User talk:Willking1979/Archive 10

Ted Haggard
Re: Ted haggard, i received your message and do not accept your reasoning with regards to indicating that Ted Haggard is a member of the LGBT community. Presumably that he admitted to what he referred to as "sexual immorality" is reference enough. That is why the term is called LGBT. As in Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered. It has been "sourced" multiple times and your reverting of my edits speaks seemingly not of a actual search for historical honesty but of something that made me wary of posting on Wiki in the first place where there seems to be undertone where that idea where anyone can add information isn't actually the case. But more of a case that one can only add information if one is already agreed to the 'consensus'

One may want to be of saying who can and cannot make edits and implying that a fact is not "sourced" (with the moving feast of what the definition of "sourced" is this week). It's also indicative of a restriction of the clash of ideas that controversial facts in favour of 'accepted facts'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.161.114.96 (talk) 10:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The reasons why I reverted your edits is that I thought there was no consensus. If you can find on a Wikipedia policy page, on the article talk page or the talk page archives that there was a consensus to add the category, then there is a basis for your edits and I have made a mistake. If there is no consensus, then there is a basis for my revert.


 * Is this article about a very controversial topic? Due to Haggard's role in the Evangelical Christian community, it obviously is. Since I normally stay away from editing very controversial articles with exceptions for obvious vandalism and spelling/grammar corrections, I will voluntarily stay away from this particular article for the near future. Willking1979 (talk) 11:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Since Haggard has never identified himself as homosexual, it is not appropriate to add this category to the page. LGBT is a chosen group identification that cannot be applied to those who deny the label. Uncle Dick (talk) 16:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing the air, Uncle Dick. Willking1979 (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 August 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 09:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 August 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 21:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

AFD
Things are getting a little chippy here. Not sure any policies have been violated, but it might be a discussion worth keeping an eye on. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I also am unsure if there are any policies that were broken, but the relisting of the AfD seems to be fine. I've placed it in my watchlist and will monitor very closely. Willking1979 (talk) 13:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the relisting was fine, and I'm not super concerned about the outcome, although I've obviously had my say. I just don't want things to get silly between the editors still duking it out, apparently with very little respect for each other's sources. :) Thanks for lending another set of eyes to the situation. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 14:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, it's really starting to get silly over there now. Someone needs to close the thing down, and at this point I don't much care what the closing decision is. We've got a guy calling the whole article "crap" (after a good faith rewrite by a seemingly-neutral editor) and questioning whether a professor deserves his PhD. Not exactly sterling eloquence to be sure. Not asking that you personally close it, but if you know someone who can sort it out, I think it's been hashed out pretty well, and people (myself included) have dropped out of the discussion because the tone of the discourse has sunk well below what's expected of Wikipedians. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 19:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would defer this matter to other admins. This is too complicated of an AFD for me. Willking1979 (talk) 19:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Help
Hello, could you please restore Twinkle settings back for me, it was not fairly taken away from me. Basically, they chose user with 2-3 contributions per year to my one, which is absolutely shocking. --NovaSkola (talk) 21:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that this is a subject matter for the ANI thread so that more eyes can look at the situation. Talk page watchers, your thoughts? Willking1979 (talk) 21:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * With all due respect to Will, it shouldn't be for one user to decide. Too much weight on that user, plus this was a community decision.  Recommend sending this back to ANI for discussion. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 21:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thanks, Hi878...I am very humbled. :) Willking1979 (talk) 23:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 16:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

A couple of admin tasks
Greetings again. Would you be willing to move Augustus O. Stanley to Augustus Owsley Stanley over a redirect based on the discussion here?

Also, the questions about Enes Kanter's collegiate eligibility have inspired a new wave of POV-pushing IPs to edit his article. Could you take a look at the edit history and see if you think it should get semi-protection for a little while? Thanks. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 20:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. Augustus O. Stanley has been moved to Augustus Owsley Stanley and the Enes Kanter article has been semi-protected for 2 months for BLP violations. Willking1979 (talk) 20:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 September 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 20:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

66.222.206.142
I just happened to receive a message from you stating that an edit I had made had been removed as it was against policy. One small problem, I have NEVER made any edits nor do I have a shared IP address. Kindly pay closer attention in the future.66.222.206.142 (talk) 09:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * While I realize that you have made no edits, please understand that the warning I posted back in April was likely for a customer of Telus who had that particular IP address before you had internet access from that ISP. I apologize for any inconvenience this has caused. Simply ignore that warning. You are encouraged to create an account so that you can avoid notices for anonymous users. Willking1979 (talk) 11:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 September 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:18, 20 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)

The Signpost: 27 September 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 22:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Ergun Caner
Can we get some semi-protection here to stop the IP edit war, or at least to encourage them to take it to the talk page? Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 21:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I just issued warning notices to all IPs who were warring on the article. While the notices emphasize 3RR, they have vital info on how to avoid disputes. I am also suspicious that there have been sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry involved in the slow edit war. For now, I am not protecting the article, but will monitor very, very closely. Willking1979 (talk) 21:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * hey, it's not "edit war" i'm trying to clean that nonsense whom the other ip is insisting to push in the article. it would have been more appreciated if you told him/her that his/her late contributing is against wikipedia rules!--41.235.40.166 (talk) 04:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Take your concerns about the article to the talk page and discuss them with other editors. If the dispute continues, I or other admins have no choice but to lock down the article--at least for anonymous users--for a period of time. Willking1979 (talk) 09:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 October 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 October 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 08:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

75.25.49.214 and Vandalism
Please review User talk:75.25.49.214. As you'll see, you posted a final warning to the IP on 9/27/10. Unfortunately, the IP has vandalized additional articles, but the last warning by Almightyduck was only a level 2 (I believe) warning. Shouldn't the IP be blocked?--Bbb23 (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason why issued a level 2 warning is that blocks--except in very rare and limited circumstances--are imposed if the IP edits again 24 hours after the level 4 or "only" warning. There is aabout a 19-day difference between my "only" warning on September 27 and the level 1 warning issued at 0300 UTC (11pm EDT) today by an anti-vandal bot. I will continue to monitor the IP's edits very closely. Willking1979 (talk) 11:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. I guess I read the language of the level 4 warning too literally as it doesn't qualify "the next time" at all.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Misnamed Security Industry Association article
In a matter regarding the name of the Augustus Owsley Stanley article last month, I believe fellow editor Acdixon called you in as administrator to facilitate the renaming of the article. A few days ago, I encountered a naming problem of a different nature, discussed here, and wonder if I could ask you to facilitate this name change. It's not as simple a change as the AOStanley one, but I am satisfied the article is misnamed. I've even been wondering if this isn't my second go-round to correct the situation, and I was just discouraged by the challenges of Wiki name-changing protocols the first time. I say this not as a criticism of Wiki; just a measure of my slowly increasing ability to navigate the higher-order challenges. Definitely slowly: I did a copy of the whole body to a new correctly named page in the current go-round before finding that was against the rules; finding with help from a bot-reversal.

Anyway, looking at the Securities Industry Association article edit history, I see both the possibility (how possible? I can't tell) that the misnaming started with the article in 2008 -- the copy is clear: "Security Industry Association" -- and, at the other extreme, an Speedy delete initiative and rebuff in the last few days. I do view the correction of this apparently long-standing misnaming as an important step if article content is going to be upgraded, appropriate links are to be made, et c..

The association Web site http://www.siaonline.org/, cited in the article, confirms the "Security" name as I say it should be in the article name.

If this is an inappropriate request, please let me know.

Either way, thanks for your consideration. Swliv (talk) 01:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * While there is a need for a move based on the website for the group, I would prefer--due to the recent CSD tagging--that you take it to Requested moves to gain further opinion from other admins and editors. Let me know if you need further assistance. Sincerely, Willking1979 (talk) 01:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to admit, even though I noted it in my first note above, that I hadn't fully absorbed the CSD tagging. The tagging actually postdated my (first misguided, then corrected) work on renaming the article, and the article (I should have told you) was and is already posted at Requested moves. I'll note this fact to the two editors involved in the CSD, and see how it progresses from there. I had come to you after the Request had sat several days to see if I could move it along. (Now I'm wondering if somehow the CSD tagging was prompted by my Request. We'll see.) Sorry I didn't make more clear upfront. Still feeling my way, here. Thanks again. Swliv (talk) 13:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. Willking1979 (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * To keep you up-to-date on this:


 * The Securities Industry Association article has been deleted for cut and paste copyright violations by another editor -- presumably of Security Industry Association information -- rather than being renamed. The situation's been addressed here, and I've probed a little further here. But it seems we're probably waiting now for someone to start again from scratch on one or both articles. Ah, well. Live and learn. Thanks for your attention along the way. Swliv (talk) 02:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. :) Willking1979 (talk) 02:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 October 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 October 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

CDS G7
Why would an editor asked to have their user page deleted even thought they are still present? -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE GOOD WORKS 10:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Which user page are you discussing? As far as I know, no editor is required to have a user page, but a user talk page is strongly recommended if not required. Willking1979 (talk) 10:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't remember which editor. Does it matter? Just wondering why an editor might want that.  Thanks. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE GOOD WORKS 20:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It really does not matter whose page it was. If you want to know Wikipedia's userpage deletion guidelines, see here. Willking1979 (talk) 21:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

MEssage from Wolfdog406
Hi, can you please block this user from editing? Five times I had to revert this person's edits and I told them to stop on their talk page.

Wolfdog406 (talk) 03:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * He has not edited since issued a final warning. Will closely watch user. Willking1979 (talk) 11:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 05:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 November 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 17:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm
Just noticed User:Transypr. Given that the user's only edits have been to Transylvania University and a new page he/she created about the university's current president, it seems that this may be a violation of our user name policy or at least a COI risk. I'm not a wiki-policy wonk, so I'm not sure how to proceed, but I thought it was worth bringing to someone's attention. I think all this user's actions have been in good faith. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I just posted a note to the user's talk page regarding our COI policies. I will very closely monitor the user. Willking1979 (talk) 16:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Mayor of Ashland, Kentucky
Could you help me with the Mayor of Ashland, Kentucky article? The article is incomplete and I have had great difficulty finding the mayors have held the position from 1960-present. Any assistance will be greatly appreciated!

J654567 (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The city website has a list of minutes from 1998 to the present. It can be viewed here. It can help in locating names of mayors for that time period. You may want to do a Google search as well. Willking1979 (talk) 22:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! J654567 (talk) 00:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 November 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Please block user 166.109.0.180
I believe you blocked him last year but his term is over and he has made a couple annoying edits. Please see Special:Contributions/166.109.0.180. Thank you. *Cc (talk) 17:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There have been no new edits since that vandal edit today. I will not block him at this time, but will watch closely. Willking1979 (talk) 18:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you *Cc (talk) 02:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 November 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

HAPPY HOLIDAYS
<div style="padding: 0px; background: #FF0800; border-style: ridge; border-width: 8px; border-color: #0000FF;">
 * Thanks and Happy Thanksgiving to you. :) Willking1979 (talk) 11:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

 * Thanks and Happy Thanksgiving to you. :) Willking1979 (talk) 11:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Block of 90.24.186.169
I see you have blocked 90.24.186.169. However, it seems to me that the edits were misguided but made in good faith, and no attempt had been made to discuss them with the editor, only warnings for "vandalism" being issued. I have written a note at User talk:90.24.186.169, and I wonder whether you might like to reconsider the block. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I would consider unblocking if he/she does have reliable sources to support the changes and if there is a willingness to discuss the changes with other editors. In addition, why did ClueBot NG detect these edits as vandalism in the first place? Willking1979 (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't suggesting that the edits were acceptable, only that they were made due to honest misunderstanding, and that now the situation has been explained perhaps the editor would not repeat the same mistakes. however, a 31 hour block is not a big deal, and I don't plan to unblock since you don't agree. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of UltraStream for deletion
A discussion has begun about whether the article UltraStream, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/UltraStream until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 12:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

204.9.147.2 Ohio Mid Eastern Regional Education
Hi you placed a school ban on anonymous edits for the ip address 204.9.147.2 registered to Ohio Mid Eastern Regional Education Service Agency the ban lasted one year and expired 4 days ago. There have already been 3 cases of vandalism. I think the ban should be renewed. Thanks. Drewerd (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Just blocked the user for one more year...reverted another vandal edit here. Thanks, Willking1979 (talk) 18:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 December 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 04:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 December 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 December 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!
<div style="position: relative; margin: 0 auto; width: 900px; background-color: transparent; border: 1px solid wheat; height: 1%;">


 * Thank you very much and Merry Christmas! :) Willking1979 (talk) 16:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

 * Thank you and Merry Christmas! :) Willking1979 (talk) 13:13, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 13:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 January 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

 * Welcome to the project. --Kumioko (talk) 04:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Assistance
Might I request that you watch Talk:Confederate government of Kentucky for at least a few weeks? There are a couple of new editors there that are insisting that, because they do not agree with parts of the article, it should be "reported to the web site's creators" and deleted. FWIW, I agree with some of the changes they are suggesting, but the present wording was hammered out with other editors on the talk page more than once and was confirmed by the article's promotion to FA some time ago, so I'm reluctant to change it without a more robust discussion among interested editors. I'm trying really hard not to WP:BITE these new editors and maybe even get them to participate civilly in a new discussion, but their tone and my personal propensity for sarcasm have already led me to delete two messages before I posted them because I felt they were too harsh. If you don't feel like wading into the debate, that's fine; I just need someone to make sure my snarkiness stays in check, if nothing else. Thanks as always. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added the page to my watchlist and will watch it closely. I believe that your comments there were very appropriate. Thanks, Willking1979 (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 January 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 06:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

New Years Message for WikiProject United States
With the first of what I hope will be monthly newsletters I again want to welcome you to the project and hope that as we all work together through the year we can expand the project, create missing articles and generally improve the pedia thought mutual cooperation and support. Now that we have a project and a solid pool of willing members I wanted to strike while the iron is hot and solicite help in doing a few things that I believe is a good next step in solidifiing the project. I have outlined a few suggestions where you can help with on the projects talk page. This includes but is not limited too updating Portal:United States, assessing the remaining US related articles that haven't been assessed, eliminating the Unrefernced BLP's and others. If you have other suggestions or are interested in doing other things feel free. I just wanted to offer a few suggestions were additional help is needed. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions, comments or suggestions or you can always post something on the projects talk page. If you do not want to recieve a monthly message please put an * before your name on the members page.--Kumioko (talk) 05:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 January 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Question
Should this edit be removed from the article history because of its edit summary? I know I've seen things removed from an article history before, but I didn't know if this was bad enough to qualify. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 16:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have gone ahead and RevDeleted the edit summary but I am not sure if the vandalized article text qualifies for RevDelete. Willking1979 (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My edit summary for my response here should have been "re" instead of "ew." But "ew" was my reaction to the vandalism, though. Willking1979 (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

RFA
Just wanted to let you know that I'm up at RFA thanks to a very nice co-nom by User:Wizardman and User:NuclearWarfare. Thought you might be interested since I invoked your name in my answer to Q1! LOL Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 19:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

CAT:AOTR
I see you are in CAT:AOTR, but it appears that you may be inadvertantly listed twice. That may be because there are subpages (User:Willking1979/Content? ) that have it. Let me know if your dup was intentional. I let folk know when I spot it because some folk use the number of category entries to count the number of admins actually so committed. Cheers. ++Lar: t/c 22:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is listed twice because of the subpage. Not sure how to fix it. Willking1979 (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * maybe? Do you want me to try to fix it? ++Lar: t/c 01:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that indeed sorted it, I changed it that way, and you were no longer in Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Alice Lloyd College twice. Feel free to revert me back of course. ++Lar: t/c 01:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Thanks, Willking1979 (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

ACC access
Hello hope you can help.

I would like to have access to ACC. I sent my reconsideration request to accounts-enwiki-l@lists.wikimedia.org. But I have not gotten any response and it's been almost a week since I sent it.

So I wanted to appeal this decision because although my edit count is low I feel I can be trusted with this tool. It would allow me to help other users and there by taken some of the weight off the shoulders of the admins. And I do met the minimum guidelines for approval found here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Request_an_account/Guide Qualifications for using the interface, Usually a user should simply be trusted by the approving administrator. To qualify as an ACC user, you should meet the following minimum requirements:


 * You must not have had a recent block on the English Wikipedia.                                                                             * You must not have any history of account-related abuse, such as sockpuppetry.
 * You must have read, understood and agreed with the ACC guidelines.
 * Your account on Wikipedia must be more than 60 days old.

If given access I will use it responsibly because I understand its a toll not a toy and access to it is a privilege.

experience." at 2010-12-22 17:05:42. Related information (please include this if appealing this decision) user_id: 775 user_name: TucsonDavid user_onwikiname: TucsonDavid user_email: tucsondavid@live.com

Thanks for your help in advance.TucsonDavid U . S . A . 23:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have emailed the ACC tool mailing list regarding your situation. We will evaluate your appeal and hope to act on this soon. Willking1979 (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Never mind got help on IRC thanks anyway. TucsonDavid U . S . A . 00:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. Willking1979 (talk) 00:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey
Thanks for your help with my ACC problem, btw I see your a member of the LDS church so am I. I got baptized last year maybe we can work on some church articles.TucsonDavid U . S . A . 03:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have been thinking about working on those articles (I have some on my watchlist and made primarily minor and vandal-removing edits) but my primary focus at the moment is Kentucky-related articles. Thanks for the suggestion. Willking1979 (talk) 03:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)