User talk:William Saturn/2011

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

A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round two is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 22:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Your Email
Hi William S. Saturn: If you have just sent me an Email, could you let me know why and what you have on your mind etc, you can let me know that by Email as well. But I will not respond by Email until I get to know you better. If possible we can talk on this page or on my user talk page if it is a reasonable matter. I tried to find you on the User:William Saturn page but it's blanked, so I came here because that was also a user name in your Email to me. If this is not the person who wants to contact me, then kindly ignore and/or delete this message. Thanks for your understanding. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 04:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please respond via e-mail due to a sensitive matter.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, please feel free to Email me again with what your concerns are or whatever you want to know, and please feel free to elaborate, I will keep it confidential. Thanks. IZAK (talk) 09:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not nonsense
The same primary contributors who have worked on both Nixon and Reagan have whitewashed both subjects, carefully, cleverly, and purposefully couching major critical aspects in ambiguous terms and light prose. This is pure propaganda. Viriditas (talk) 06:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My removal of nonsense does not imply that I would like additional nonsense to be added to my talk page. If you have a specific concern, please bring it up on the article talk page.--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Will do. Give me a few days as I'm in the middle of something right now.  Feel free to remove this nonsense from your talk page. Viriditas (talk) 08:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Just a reminder of the rules; if you have done significant work on content this year and it is promoted in this round, you may claim for it. Also, anything that was promoted after the end of round one but before the beginning of round two may be claimed for in round two. Details of the rules can be found on this page. For those interested in statistics, a running total of claims can be seen here, and a very interesting table of that information (along with the highest scorers in each category) can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Good try
Ah well, good try.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Phil Davison
What is the persistent coverage that warrants reconstituting the Phil Davison article? I don't mean this as an objection to reconstituting it; this is just a curiosity question.

Also, feel free to revise my comments about your parody of the video on your comments page if you wish. (Not that it matters, but I stumbled upon the article by way of an edit-conflict warning on an unrelated talk page I was editing.) — Steve98052 (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Davison's recent appearance on Tosh.O has increased media attention. The second AFD from November (two months after the speech) pointed to "persistent coverage" as a main deletion/redirection argument. Since Davison is still receiving press six months after his well-publicized speech, coverage is persistent.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Gingrich 2012
I'm confused why you believe that I am edit warring (this note on my page). Last week we discussed the inclusion of the fact that stock photography was used on the Newt Gingrich fundraising committee website, which you seem to think is important but I think is trivial. I gave a perfectly reasonable explanation for why it should not be included, but you did not respond. Specifically, I challenged your claim that it was "widely covered" and demonstrated it was not. Several days later, without any response, I changed it back. Now, I see that you still have not responded on the talk page, but your edit summary stated that "there is no clear dispute of the material on the talk page". That's not true. I don't dispute that it's factual, but I do dispute that it's relevant. Based on guidelines, I don't think it belongs. And please do not accuse me of edit warring. I aim to be polite and discuss changes based on policy, but for some reason you won't talk to me. Stargat (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The only meaningful things on the talk page are the links to several news stories about the stock footage, which you provided from the news search I linked. Such a large number of stories describing the website (which is the campaign at this point) certainly merits inclusion. I see no valid argument on the talk page as to why the the material should be erased. Therefore, I conclude that you are edit warring.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Three blog posts from the same day, then no further coverage or apparent impact is a "large number of stories"? That's just silly. Surely the standard for "widely covered" must be higher than that. What's more, I've pointed out how it appears to be a textbook case of WP:RECENTISM. These are valid arguments, are they not? Stargat (talk) 19:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Recentism can only apply when something minor is added to something major that has been going on for a long time. The Newt Gingrich presidential campaign is neither major nor longstanding. I will assume good faith and accept that your removal was based on a misinterpretation of recentism.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The nutshell definition says: "Some Wikipedia articles tend to focus on recent events. Wikipedia has been praised for the way it deals with current news breaks. Nevertheless, it is appropriate to be aware of balance and historical perspective." That seems to support my point that it wasn't a significant event and so shouldn't be there. Stargat (talk) 20:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, you are misunderstanding the guideline. It has absolutely nothing to do with your blanking.  Please re-read what I wrote above.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

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

A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round three is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 01:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Rand Paul
There is a discussion on Rand Paul's certification. I noticed you contributed regularly to the article and I just want your input on whether my version is better if User:BigK HeX version is preferable. Truthsort (talk) 01:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

E-mail
--JayJasper (talk) 03:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Article for deletion debate
The article Young Conservatives of Texas has been nominated for deletion at AfD. Your input as to whether or not this article meets Notability standards is invited. Thank you. Carrite (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Sorry this newsletter is going out a little earlier than expected- there is a busy weekend coming up! A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 19:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Re:vandalism message
Regarding the message you left on my talk on May 5 "Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia", you obviously mistook me for the user who followed my edit on Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012. If you look at the edit history of that article, you will see that in your own summary you reverted back to my change, rather than reverting it. You will also see that the change I made was a sourced and legitimate update to the current candidate list, and not vandalism at all. I'm sure it was a honest mistake, but please take care before posting such messages to be sure you have the right person. It dosen't look good to have a "stop vandalizing pages" message posted on one's talk page, not to mention it can be a little discouraging, especially when one is a fairly new user and has done no such thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjv110ma (talk • contribs) 16:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies for that.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the warning from my talk page, and for the "welcome" posting. Apology accepted, all is forgiven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjv110ma (talk • contribs) 17:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Randall Terry
Please don't revert any changes without explanation. If you want to include Randall Terry in the list of Democratic presidential candidates then please provide a citation which shows that Terry has filed the necessary paperwork with the FEC. Jay Gatsby(talk) 22:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please do some research before editing wikipedia.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Cibolo Creek map feedback needed
Okay, I've reloaded all the GIS software and took a stab at a Cibolo Creek watershed map. Please review it and let me know if you have any changes. Alterations are very easy at this point; the software is crazy flexible now apparently (five years of development were put to good use it seems). When you're good, I'll add in the little Texas locator map and we should be good to go. Kuru  (talk)  03:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. It looks magnificent. Thank you very much.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Collaboration

 * Ever feel like you're editing in a vacuum, and long for some camaraderie?
 * Do you want to improve an article and put a Featured Article star on your userpage but don't know how to get started?
 * Want to be part of a cohesive, committed team working together to improve conservatism one article at a time?

If you're interested in having lots of fun and working with great editors, click here and make history. We're now taking nominations. Lionelt (talk) 01:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment
Please summarize your position in a paragraph here. I think this format is more expedient than a single paragraph describing the dispute.--Chaser (talk) 20:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The burden is on you to propose a standard. I stand by the consensus.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * BTW, calling him a joke candidate is consistent with WP:BLPTALK. Take it to WP:BLPN if you disagree. I'm not interested in arguing with you on that point.--Chaser (talk) 20:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I really don't care if you are interested or not, any kind of name-calling is inappropriate.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

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

A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Republican Primary Article
Mr. Saturn:

With all due respect, my edit was not vandalism. Please don't make threats, comment on the article's talk page if you'd like to contribute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.158.38.11 (talk) 00:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No. Page blanking is vandalism.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Nothing I did was blanking, I edited an article for clarity based on a distinction I and other users feel is useful. Instead of making rude threats, why not try commenting on the article's talk page. Your negative attitude is extremely unhelpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.158.38.11 (talk) 01:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You blanked reliably sourced candidates. That is unacceptable.--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Commons POTY
At least we agree on something .--Chaser (talk) 13:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a spectacular image.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

From BLP
What do you suppose these paragraphs mean?

''it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to BLPs, including any living person mentioned in a BLP even if not the subject of the article, and to material about living persons on other pages''

''Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased or malicious content.''

This word 'santorum' is not widely used, even among those who support its use. It is a fabricated word explicitly created for political attack. On top of that, it is a very disgusting thing, and since typically etymology follows from a logical source, we see in this case it is being forced into existence rather than taking the path many words do with logical creation. Wikipedia is supposed to follow editorial guidelines, not be a tool (as in, be jerks). -- Avanu (talk) 22:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Avanu - Please bring your concerns to Talk:Santorum (neologism). You'll find this discussion well underway. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 22:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * BLP violations arise from unsourced or badly sourced claims and/or combined with synthesis. As I see it, the article is written in a neutral tone, and responsibly provides good information about the neologism for a reader to form his own opinion.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Currently, I hardly see how it is not "disproportionate space to particular viewpoints". Since the *entire* article is the viewpoint that this *is* a neologism, and a very gross one at that, it is clearly a violation of BLP.  You can't simply say, well a reliable source said it and now it's ok.  That is not the entirety of the BLP policy.  -- Avanu (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Provide some reliable sources that say it is not a neologism.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I don't do magic. I'm talking about WP:Biographies of Living Persons, not WP:Reliable Sources.  BLP says we have to take care in our treatment of living people.  US law lets us get a dig in against political leaders, truly.  But this is not just "Free Speech-i-pedia", it is Wikipedia.  We have standards of for encyclopedic content, and that does not solely include whether it comes from a reliable source. -- Avanu (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * By the way, unrelated to the BLP concerns but strictly speaking, since Santorum was already a word, this is not a neologism, which means a new word, but simply a new meaning for an existing word. -- Avanu (talk) 23:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * See Neologism.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know. New Word.  Neo Logism. -- Avanu (talk) 23:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "is a newly coined term, word or phrase, that may be in the process of entering common use, but has not yet been accepted into mainstream language. Neologisms are often directly attributable to a specific person, publication, period, or event"--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Take a look at some of the examples of "new" words from that page. 'Laser', 'grok', 'catch-22', etc.  These were new words, not preexisting ones.  While strictly speaking it is not a neologism, it is close enough, so really it makes no difference, but really that isn't the point.  I'm concerned about the BLP aspects.  Also, since you had me looking more closely at neologisms, consider Avoid_neologisms.

DYK for James Hedges
Calmer  Waters  00:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC) 18:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Iran & State Terrorism
Why did you revert my recent edit of Iran & State Terrorism? It was not a blanking of sourced material as you stated. It was a large number of changes, which I had put on the discussion board a day earlier. Why did you revert without any response in the discussion board? For the record, the following, no matter how well sourced, are not examples of terrorism and do not fall under any definition of terrorism:

Poyani (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Disrupting a conference
 * Opening a new military base in Nicaragua
 * Deposing the Shah
 * Supporting an insurgency against a foreign military
 * Responded on the talk page.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Dedi
Work is finished an a first positive vote on DYK was setted. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 11:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Santorum
William, I saw your note on the Santorum page. I hear what you're saying, however, it doesn't matter if it's sourced or not, it's still an attack page. Per policy, such pages are to be blanked and nominated for speedy deletion. So, blanking is fine, per policy. KoshVorlon Naluboutes ''AeriaGloris 15:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * From WP:Attack:

--William S. Saturn (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "...this policy is not usually meant to apply to requests for comment, requests for mediation and similar processes...
 * "When material is spunout of a biography of a public figure by consensus because that section of the article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article, it is not necessarily an attack page, even if the content in question reflects negatively upon its subject. Such an article is still required to comply with WP:BLP."
 * I couldn't agree more. Specifically this article is a term coined by  Dan Savage for the expressed reason of disparaging him.

For that reason, this is an attaack article. Policy calls for it to be blanked and speedied. KoshVorlon Naluboutes ''AeriaGloris 18:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

ps: BLP is exempt from Vandalism.... nice try on the AIV page though!
 * An article about an attack is not an attack.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Article idea
I got your e-mail. I've been following the presidential election closely and wouldn't mind helping out. Who's the candidate you have in mind? Difluoroethene (talk) 05:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the Libertarian candidate R.J. Harris. I just interviewed him for wikinews and he certainly is notable enough for a wikipedia page (and had one at RJ Harris (candidate) until it was redirected last year).  I could create the article myself though it may appear like a conflict of interest so soon after the interview.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know; I'll look into it soon. Best wishes, Difluoroethene (talk) 04:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Finnish parliamentary election 2011, give your thoughts
Hi! Seems like you've been involved a lot in writing about the US elections. Therefore, I'd like to hear your thoughts on the talk page of the article Finnish parliamentary election, 2011. To the point: I re-wrote the first sentence of the article, because I thought it was somewhat poor English. Afterwards, my edits have been reverted, on (IMO) dubious grounds... I'd like to hear your opinion! :) Regards. -- Frous (talk) 05:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

US Presidents members list
I'm not quite sure how alphabetizing the list of members and seperating out the inactive participants, several of them being retired, blocked or banned is a controversial edit but if you prefer it the way it is with yourself in the top slot then its ok with me. --Kumioko (talk) 18:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with separating "inactive" participants (though you are not a member and did not bother discuss it on the talk page). However, new members add their names to the bottom of the list. There's no good reason to alphabetize the list since it will inevitably cause more unnecessary work for others without any benefit.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, a lot of us think it makes it easier to find names without having to read the whole list and seperating out the inactive and blocked ones helps to know who the active ones are so we don't waste time sending messages to folks that aint gonna see it. There was also one in there that never edited even one time so I'm not even sure how it got there in the first place. Either way its not a big deal to me though since as you stated I don't actively participate in the project (although I have edited quite a few of the articles in some capacity). I wasn't sure if the project was even active so that at least answers that question. Only about 200 more US related ones to verify still.:-) Happy editing. --Kumioko (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Moore2012
No I am not Roy Moore, just a fan and supporter of the judge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moore2012 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks....
....for reverting vandalism on my user page.--JayJasper (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. I keep your page on my watchlist.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 June newsletter
We are half way through 2011, and entering the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; the semi-finals are upon us! Points scored in the interim (29/30 June) may be counted towards next round, but please do not update your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. 16 contestants remain, and all have shown dedication to the project to reach this far. Our round leader was who, among other things, successfully passed three articles through featured article candidates and claimed an impressive 29 articles at Did You Know, scoring 555 points. Casliber led pool D. Pool A was led by, claiming points for a featured article, a featured list and seven good article reviews, while pool C was led by , who claimed for two good articles, ten articles at Did You Know and four good article reviews. They scored 154 and 118 respectively. Pool B was by far our most competitive pool; six of the eight competitors made it through to round 4, with all of them scoring over 100 points. The pool was led by, who claimed for, among other things, three featured articles and five good articles. In addition to the four pool leaders, 12 others (the four second places, and the 8 next highest overall) make up our final 16. The lowest scorer who reached round 4 scored 76 points; a significant increase on the 41 needed to reach round 3. Eight of our semi-finalists scored at least twice as much as this.

No points were awarded this round for featured pictures, good topics or In the News, and no points have been awarded in the whole competition for featured topics, featured portals or featured sounds. Instead, the highest percentage of points has come from good articles. Featured articles, despite their high point cost, are low in number, and so, overall, share a comparable number of points with Did You Know, which are high in number but low in cost. A comparatively small but still considerable number of points come from featured lists and good article reviews, rounding out this round's overall scores.

We would again like to thank and  for invaluable background work, as well as all of those helping to provide reviews for the articles listed on WikiCup/Reviews. Please do keep using it, and please do help by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup.

Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here, for those interested, though it appears that neither are completely accurate at this time. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Jack Fellure
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

For your consideration
I noted, with some considerable interest, your recent edit to the Obama "conspiracy theories" article ("some commentators") which has, thus far anyway, apparently survived as consensus acceptable. Quite coincidentally, a dispute as to the legitimacy of similar wording is now in progress in the "santorum" article talk, where "some observers" is one of 2 phrases being objected to under WP:WEASEL. It's an interesting (I think anyway) debate that may have WP-wide relevancy & repurcussions and I've solicited the MOS folks for some informed views. I thought you might be interested in a look-see. Rgds. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The "some commentators" are clearly defined in the "Commentary and criticism" section. I disagree with the sentence's inclusion in the lead since it gives undue weight, but I will abide by consensus.--William S. Saturn (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Conservatism
Hi William! I'm sorry the project hasn't met your expectations. You're right of course. Far too much time is being expended on issues which don't improve articles. I expect in the near future the project will stabilize and get back to the work of improving conservative articles. When that happens I hope you'll give us another chance. – Lionel (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 July newsletter
We are half way through the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; there is less than a month to go before we have our final 8. Our pool leaders are (Pool A, 189 points) and  (Pool B, 165 points). The number of points required to reach the next round is not clear at this time; there are some users who still do not have any recorded points. Please remember to update your submissions' pages promptly. In addition, congratulations to PresN, who scored the first featured topic points in the competition for his work on Thatgamecompany related articles. Most points this round generally have, so far, come from good articles, with only one featured article (White-bellied Sea Eagle, from ) and two featured lists (Hugo Award for Best Graphic Story, from PresN and Grammy Award for Best Native American Music Album, from ). Points for Did You Know and good article reviews round out the scoring. No points have been awarded for In the News, good topics or featured pictures this round, and no points for featured sounds or portals have been awarded in the entire competition. On an unrelated note, preparation will be beginning soon for next year's WikiCup- watch this space!

There is little else to be said beyond the usual. Please list anything you need reviewing on WikiCup/Reviews, so others following the WikiCup can help, and please do help if you can by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup- points are, of course, offered for reviews at GAC. Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 11:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced comment?
I think you accidentally placed a comment indicating you have reviewed Agriculturalism in the section about Thaddeus McCotter presidential campaign, 2012 (in DYK)--  SPhilbrick  T  20:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I was fulfilling the fifth requirement.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not getting it. But I'll drop it.--  SPhilbrick  T  00:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Great job on McCotter campaign article
Hey, just wanted to say great job on creating content for Thaddeus McCotter presidential campaign, 2012. I had listed it on WP:USPE articles for creation list, and intended to get it started, but haven't the free time lately to do as much editing as I would like to. I logged in today prepared to start to working on it, only to find it was already filled in, and very well written and extensively sourced at that! I saw that you were the one who started the content and did the vast majority of the work. So thank you for your efforts and very well done.--Rollins83 (talk) 13:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment.--William S. Saturn (talk) 15:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Thaddeus McCotter presidential campaign, 2012
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 08:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Ken Grammer Candidate Page in list of 2012 US Presidential Candidates
William,

I admit to misunderstanding the guidelines for creating a page for our presidential campaign. I also admit that I did indeed re-add the page after admins had deleted it, assuming at first I had simply made edit mistakes that caused the edits to be faulty. This evening I received a complaint about potential "sockpuppetry" on my part. I replied to that claim but I want to personally reply to you since apparently your name was "edited" in one of the modification attempts. I certainly did not edit any comments nor do I know the person and/or IP address of the person making those changes. As I said in the response to the claim, once I understood the rules I stopped and made no further attempts to create the page. I also only have only one Wiki account. I have also offered to delete my account if there are any continued suspicions that I am personally involved in any attempts to exploit the Wiki rules. I may have misunderstood the initial rules, but I am certainly not creating multiple accounts in any attempt to create issues for you or any other Wiki admin.

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Jonathan Sharkey
Come on, you and I both know the procedure here. I saw material that didn't belong on the page. I deleted it, brought it up for discussion on the talk page, and I still want to continue that discussion. In the meanwhile, it is not right to bypass wikipedia policy and start putting the profile back up without discussion. As far as I recall, the growing consensus was for removal of the profile, and you left the talk page. I thank you for warning me about the 3RR because I'm probably getting close now, but I advise you to come to the talk page and settle this the right way.-- Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 01:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Fed Up! Our Fight to Save America from Washington
Calmer  Waters  08:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

AN/I
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding comments that you may have been the subject of by the editor in question. The thread is Disruptive Conduct of User:Screwball23. Thank you.

WikiCup 2011 July newsletter
The finals are upon us; we're down to the last few. One of the eight remaining contestants will be this year's WikiCup champion! 150 was the score needed to progress to the final; just under double the 76 required to reach round 4, and more than triple the 41 required to reach round 3. Our eight finalists are:


 * , Pool A's winner. Casliber has the highest total score in the competition, with 1528, the bulk of which is made up of 8 featured articles. He has the highest number of total featured articles (8, 1 of which was eligible for double points) and total did you knows (72) of any finalist. Casliber writes mostly on biology, including ornithology, botany and mycology.
 * , Pool B's winner and the highest scorer this round. PresN is the only finalist who has scored featured topic points, and he has gathered an impressive 330, but most of his points come from his 4 featured articles, one of which scored double. PresN writes mostly on video games and the Hugo Awards.
 * , Pool A's runner-up. Hurricanehink's points are mostly from his 30 good articles, more than any other finalist, and he is also the only finalist to score good topic points. Hurricanehink, as his name suggests, writes mostly on meteorology.
 * , Pool B's runner-up. Wizardman has completed 86 good article reviews, more than any other finalist, but most of his points come from his 2 featured articles. Wizardman writes mostly on American sport, especially baseball.
 * , the "fastest loser" (Pool A). Miyagawa has written 3 featured lists, one of which was awarded double points, more than any other finalist, but he was awarded points mostly for his 68 did you knows. Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, including dogs, military history and sport.
 * , the second "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Resolute's points come from his 9 good articles. He writes mostly on Canadian topics, including ice hockey.
 * , who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool A). Most of Evan's points come from his 10 good articles, and he writes mostly on meteorology.
 * , who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Phil's points come from his 9 good articles, 4 of which (more than any other finalist) were eligible for double points. He writes mostly on aeronautics.

We say goodbye to our seven other semi-finalists,, , , , , and. Everyone still in the competition at this stage has done fantastically well, and contributed greatly to Wikipedia. We're on the home straight now, and we will know our winner in two months.

In other news, preparations for next year's competition have begun with a brainstorming thread. Please, feel free to drop by and share any thoughts you have about how the competition should work next year. Sign ups are not yet open, but will be opened in due course. Watch this space. Further, there has been a discussion about the rule whereby those in the WikiCup must delcare their participation when nominating articles at featured article candidates. This has resulted in a bot being created by new featured article delegate. The bot will leave a message on FAC pages if the nominator is a participant in the WikiCup.

A reminder of the rules: any points scored after August 29 may be claimed for the final round, and please remember to update submission pages promptly. If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

3RR
Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively. Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * Show me the evidence.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to have reverted four times in a six-hour period beginning late on September 5. (Starting at 23:23 on 5 September, where in a string of 5 edits you removed 13,330 bytes from the article. It's hard to remove thousands of bytes without it being considered a revert of the original contributors' work). The other reverts were at 03:53, 04:14 and 04:36. If you will comment on the 3RR report and promise to stop edit warring, you may be able to avoid sanctions. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 05:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The large edit was to carry out Talk:Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012. The smaller edit was to rename "Major candidates" to "Candidates invited to debates" for a more descriptive and neutral title.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, that gets rid of the first one. But you still have 03:53, 04:14, and 04:27. You seem to think there is no need to listen to anyone else regarding your preference for 'Candidates invited to debates.' WP:MOS is not even a policy, and is not an excuse to edit war. If you would agree to wait for consensus about the header before changing it again, the report might be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 05:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. I will wait for talk page consensus.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 02:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 September newsletter
We are on this year's home straight, with less than a month to go until the winner of the 2011 WikiCup will be decided. The fight for first place is currently being contested by, and , all of whom have over 200 points. This round has already seen multiple featured articles (1991 Atlantic hurricane season from Hurricanehink and Northrop YF-23 from Sp33dyphil) and a double-scoring featured list (Miyagawa's 1948 Summer Olympics medal table). The scores will likely increase far further before the end of the round on October 31 as everyone ups their pace. There is not much more to say- thoughts about next year's competition are welcome on the WikiCup talk page or the scoring talk page, and signups will open once a few things have been sorted out.

If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 12:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Important AFD
I want your opinion at Articles for deletion/Jonathon Sharkey (5th nomination). Thanks! SOXROX (talk) 04:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Talkback
Your wish is granted. Be careful what you wished for; the redirect is semi-protected still. Drmies (talk) 16:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you.--William S. Saturn (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 October newsletter
The 2011 WikiCup is now over, and our new champion is, who joins the exclusive club of the previous winners: (2007),  (2008),  (2009) and  (2010). The final standings were as follows:



Prizes for first, second, third and fourth will be awarded, as will prizes for all those who reached the final eight. Every participant who scored in the competition will receive a ribbon of participation. In addition to the prizes based on placement, the following special prizes will be awarded based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, the prize is awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round.


 * The Featured Article Award:, for his performance in round 2. matched the score, but Casliber won the tiebreaker.
 * The Good Article Award:, for his performance in round 4.
 * The Featured List Award:, for his performance in round 4. matched the score, but Miyagawa won the tiebreaker.
 * The Recognised Topic Award (for good and featured topics):, for his performance in round 3.
 * The Did You Know Award:, for his performance in round 1.
 * The In the News Award:, for his performance in round 1.
 * The Reviewer Award (for good article reviews):, for his performance in round 3.

No prize was awarded for featured pictures, sounds or portals, as none were claimed throughout the competition. The awards will be handed out over the next few days. Congratulations to all our participants, and especially our winners; we've all had fun, and Wikipedia has benefitted massively from our content work.

Preparation for next year's WikiCup is ongoing. Interested parties are invited to sign up and participate in our straw polls. It's been a pleasure to work with you all this year, and, whoever's taking part in and running the competition in 2012, we hope to see you all in January! J Milburn and The ed17 00:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Keepup the good work!
Re: [your latest edit]

Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk--23:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you and likewise, Newt Gingrich presidential campaign, 2012 is a nice article.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Eugene Puryear
Back in June, you PRODded this and I deleted it. Undeletion has been requested on my talk page, so per WP:DEL I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider taking it to AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification. I'll wait and see how the article develops.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Herman Cain presidential campaign, 2012
Out of curiosity: What were those edits  about in which you knowingly re-introduced misleading content. I'd really appreciate your reasoning for this.TMCk (talk) 01:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's better for the sourced content to remain on the page. The fact that Miller withdrew his support does not negate the fact that he endorsed Cain. Removing Miller in no way updates the page, but rather disregards the past. Yes, I could have just added the bit myself, but I didn't have time at that moment. Instead, I decided to revert rather than let the fact be lost. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletion Mike Ballantine - Green Party candidate for President
Why are you proposing to delete Green Party candidate for President, Mike Ballantine? There are only two candidates listed, Jill Stein and Kent Mesplay. Kent is not constitutionally eligible for President because he was born in Papua New Guinea yet you have him listed as a real candidate. If you don't list Mike, then you are picking and choosing the candidates instead of allowing the people to decide. Americans Elect is a new primary platform and Mike is an acknowledged candidate for this system. People want to know that he is a real candidate and not some digital construct. What is your intention delete him now and add him back in 45 days when Americans Elect posts him on their website? Wikipedia should be a neutral party in the presidential race, not the decider of who is legitimate or not, the people do that when they vote. You can contact Mike's campaign manager cjdavis9193@aol.com or Nancy Benac NBENAC@ap.org at the AP if you have any doubts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.162.77.177 (talk) 02:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * He is a non-notable individual much like many of the other 284 candidates.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:WikiProject United States presidential elections
Template:WikiProject United States presidential elections has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Barry Goldwater presidential campaign, 1964
Greetings! If you've no objection, I will soon put the article up for review at WP:GAN to make it a good article. Then we can go from there in bringing it up to FA. Regards, Tyrol5   [Talk]  16:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No objections from me.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent. I've nominated it for GA. Tyrol5   [Talk]  18:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Harley Mikkelson
Why did you remove Harley Mikkelson from the Green Party section of the US presidential template with no explanation? He is a candidate. Period. I consider what you did a form of vandalism and I ask you to restore the link.--TM 01:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The template is a navigational guide. Do not link to non-articles or non-notable individuals.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The candidates are in the election. Per WP:REDLINK, "Please only make links that are relevant to the context, but please do create red links to articles you intend to create, technical terms that deserve treatment beyond a mere dictionary definition and topics which should obviously have articles." Clearly, linking to articles on candidates for Vice President on a template for the election are relevant to the context.--TM 01:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Merely being a vice presidential nominee of a minor party does not satisfy the notability requirement. Plus, the candidate you insist on adding to the Green Party is not even recognized by the party .--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in WP:NAVBOX about not having redlinks in a template. I am going to restore and hope you will not engage in a further edit war.--TM 01:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You will be editing against consensus and I will revert.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I would note that you have reverted three times already and you will be reported for edit warring.--TM 01:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am willing to ignore all rules when dealing with advertisers.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ha! I have been editing Wikipedia since March 2006, more than two years longer than you. I have created hundreds of articles about any number of countries. Advertising for what? I am in the midst of reporting you and I urge you to revert yourself to avoid this issue. Personal attacks are not appreciated.--TM 01:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You're advertising at least one non-notable individual as a candidate for the Green Party nomination when the non-notable individual is not even recognized by the Party.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh really? The Green Party doesn't recognize Harley Mikkelson? How do you think I knew enough to add him? It is you who are incorrect and owning the template.--[[User:Namiba|TM 01:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You linked to a press release. The page I linked above clearly states "Official recognition as a candidate seeking the GPUS Presidential nomination. To become officially recognized as a candidate seeking the GPUS Presidential nomination for President, one must demonstrate a level of grassroots support within the Green Party and a level of legal and financial organization as a candidate. As of November 2, 2011, the officially recognized candidates are Kent Mesplay and Jill Stein"


 * Perhaps it is out of date. I do not know. But what I do know is that you are editing against consensus by adding a red link to the template. Why do you feel your candidate has a right to appear on the template but not all of the other 290 people running, most of which are also non-notable individuals?--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 Hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. 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 would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Spartaz Humbug! 05:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Stale. Plus, purely punitive brought about from misinterpretation of the case. Reverting advertising is not edit warring.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If two established editors disagree with you and you haven't obtained a consensus on the talk page to remove the entry then ≠ advertising . Its edit warring and not permitted. Spartaz Humbug! 07:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The first two edits were based on stylistic changes that have since been resolved on the talk page; I will admit that these two reverts were edit warring, and that I was mistaken. However, the last two edits were the removal of the advertising/spamming of a non-notable candidate that does not have a wikipedia article, in clear violation of the edit notice on the template from established consensus.--William S. Saturn (talk) 12:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If all 4 revisions include removing the same content then its over the 3rr and you were warned and refused to revert yourself asserting you could IAR a bright line. You surely knew better then that and post fact revisionism doesn't alter the fact that you were warned and were given the chance to revert before this went to AN3. Spartaz Humbug! 13:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no, as you say "post fact revisionism". I stand by my last two reverts, and I will exercise IAR to stop spammers (in this case there was only one spammer, as you seem to not be able to grasp, the first editor reverted based on style).--William S. Saturn (talk) 13:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to jump in here, but these personal attacks are factually incorrect. I am no spammer and my actions in no way represent spam. I added links to the soon to be create articles of a nominee for Vice President and a candidate for President with the Green Party who has runs multiple times for high level office and is noted as a candidate by the national Green Party in a press release. William S. Saturn, you deserve your block and maybe a longer one for misrepresenting my edits so egregiously. You do not WP:OWN anything here and I hope you will stop acting like it.--TM 13:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That is unacceptable. Running for office "multiple times" does not make an individual notable. You should have first created the article, posted a link, then waited to see if other editors believed that the individual was notable. Instead, you failed to read the editing notice then accused me of "vandalism" before I could explain consensus to you. We cannot add red links to the template. If we pick and chose some non-notable candidates and not others, then we are in violation of NPOV. I explained this to you and yet you continued to revert. To me, that is spamming. We see this all the time, just recently here. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Now, because of this block, I can't revert this nonsense.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey admin that doesn't look at facts, why don't you revert the above nonsense? Believe me, if I could go around this block to do so, I would in a heartbeat.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like I can go around the block. Well IAR: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Aren't you clever using an alternative account to edit while you were blocked. Congratulations your pointyness succeeded. See you in 48 hours. Spartaz Humbug! 05:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And I'd do it again if I had the chance.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I have put the block up at ANI for review. . Spartaz Humbug! 05:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that. In no way can this be considered "sockpuppetry." I used a doppelgänger account. It was block evasion to revert obvious vandalism that no one seemed to care about.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Does IAR even mean anything? I ignored a rule preventing me "from improving or maintaining Wikipedia" yet I remain blocked.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * See also WP:LAWYER &mdash; Joseph Fox 06:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Honestly, that is not my intent. Also, please note that the 3RR block occurred 28 hours after the incident, after it was already settled. And I used an account that redirected back to my main account to do nothing else but revert vandalism. Why is this looked down upon?--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

''Copied to AN/I. I've copied the entire three-comment dialog - I hope that's what you wanted -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)''
 * Yes. Thank you.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I have unblocked, following thge discussion on AN/I, and with the consent of the blocking admin. Next time, please use the talk pages, or look for an admin to protect the page, rather than edit-war and play with (properly disclosed) alternate accounts.  Horologium  (talk) 17:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am still autoblocked.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Try again. I've lifted one auto-block associated with your account. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Still doesn't work.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Removed another on (or the same again...). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. It works now. Thank you.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Barry Goldwater presidential campaign, 1964 GA review on hold
You are the top contributor on this article. I did a GA review for it and nobody has responded. The nomination will fail in 3 days if no improvements are made. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 15:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I will get to it shortly.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The article has been listed as a GA. Thanks for your substantial addition to it! Tyrol5   [Talk]  20:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for getting the ball rolling on it and for addressing all of the GA concerns. Next stop, FAC.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 03:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

2012 WikiCup
Hi! As you've previously expressed interest in the competition, I'm just letting you know that the 2012 WikiCup is due to start in less than 24 hours. Signups are open, and will remain so for a few weeks after the beginning of the competition. The competition itself will follow basically the same format as last year, with a few small tweaks to point costs to reflect the opinions of the community. If you're interested in taking part, you're more than welcome, and if you know anyone who might be, please let them know too- the more the merrier! To join, simply add your name to WikiCup/2012 signups, and we will be in touch. Please feel free to direct any questions to me, or leave a note on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! You are receiving this note as you are listed on WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Please feel free to add or remove yourself. EdwardsBot (talk) 01:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive activity
Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly.