User talk:Wizardman/Archive29

Merry Christmas


A NobodyMy talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

List of Formula One drivers
Hi there, I've done quite a lot of work since you posted on this FLRC. I was wondering if you could take a second look at the list, and if you believe it still does not meet the Featured List Criteria, possibly provide a couple of actionable objections? Thanks in advance, WFCforLife (talk) 23:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Column Breaks
Hi there, wonder if you could take a look at my current Sandbox project, particularly the "births" section. I am attempting to wrap the births into five columns of 22, but after looking through the WP:COLUMN, and much trial and error, I am unable to find the code that will break the column, and yet, have them appear flush with each other. Do you know of a simple code, or an example to link me to that I can use? Neonblak talk  -  23:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dick Padden
The article Dick Padden you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Dick Padden for things which need to be addressed. Sarastro1 (talk) 01:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The 2010 WikiCup begins tomorrow!
Welcome to the biggest WikiCup Wikipedia has yet seen! Round one will take place over two months, and finish on February 26. There is only one pool, and the top 64 will progress. The competition will be tough, as more than half of the current competitors will not make it to round 2. Details about scoring have been finalized and are explained at WikiCup/Scoring. Please make sure you're familiar with the scoring rules, because any submissions made that violate these rules will be removed. Like always, the judges can be reached through the WikiCup talk pages, on their talk page, or over IRC with any issues concerning anything tied to the Cup. We will keep in contact with you via weekly newsletters; if you do not want to receive them, please remove yourself from the list here. Conversely, if a non-WikiCup participant wishes to receive the newsletters, they may add themselves to that list. Well, enough talk- get writing! Your submission's page is located here. Details on how to submit your content is located here, so be sure to check that out! Once content has been recognized, it can be added to your submissions page, from which our bot will update the main score table. Remember that only articles worked on and nominated during the competition are eligible for points. Have fun, and good luck! Garden, iMatthew, J Milburn, and The ed17 19:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dick Padden
The article Dick Padden you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Dick Padden for eventual comments about the article. Well done! The only article I would like you to review, if possible, is one I've been working on, Wilfred Rhodes. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

about The Irish Filmography
While acknowledging that yes, the DYK was submitted more than 5 days after the article's creation, I do not know if you were aware that 10 minutes after its creation, the article was sent to a rather heated AFD that was not closed until December 25. I also understand that articles in AFD cannot be nominated for DYK. I nominated it 2 days after the AFD closed as keep... and so only two days after it became eligable for DYK. Isn't an AFD a mitigating factor that essentially "stopped the clock" ?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Found a precedent for such: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/J-ska


 * Thank you for your input. I posed the question here to see if guideline might require a tweak or two. Happy New Year,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

GA Sweeps update
Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over 90% done with only 226 articles remain to be swept! As always, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. With over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about 4 articles per person! If each member reviews an article once a week this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. At that point, awards will be handed out to reviewers. As an added incentive, if we complete over 100 articles reviewed this month, I will donate $100 to Wikipedia Forever on behalf of all GA Sweeps participants. I hope that this incentive will help to increase our motivation for completing Sweeps while supporting Wikipedia in the process. If you have any questions about reviews or Sweeps let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Need your comment
I was blocked a couple days ago, the admin claimed I did an edit that I asked you about.

Nr 4: This is the edit:  You said it was a borderline violation at my talkpage.

Cactus later claimed that I did the edit, (I did not): Nr 3 explanation: This is the edit I did:

And another admin banned me for this, and I tried to explain that I didn't do the edit that you said was borderline violation, but he doesn't listen. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How is the edit I did, the same as you told me not to do?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Jake Long GA
Thanks for your involvement in the development of Jake Long which has become a WP:GA in recent months.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Concerns
I am concerned with the way you handle article deletions. First, you often do not wait the full seven days that it is recommended one waits before making a decision. Second, while most others who have the power to delete relist articles that have had just one, two or even less responses, you do not. In fact, you once deleted an article that had absolutely zero input from anybody else, and just tonight you deleted an article that someone else had relisted just a few hours ago. You may want to rethink the way you handle your duties around here. Alex (talk) 06:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

GA Review: "Within" (The X-Files)
I'm finished. --TIAYN (talk) 15:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the 2nd opinion on Millennium (season 1, I just needed another eye as I had had to copy-edit and clean up myself when the nominator appeared to lose interest. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:John Barrowman
I left a message on HJMitchell's talk page letting him know the review is ready to be closed. Viriditas (talk) 16:11, 6 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)

GAR help
Hey Wizardman, an you look at the writing in Dido and Aeneas? I'm going its GAR and I can't really figure out if there's problems with the wording and stuff like that. GamerPro64 (talk) 03:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Punk
Not only do you make me edit conflict a handful of times, but then you steal the sweet, sweet pleasure of this edit summary? Cold man, real cold. ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 05:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

ADCO/RFC
Can I just make a comment about your edit summary on the recent edit you made to Admin coaching/Requests for Coaching? Although I agree with the removal of the backlog notice (there is enough mention of the fact that most people won't get coached), I wouldn't agree with marking it historical.

Some coaching is going ahead (for example, I am being coached by JulianColton) - and I am checking the ADCO/RFC page every week to move older requests (6 weeks+ since last visit) from the "current" to "older" list, and removing any requests which have not been updated in 6 months.

Even though most of those on the list will not receive coaching, as long as some of us do, then I think it is worthwhile having this page.

As I said, anyone visiting is left in no doubt that they probably won't be chosen for coaching (You are welcome to add your name to the list of editors seeking coaching, but please bear in mind that your request will probably not be answered in a long time (if at all).) - it could be argued that if an editor who leaves their name on the list does not read the page properly, then they are not careful enough in their reading of pages (such as policies!) to justify coaching!

Regards, -- Phantom Steve /talk &#124;contribs \ 21:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hrbek & Gant 2
Hey there. Just wanted to bring up the Hrbek/Gant issue that I wanted to rewrite to reflect the official scoring decision of Major League Baseball, as opposed to the (in my opinion) assumption that Hrbek did actually pull Gant off the bag as it currently implies. I'd like a neutral third party on this one. My assertion is that is isn't POV to use the official scoring decision in an encyclopedia. In fact, it would be POV to have anything BUT the official discussion. By all means mention that it was controversial, but since this was a judgement call then, and even replays cannot show clearly what happened, Drew Coble's opinion is the only one that matters. Thanks! Rapier1 (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for checking my hook. Joe Chill (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

GAN review of Musial much appreciated
Thank you for taking the time to review Stan Musial on GAN, and for fixing the last two outstanding issues listed in the review. I am awed by the high quality work you do on the GAN reviews while still retaining the ability to review so many articles! Cheers, Monowi (talk) 02:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
I just wanted to make sure you know that I have replied. I am still waiting for the reviewer.  Lourie Pieterse  08:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Jairam Ramesh
I see that my Dec. 31 DYK nomination was removed by you:


 * 23:45, January 7, 2010 Wizardman (talk | contribs) (281,762 bytes) (→Jairam Ramesh: rm; not long enough).


 * Please double check this rm as the article is:
 * 03:46, January 8, 2010 Marcus334 (talk | contribs) (37,678 bytes) :(→Education: +school)

Someone had inadvertently noted that it was expanded only 2 1/2x when it was actually expanded over 12x 5x. Thanx Marcus334 (talk) 14:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How did you calculate this article was expanded only 2.5x?


 * It was 5,653 bytes when I started working on it Dec.27 and it grew to 32,285 bytes when I nominated it on Dec 31. (32,285 ÷ 5,653 = 5.71) It is now 37,678 bytes. Please explain or restore to DYK nomination queue. Marcus334 (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Using prose definition, article minus infoboxes, references and categories, with this tool, (I did not use this script as it excludes quotes, which are important part of the article) I calculate 20,374 prose bytes on Dec. 31 divided by 3,229 prose bytes on Dec. 27 before I started working on article (same as Dec. 19 number) = 6.3x, Correct? Marcus334 (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Wizardman! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 18 of the articles that you created  are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the list:


 * 1) Jason Staurovsky -
 * 2) Jerry Kauric -
 * 3) Harry Colon -
 * 4) Ahmad Miller -
 * 5) Bud Anderson (baseball) -
 * 6) Steve Bailey (baseball) -
 * 7) Frank Baker (outfielder) -
 * 8) Mark Ballinger -
 * 9) Ray Barker (baseball) -
 * 10) Jeff Barkley -

11. Rich Barnes 12. Kevin Bearse 13. Rick Behenna 14. Ron Plaza 15. John Briggs (baseball) 16. Hunter Enis 17. Bob Usher 18. Tommy Hinzo

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 21:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

re: Hip-hop
I don't think the guy is back. Check: Talk:Hip-hop_dance - "I listed this article at WP:GAN but starting the last week in November I will be in basic training and will not have access to the Internet until February 2010. If you feel this article has minor problems preventing it from GA status, please correct them yourself. My contribution history is going to make me look like I'm never on Wikipedia when in fact I don't have a choice but to be away. If you don't feel like fixing it yourself, please place this article "On Hold". I will gladly correct whatever mistakes there may be when I return. // Gbern3 (talk) 14:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)"

Should I just remove it from the queue? Or make a note of it? I've just been waiting for him to return. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Gah... I didn't put it on hold in the first place. ^^; Xavexgoem (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

John Ellerman
Hi ! A biographical article you have been edited or contributed to with has many  issues and urgently needs improving. If you can help with these issues please see Talk:John Ellerman, address the different points if you  can, and leave any  comments there. Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 11:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK
You stated on the DYK that my hook on the Hondo Creek was uncited. This is false. It is sourced in the main article body. Information does not need to be sourced in the lead that is already sourced in the main body of the article. Please remove your false statement. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, your statement was completely false. The information is not found in the lead and it is correctly sourced in the article body.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have placed references following the sentences. I apologize if I was rude, I've just never had anyone bring that up as an issue before. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Mazlum Cimen
In reference to your removal of the DYK nomination for this article, I generally wait a bit longer before removal (about five days), and consider whether the nominator has been active. In this case, they were gone for a few days, and their very first edit after coming back was solving the DYK problem. They couldn't know in advance that the nomination would get comments while they were gone; shouldn't we be diligent enough to give them some more opportunity to fix it? Ucucha 21:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Technically yes. I've just been more strict of late since the backlog has been so large, number wise. I'll have to think of another way to keep it under control though since it's not working. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 01:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's true, but I still don't find it entirely fair to fail someone's nomination for that. And I believe Gatoclass's "prep-extra" will do something to help alleviate the problems. Well, what do you think, should we put poor Mazlum back in? Ucucha 08:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:Gossip (The Office)
Hey Wizardman. Thanks for nominating Gossip (The Office)! I think that's the first time one of the articles where I was the primary author was nominated for GAN by someone other than me! lol. It's no conflict with the Wikicup, I don't think, especially because I don't think I'd be eligible for points anyway since the work on the article was done in 2009. I wonder if perhaps, since you aren't an author to the article but rather just an interested reader, whether you should delist it as GAN, then I could renominate it for GAN, and then you could actually review it if you like? But if you don't want to review it, or if that's at all ethically questionable, I'm fine with leaving the GAN as is right now. :) —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  04:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No prob. I'm totally fine with just leaving it as is till someone reviews it. When it comes to it, let me know if you need any help addressing any suggestions or anything. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  04:36, 12 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)

Obsession (band)
WHY does this article keep getting deleted???? This is ridiculous. Everything I have read in the discussion was fixed in the newer version. It is crazy to me that Wikipedia would allow someone to keep deleting a FACTUAL article about an existing topic. If you have problems with the article, let me know what the problem is and it will be fixed. Seems ridiculous that the article is just DELETED for no reason. (just seeing that a past version was deleted) I would like to know your logic on why the article was deleted. Let me know as soon as possible. I will be contacting Wikipedia administration if I do not hear back a relevent explaination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Route1guitars (talk • contribs) 15:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC) ==Deletion review for Obsession (band)== An editor has asked for a deletion review of Obsession (band). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jbruno2 (talk) 16:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Obsession AFD
The article has been recreated. I can't remember if the new page has been changed since I can't see the deleted version. &#91;&#91;User:Drunken Pirate&#124;&lt;font color=&quot;DarkSlateGray&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;i&gt;Pirate&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/font&gt;&#93;&#93;&lt;sup&gt;&#91;&#91;User talk:Drunken Pirate&#124;&lt;font color=&quot;DarkRed&quot;&gt;Argh!!1!&lt;/font&gt;&#93;&#93;&lt;/sup&gt; (talk) 04:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/List of Oklahoma Sooners in the NBA and WNBA Drafts/archive1
Hey, thanks for your review of this. Would you mind commenting on the table alignment issue? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 21:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Also, if you could follow up on the comment you made at Featured list candidates/Charlotte Bobcats all-time roster/archive2, that would be great. Thanks again, Dabomb87 (talk) 16:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Dido and Aeneas/GA1
Hi, there is a discussion at the above page, where User:GamerPro64 is apparently waiting for you to comment on his review of the article, which he seems unable to complete on his own. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Draconity
Hi there. Back in 2006, you participated in an AfD for this article at Articles for deletion/Draconity. The article has been recreated, and I have re-nominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/Draconity (2nd nomination). Robofish (talk) 00:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Wilfred Rhodes GAR
All fixes done, I think.--Sarastro1 (talk) 10:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

GAN
I think you're reviewing a GAN of mine; the tag has been up for quite a while, but without a full review. Let me know if you're doing it, or want to hand it off to someone else, or whatnot. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Birthday
South Bay (talk) 05:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Happy birthday, Wizardman! Useight (talk) 15:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

-- Lady Rose (talk • contrib) 21:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Involvement?
Since you've deleted several PRODs of unsourced BLPs within hours of their being tagged, don't you think there's at least the appearance of being involved in the current shitstorm? Guettarda (talk) 03:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't saying you had taken one side or the other, just that there was an appearance of involvement. Guettarda (talk) 03:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read my argument, just added there. You are moving much too fast.    DGG ( talk ) 17:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ulysses S. Grant article
I made many edits, got facts straight, and removed unneccessary segments. Is there anything I missed or could change? I tried to make the Civil War segment more critical of Grant's leadership and military strategies. {Cmguy777 (talk) 03:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)}

1976 Buccaneers season
I saw where you reviewed my 1976 GAN; unfortunately, I didn't know about it at the time. I have gone back and edited it per your suggestions. I don't know whether you wind up being the person who reviews it next time, but I do want to thank you for taking the time to look at it and to make comments on it. GuySperanza (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for the Darvin Moon review! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  22:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 04:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Ulysses S. Grant
I appreciate your review on Ulysses S. Grant. Changes have been made to the article following your suggested guidelines. I put USG up for another GA review. If you could review again I would appreciate. Thanks. {Cmguy777 (talk) 03:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)}

Thanks. I appreciate your information on the articles. I can nominate the Ulysses S. Grant presidential adminiastration artical for GA review. Feel free to review if you want. My goal is to get all three articles on Grant to a GA status: USG, USGPA, and USGPA scandals. {Cmguy777 (talk) 06:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC))

Tyler Smith
I was wondering if you might consider revisiting the Tyler smith AfD per WP:HEY. matt91486 (talk) 06:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Nick Adenhart
Looks like the crop of the image might be deleted because it's an image of a board that's also copyrighted. Upload here and go for the fair use rationale? I liked file:NickAdenhart.jpg better as that's an iamge of him in action. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Re your message: I noticed that you have been editing the article over the past few days. Getting it to GA/FA status would be great.  I don't follow either process (I'm admittedly not much of an article writer), but I'd be happy to do anything that will help out. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, it made it to GA! That's great. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:32, 1 February 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)

Re: Nick Adenhart
Hey Wizard. Oh, yeah, you're welcome for the review/pass, just doing my job as a fellow reviewer. :) Also, cause you've reviewed a couple of my articles, just returning the favor. Um, yeah, I believe the article is there, but just to be on the sure side, maybe opening a peer review might help. I wouldn't want you coming to my talkpage and blaming me if the FAC doesn't succeed (if no PR is open). If you're open to reviewing an episode article or a wrestling article, that'd be great, as I'm part of the WikiCup, and would help me a lot. --  ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  01:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Earle C. Clements
Thanks for your GA review of Earle C. Clements. I was off-wiki most of the weekend, but I have responded to your concerns just now. Please let me know if further actions are needed. Thanks again. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 17:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Stephen Corry
Thank you for addressing me on my talk page to clarify on the sources for the DYK reference on Stephen Corry. I have given my response on the template talk page. Please help me to straighten out any problem that there may be with the reference. I hope there is still a chance to include it in the DYK section. Thank you. Maziotis (talk) 14:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, thank you for the correction. I have now put the source in front of the sentence. Do you think that is now possible to take this to DYK? Thank you. Maziotis (talk) 19:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

GA second opinion
Would you be able to provide a second opinion on a GA review here: Talk:Tropical Storm Heidi (1971)/GA1? --maclean (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. maclean (talk) 06:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Newsbank
I have not been able to use most of newsbank (except for the Chicago Sun-Times portion that I can access via my library card) for a few days. I do not know what is going on.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry!
Hey Wizardman. I wanted to apologize because for some reason, I didn't see your message in my talk page about the P&R DYK hooks until now, when it was way too late to combine them. I'm sorry about that! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  15:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for reviewing the Bullet Rogan article for its good article nomination. Your assistance on this and other articles is appreciated. BRMo (talk) 20:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

A clarification
Hi, Wizardman. Could you give me a quick clarification? Does Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asmahan include article talk pages or only the actual article? I was asked whether this talk page edit and the new dispute Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement are crossing the limits of SD's restrictions. — Cactus Writer |   needles  21:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. Cheers. — Cactus Writer |   needles  02:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, I noticed... so, you're the guy I probably stole it from back in 2008. Casual Ripple effect or just dumb hive mind? I'd like to chalk it up to: Great minds thinking... :) — Cactus Writer |   needles  16:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

GA
Breaker boy is very interesting. Never heard of it before. I would like to give it a GA but the last time I thought an article was a GA, it was (politely) ripped apart and it took a solid 6 weeks of work to get the GA.

As they say "haste makes waste", I'll review it again and give you my opinion in the next few days. Looks good on first glance. If I forget, then block me for 24 hours....oh, then how will I edit it then :p Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

III Corps (United States)
I have addressed all of your concerns on the article's GA review. Take a look to see if there is anything else, when you can. Thanks! — Ed! (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relevant information about the shooting has been added to the page. How does it look now? — Ed! (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

February GA Sweeps update
Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over 95% done with around 130 articles left to be swept! Currently there are over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about 3 articles per person! If each member reviews an article once a week this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. At that point, awards will be handed out to reviewers. Per my message last month, although we did not review 100 articles last month, I still made a donation of $90 (we had 90 reviews completed/initiated) to Wikipedia Forever on behalf of all GA Sweeps reviewers. I would like to thank everyone's efforts for last month, and ask for additional effort this month so we can be finished. I know you have to be sick of seeing these updates (as well as Sweeps itself) by now, so please do consider reviewing a few articles if you haven't reviewed in a while. If you have any questions about reviews or Sweeps let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)