User talk:Willking1979/Archive 8

List of ChuckleVision episodes
Hi! Given that the moment protection of this page lapsed, Wikiuser999111 created a new sock and waded right in again (having anyway been very "vocal" on the talkpage during that period, with 12+ puppets during that time alone), do you think re-protection would be a good idea? ╟─TreasuryTag► voice vote ─╢ 19:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be a good idea...however, has declined protection for the time being. However, the talk page is protected. I will wait and see if there are more socks that come up. Any admins watching this page: your thoughts? Willking1979 (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: Just blocked another sock and subsequently protected the page for 1 month. Willking1979 (talk) 11:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. Advance notice that the talkpage will become unprotected in a week, and he'll quite possibly start up there then? ╟─TreasuryTag► Woolsack ─╢ 11:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Barring a rangeblock, he will possibly start up again. According to this SPI case, though, do not expect one. Willking1979 (talk) 11:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the user page revert. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome...have a great Friday. :) Willking1979 (talk) 11:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 09:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

TweenTribune.com reposting Jan. 12, 2010
I left you a note in your e-mail too. But I wanted to let you know I'm going to repost the previously deleted entry. I've been working with editor Reallyhick, and he says the article meets the notability standards. Please let me know if you have any further advice or concerns. Thank you. Kiahnicole (talk) 06:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied by email. Thanks, Willking1979 (talk) 10:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Ben Folds
Thanks for blocking Grahamreaves, it appears that him (or a friend), Tinktonk has taken up the baton. I think a semi-lock on the page would be more useful than playing whack-a-sock, especially given that at least one IP also has the same views. Let me know your thoughts, cheers. Darrenhusted (talk) 01:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the lock. Darrenhusted (talk) 01:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome...I will monitor for further socks and possibly impose longer protection if the vandals continue. Thanks, Willking1979 (talk) 01:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Djnemie
After s/he posted an unblock request, I've reduced the block for Djnemie to 24 hours, because an indef block in this case seems excessive to me. If you believe that it's quite important to have the indef block or anything longer than 24 hours, please simply reset the block; don't bother with letting me know.

If you reply to my comment, please leave me a talkback. Nyttend (talk) 14:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with lowering the block to 24 hours. I will monitor the user very closely. Thanks, Willking1979 (talk) 14:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Ping
I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 08:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Read...will respond soon. Willking1979 (talk) 10:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your time and consideration. As a gesture of appreciation, may I share a rhetorical question from the Analects of Confucius: "Is it not pleasant to learn with a constant perseverance and application?" --Tenmei (talk) 02:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Solomon Sharp
Hey, Will. Looks like Solomon P. Sharp, an article I brought to FA status a while back, has been randomly chosen as tomorrow's TFA. Of course, that means it goes up tonight and most of tomorrow where you and I are. Unfortunately, I'll probably be off-wiki for that entire time period. Could you keep an eye on it for me so the vandals don't make a mess of it? Thanks. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just now added article to my watchlist...I (and a lot of editors) will monitor for vandals throughout the period. Have a great weekend, Willking1979 (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ping
I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 08:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Read...will respond soon. Willking1979 (talk) 10:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your time and consideration. As a gesture of appreciation, may I share a rhetorical question from the Analects of Confucius: "Is it not pleasant to learn with a constant perseverance and application?" --Tenmei (talk) 02:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Solomon Sharp
Hey, Will. Looks like Solomon P. Sharp, an article I brought to FA status a while back, has been randomly chosen as tomorrow's TFA. Of course, that means it goes up tonight and most of tomorrow where you and I are. Unfortunately, I'll probably be off-wiki for that entire time period. Could you keep an eye on it for me so the vandals don't make a mess of it? Thanks. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just now added article to my watchlist...I (and a lot of editors) will monitor for vandals throughout the period. Have a great weekend, Willking1979 (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Marienlyst Castle
Hello Willking1979. I very much regret this hasty deletion. Ice Explorer certainly was the main contributor to the article in its later stages but the Marienlyst Palace article had been around for some time and he was not involved until fairly recently. It is all the more regretable as I and other editors assisted Ice Explorer when he was working on the article in his own sandbox. Furthermore, I have just spent the past three hours improving the language and presentation of the article. If you have no objection, I will create a new article under the heading Marienlyst Slot. I believe the main reason Ice Explorer asked for the article to be deleted is that there had been a lengthy discussion about the title: Marienlyst Castle v. Marienlyst Palace. In my opinion, this is not a good reason for deleting a Wikipedia article about a valid and interesting topic. Ipigott (talk) 11:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was not aware of any discussions about this article. The article was listed under the "user-requested" category and I went ahead and deleted it, assuming it was a good faith request. If you want a copy of the deleted article, please email me and I will give you the version before Ice Explorer placed the G7 tag. Willking1979 (talk) 11:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There was in fact a great deal of discussion on this article and various contributions and suggestions to the sandbox version on Ice Explorer's page. You can get some idea of the level of involvement from Ice Explorer's talk page which still exists.
 * There are two issues on which I would like to comment in particular. There has been an article on Marienlyst Castle for about two years. It was not too bad. Ice Explorer only began to take a interest last November or December. Can he therefore request all those previous edits to be deleted too - just because he came in later? On that basis, it would be easy for any of us to torpedo any Wikipedia article, simply by writing a much more extensive sandboxed version later and claiming authorship of everything! The other issue is what happens to our recent edits? I could not update the article on the basis of my latest edit because it had disappeared. But I spent quite a lot of time and effort on it earlier today. I still have a copy of my edits: what, if anything, should I do with them? And how can we get the article back on track?
 * If all else fails, can you not simply revert to the version which was accessible before Ice Explorer became involved? While it seems a great pity to abandon all the work Ice Explorer did on this, at least it would provide a basis for further work - and it would reactivate all the links which point to the article. Ipigott (talk) 14:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to be away in a few...until Ice Explorer explains his reasons for removing the article, sandbox, and his user page, just keep those edits you have and use it in a sandbox in your namespace to rebuild the article. I am curious myself about why he wanted to delete them. Willking1979 (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Any news on this? Can you do anything about removing the ban on Marienlyst Castle and the redirects which pointed to it? And what is your advice about reusing the edited version of the article I have been working on? You can see it in User:Ipigott/Sandbox1. An alternative might be to start with an earlier version such as the one I found cached from 12 January at User:Ipigott/Sandbox2, before Ice Explorer loaded his sandbox version. You might still be able to find it at .  Ipigott (talk) 15:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you got my email on Saturday...but I did restore the article and all redirects to the version before Ice Explorer added the G7 tag. As I mentioned in my email, this is the easiest way to start rebuidling the article. Willking1979 (talk) 15:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I see Marienlyst Castle is now back. Thanks. Ipigott (talk) 15:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. :) Willking1979 (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Another sock
Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag► stannary parliament ─╢ 18:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just blocked the sock. Thanks for all you do, Willking1979 (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not at all, thanks for responding so promptly all the time!! ╟─TreasuryTag► Not-content ─╢ 21:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

is presumably another one: account registered today, similar username, and they started stacking up some fairly dumb edits on ChuckleVision, likely to reach autoconfirmed status and edit the List page... :/ What do you think? ╟─ Treasury Tag ► without portfolio ─╢ 19:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure about that one...most of the socks go straight to the List page and/or its talk page. This is a new one for me. Will monitor closely. Willking1979 (talk) 19:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that the List and talk pages are semi-protected, I guessed that this one was waiting to become autoconfirmed. The username and timeframe, pretty poor edits and general interest area also strongly suggest links; but fair enough, wait and see :) ╟─TreasuryTag► sundries ─╢ 19:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal
After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;


 * gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and


 * ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy notice
You reserved this request on ACC over 3 hours ago. -- Dylan 620  (contribs, logs) 14:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a reason why I kept it...there is a checkuser rangeblock and I am waiting for clearance from the blocking admin. Depending on what the outcome is, I will either drop or create the account. Willking1979 (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Important notice about VOTE 3 in the CDA poll
You are receiving this message as you have voted in VOTE 3 at the Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll.

It has been pointed out that VOTE 3 was confusing, and that voters have been assuming that the question was about creating an actual two-phase CDA process. The question is merely about having a two-phase poll on CDA at the eventual RfC, where the community will have their vote (eg a "yes/no for CDA” poll, followed a choice of proposal types perhaps).

As I wrote the question, I'll take responsibility for the confusion. It does make sense if read through to the end, but it certainly wasn't as clear as it should have been, or needed to be!

Please amend your vote if appropriate - it seems that many (if not most) people interpreted the question in the way that was not intended.

Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 15:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help in stopping the vandalism on the Albert Pyun page.
Thank you so much for your kind work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitaleye42 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. :) Willking1979 (talk) 04:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Your recent deletion of Talk:The Good Life (Three Days Grace song)
This page was listed for speedy deletion because a bot, the account who made the only contributions to the page, said the only substantial content contributor requested deletion. Did you notice this when looking over the speedy deletion request? Is the bot malfunctioning, or is there something I'm missing? Tim meh  17:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It was the first time that I have seen Wildbot in action until today. I assumed good faith and deleted that and several other pages because Wildbot was the only one that contributed to and created them. Also, I did not see a mention of the deletion tagging on the bot's user page. If you have questions about the bot, you can go to ' talk page. Josh is the operator of the bot. Willking1979 (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Silly me. I didn't realize that the bot was only requesting deletion of pages it created; I really should have my morning coffee before logging on. ;) Sorry for bothering you. Tim  meh  19:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. :) Willking1979 (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Around half of competitors are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. 64 of the 149 current competitors will advance to round 2- if you currently have no points, do not worry, as over half of the current top 64 have under 50 points. Everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places in round 2! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! J Milburn, Garden, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 22:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello : 6 February 2010
hello, just remind you that i'm a new user but im only registed for 1 month ago cheers,L.C Jamie (talk) at 13:20, 6 February 2010 (GMT)
 * Just left you a message welcoming you with some great tips on editing and using Wikipedia. Willking1979 (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

thanks L.C Jamie (talkback) 14:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the revert. =) That was one of the more tame insults that I have seen. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. :) Willking1979 (talk) 10:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Gaussian minus Exponential Distribution

 * 23:18, 10 January 2010 Willking1979 (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Gaussian minus Exponential Distribution" ‎ (Speedy deleted per CSD A3, had no content whatsoever except possibly links elsewhere, a rephrasing of the title, and/or attempts to correspond. using TW) (view/restore)

This deletion that you did was irresponsible, since the page had substantive content about its topic. You did this barely more than an hour after the page was created, when you should have suspected the creator would soon be back to fill in further content. The content that was already there was enough to make it crystal-clear what the page's topic was, and quite a lot of specific information beyond that. The complaint about lack of content had no merit at all. The user did come back on February 5th to add more, and may have been discouraged by your deletion from coming back earlier. It's also possible that that's why that user hasn't been back since February 5th. Wikipedia has a rule against biting newbies. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact of the matter was there was, in my interpretation of policy, sufficient time between creation of the article, tagging and deletion. If there was a tag placed there by the author, there would be a 99% chance I would have kept the article. In all aspects of my life--including Wikipedia--I have treated everyone with the highest possible amount of  respect and honesty. I am only a human and am prone to mistakes. I do apologize for all of my mistakes. I will not apologize for my honesty and respect for all humans. Willking1979 (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for reverting my user page. something lame from CBW 10:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. :) Willking1979 (talk) 10:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Your VOTE 2 vote at CDA
Hi Willking,

you are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.

1) Background of VOTE 2:

In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results.

This was VOTE 2;


 * Do you prefer a 'desysop threshold' of 80% or 90%, or having none at all?


 * As a "rule of thumb", the Bureaucrats will automatically de-sysop the Administrator standing under CDA if the percentage reaches this 'threshold'. Currently it is 80% (per proposal 5.4).


 * Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;


 * Do you prefer a "rule of thumb" 'auto-desysop' percentage of 80%, 90%, or "none"?


 * Where "none" means that there is no need for a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop.


 * Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?

Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here.

3)  How to help:

Directly below this querying message, please can you;


 * Clarify what you meant if you voted "none".


 * In cases where the question was genuinely misunderstood, change your initial vote if you wish to (please explain the ambiguity, and don't forget to leave a second choice if you have one).


 * Please do nothing if you interpreted the question correctly (or just confirm this if you wish), as this query cannot be a new vote.

I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. Sorry for the inconvenience,

Matt Lewis (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I interpreted the question correctly. My vote for 90 still stands. Willking1979 (talk) 14:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 13:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy
I'm pretty sure this should be speedied as not asserting the importance of the subject, but I can't find an appropriate tag for documentaries. Would you take a look? It may have to be AfD'd instead. Thanks. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 17:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Just placed the article at AfD here. I did include a reflist (which includes only the film website; no third-party sources) and dated a tag on the article. Willking1979 (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: the following related discussion was originally posted on the talk page of my backup account, which is not used for any mainspace edits except in the event I am on a shared computer or insecure location. Willking1979 (talk) 21:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey help me out with adding some refernces to my posts. As well as how to get approval to release my copyright for wikipedia to use for 16 Days: A Media diet.


 * Sorry about the Mascara thing, didn't think it would post.


 * Also, i'm assumeing my Edgar Cayce contribution was deleted because I changed another persons addition which had been verified, cited, and published. Even though it is wrong. Cayce never claimed to be a psychic and this input leaves viewers with a false idea of who Edgar Cayce was.


 * How do I cite another book on this? There are many that tell the TRUE story about who he was that I can reference.


 * Jmaxwell0003(Jmaxwell0003 (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC))
 * Jmaxwell0003, for more info on how to add references and citations to articles, click here. For info on how to donate copyrighted materials to Wikipedia, go here. Remember, when you create articles or donating copyrighted materials, it must meet the notability standards for inclusion. Thanks, Willking1979 (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problems
When you get a chance, please have a look at Murray High School (Kentucky). This is a new article created by a new user. I think the article can be saved, but the images appear to have been lifted from http://www.murray.kyschools.us/history.asp. They were uploaded with a claim that they were the editor's own work, which I highly doubt. I've explained the problem to him, but we probably need to delete those images as copyvios. Is there no speedy deletion of images for copyright violations or have I just not found it? Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You may want to look at this section regarding the criteria for speedy-deleting files which are violating copyright, no evidence of permission, improper licensing, or other issues that could cause a speedy tag on the images. I also believe the article is salvageable...we simply want to know if the user owns and created the images. Willking1979 (talk) 15:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Gracias, amigo! Just what I needed. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 16:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. :) Willking1979 (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Landeryou
Could you semi-protect this article again? Same problem: an IP-hopping editor trying to sanitise the biography to remove mention of things Landeryou wouldn't like being repeated, despite them being sourced and given due weight, and refusing to discuss their edits. Fences &amp;  Windows  22:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. Protected for 6 weeks. Willking1979 (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Apparently I'm now a biased editor with an agenda. Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. :) Willking1979 (talk) 00:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

George Takei vandalism
I have been editing George's page and although I have it on my watch list, I am rarely told of these minor edits by vandals. I have gone into my settings and I am set to see even minor edits on my watchlist, but they consistently don't show up. Any suggestions? Akuvar (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Verify your settings by going to Special:Preferences. Click on the "Watchlist" tab. The box next to "Hide minor edits from the watchlist" should be unchecked. In addition, you may want to purge your browser's cache to reflect any changes to your settings. Willking1979 (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I checked those items and we'll see what happens, but I'm not confident! Thanks. Akuvar (talk) 22:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you need any further help, feel free to reply at any time. :) Willking1979 (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 12:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Credits awarded after the end of round one but before round two may be claimed in round two, but remember the rule that content must have been worked on in some significant way during 2010 by you for you to claim points. The groups for round two will be placed up shortly, and the submissions' pages will be blanked. This round will continue until 28 April, when the top two users from each group, as well as 16 wildcards, will progress to round three. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup; thank you to all doing this last round, and particularly to those helping at WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Need help against vandal.
Sorry if I'm disturbing you, but the Indonesian misinformation vandal is wreaking havoc again right now, using the IP address. Can you please block this address ASAP before his vandalism continues? WP:AIV is currently backlogged, BTW. Thank you. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 14:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. Blocked for 31 hours. Thanks, Willking1979 (talk) 14:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you help me?
I was trying to create a page on 'Graffiti Records' a UK Record label and I have had the page 'Salted'. I was typing true and verifiable content but I guess that someone decided that they didn't like me :( I will recreate the page with lots more content that is also truly verifiable (company numbers / PPL license / pictures from world tours / everything else), if I can get someone to actually un'salt it. As if thousands of record sales, internationally famous rock bands and world tours weren't enough for me to contend with, I thought wiki was the best online easiest to use reference point. It may be that, but contributing seems to be a nightmare.

Thank you Adam J Mills. UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stardog7 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason the article was deleted by other administrators--and was subsequently "salted" (protected) indefinitely by me--is that it did not indicate why the record company is important. If you want a copy of the deleted article, feel free to email me and I will give you a copy of the article text. You can then work on the article on your own outside of Wikipedia or create the article in your userspace by going to User:Stardog7/Graffiti Records. Whenever you find reliable third-party sources and you believe the article meets Wikipedia's standards for inclusion, you can request the article to be unprotected by going here. Thanks, Willking1979 (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Non neutral only oif not true
Bunn ing has been film and shown on TV being irritable and iorascib le. LaidOff (talk) 22:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)v
 * Will appears to be out, perhaps I can help. Can you give me some information (type slower please, lots of mistakes above) on what you need?  From the above, I can't understand what you are saying, not alone what you need. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 22:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Since I am back from visiting my mom in the hospital, let me explain my note to you, LaidOff. I given you the POV warning because it appeared that this edit violated Wikipedia's POV policies. Neutrality is key to any article on Wikipedia.


 * I noticed the ANI thread here. I have noticed the difference in your last two edits compared to previous edits. If you feel your account is compromised, get a new password. Thanks, Willking1979 (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiBirthday
I saw from here that it's been two years since you joined the project. Happy WikiBirthday! Keep up the good work, r<font color="#8B0000">ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 15:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks! :) Willking1979 (talk) 15:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Asbury University
Hey Will. I was just trying to move Asbury College to Asbury University to reflect its name change, effective this month. Unfortunately, Asbury University is a redirect to Asbury, a disambiguation page. Not sure that was really the best redirect to begin with. Anyway, can you delete the Asbury University redirect to make way for a page move for Asbury College? Also, it should probably include a "Not to be confused with" hatnote for Asbury Theological Seminary. The two are across the street from each other and were once together, I think, but are now separate institutions. Thanks. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 14:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. I went ahead and moved the page, deleting the old redirect. Hatnote has been added. If you need anything else, please reply. Willking1979 (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That takes care of it, as far as I know. Thanks as always. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 14:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. :) Willking1979 (talk) 14:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Email
Hi. I please check your inbox. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Read and replied. Willking1979 (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 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) 03:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 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 · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 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 · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for reverting my user page. something lame from CBW 03:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. :) Willking1979 (talk) 09:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 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 · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Although unrelated to the WikiCup, April sees a Good Article Nominations backlog elimination drive, formulated as a friendly competition with small awards, as the Cup is. Several WikiCup contestants and judges have already signed up, but regular reviewers and those who hope to do more reviewing are more than welcome to join at the drive page. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) 22:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

ACC
Hi Willking1979. There was a request in the 'Flagged user needed' section, and I accidentally hit create, and it actually created it, even though it was in the 'Flagged user needed' section! Even though I didn't mean to create it, I didn't think it could be created, because it was in that section. Anyways, after I created it, I checked things like whether the name was promotional etc. and it seemed fine. Please contact me if this causes any problems. Thanks. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw the request on the interface and have the userpage and talkpage on my watchlist...I'll monitor the edits very closely. Willking1979 (talk) 21:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Question
Hey Will, question for ya...how are you at writing articles, specifically ones about towns/cities? I ask because I need some help writing a shortened version of the history of Stephens City, Virginia. Do you think you could help? - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 23:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * While I have improved articles such as my hometown of Whitesburg, Kentucky, I have not yet written stand-alone articles about histories of cities/towns. I would suggest that you create a stand-alone article on the history of the town and do a brief history section. A well-written example of a stand-alone city history article is History of Louisville, Kentucky. Compare that article with the shorter history section in the main Louisville article. I would suggest when writing these types of articles, examine the history section of the main article and consider what needs to be discussed further and what new items/topics should be added in the new stand-alone article. Let me know if you need any further help. Willking1979 (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the current history section needs to be moved to its own page (it is far too long) and a shorter version in its page, but I am a terrible writer. My best is here....and it ain't great by a long shot.  I essentially need to knock the currently history section down into a couple paragraphs per century and swap the sections.  That is the tough part.  Thanks for the sections you recommended.  I will look those over and see what I can take away from them.  Take Care...<small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 00:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. One more recommendation: I would name it History of Stephens City, Virginia rather than History in Stephens City, Virginia (bold emphasis mine) to comply with article naming standards. Willking1979 (talk) 00:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Okie Dokie. :) - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 00:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)