joined the WikiProject. Surprising that you did so with the same feeling of reluctance as you show here. Maybe you can channel your old self from 2007 and help me (with due reluctance) perfect the 2008 articles before we start on 2012. Maybe you'll find that all we spent on the '08 articles wasn't really wasted time.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying those 2008 campaign articles don't have value, they definitely do and they should stick around. I'm just saying it's a lot of work to bring them up to GA status, given their nature, and the more attention the candidate got the more work it is.  I'd rather spend my GA efforts on articles with broader scope and readership and a higher 'return on investment'.  And I'll probably think twice about spending much time on the 2012 campaign articles, for the same reason.  Of course, some people like working on certain articles that appeal to them, no matter how obscure they are, and that's fine; I do too at times.   Wasted Time R (talk) 04:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok. "Pretty Maids All in a Row" is a better song anyway.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Re;
Don't worry about it, it's all fine. <span style="font-family:'tahoma bold',serif;border:1px solid Black;"> Nowyouseeme talk2me  01:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:12
Up for deletion. See Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 December 22. Simply south (talk) and their tree 19:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * See also Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 December 23. Simply south (talk) and their tree 12:18, 23 December 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 06:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)