User talk:Wizardman/Archive39

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


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

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

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

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

Talkback
NW ( Talk ) 09:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Failing old DYK noms
By the way, regarding this edit: to fail a nomination, it's not sufficient to just remove it from T:TDYK, you actually have to go into the nom page to fail it (described in the instructions at the top of T:TDYK. This will automatically hide it at T:TDYK. Just removing it at T:TDYK but not editing the page itself doesn't actually close the nom. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 16:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

GA review
Hi Wizardman:

If you're interested or have the time, could you review Oyster Burns? I'll take a look at Parnell Dickinson in exchange. Best, Albacore (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Rex Ryan GAN
I have reviewed the article, and placed it on hold pending some minor concerns over wording. Nothing major. Cheers! Resolute 19:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 September 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi
I was wondering if you could review the GAR re-assessment for Hard by Rihanna please (Talk:Hard (song)/GA2)? I need an editor who has no interest on the subject and has not been involved with the article. I nominated it for GAR and have also been the editor to ensure it keeps it's GA icon. So if you wouldn't mind reviewing it and deciding whether or not it should be delisted or kept, it would be much appreciated. If you can't, please contact me and tell me. Thank you. Calvin  &bull; Na Na Na C'mon! 12:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Calvin  &bull; Na Na Na C'mon! 01:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Help please.
Hi. I am Jivesh. I edit strictly Beyonce-related articles on Wikipedia. I was wondering if you could do a copy-edit of 1+1 (song) for me? It is quite urgent. It is actually a GAN and the reviewer has asked for a copy-edit. Please reply on my talk-page. Waiting in anticipation. Jivesh   &bull;  Talk2Me  05:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Happy Chandler
Well, after my last FAC failed solely because not enough people even bothered to review it – an all-too-common fate for my FACs – I guess I'm ready to put up the new and improved Happy Chandler article at FAC. That'll probably happen later today. Could you try to drum up some reviewers from among your fellow baseball-inclined editors who might be interested? It's really frustrating nominating an article and having it sit there for over a month, only to fail because nobody bothered to read it. :( Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 17:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Hold It Against Me
I took over the review, at Talk:Hold It Against Me/GA2. Whatever the fate of this GAN is, should be previous incomplete review be taken into account when updating the article history? A reply would be appreciated. Thanks, — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  23:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Joplin Tornado
Since you closed the article's GA review you are welcome to comment in the peer review. Thanks-- intelati  talk  00:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Hard (song)/GA2
Hi Wiz. Can you possibly close the GAR page? I saw you left a "keep" comment there. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 01:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jim Sullivan (1920s pitcher)


The article Jim Sullivan (1920s pitcher) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern: Jim Sullivan (1920s pitcher) – news, books, scholar Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability.'''
 * '''A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links:

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Gh87 (talk) 20:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 September 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

GA Review?
Hello, you probably remember me from the WindSeeker GA reassessment but now I wanted to ask you if you would be willing to review the Canada's Wonderland for GA status. I just finished making massive article changes to it and there are probably a few more little tweaks that still need to be fixed that I couldn't find that hopefully you will find. Please let me know if you are willing to do the review. Thanks!!!--Dom497 (talk) 23:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for fixing the error I made... but I still need to know if you are willing to review the article for GA status.--Dom497 (talk) 18:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, no problem. Just wanted to make sure that you might do it at some point in the future.--Dom497 (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the adaptation of public domain materials
Hello. It's come to my attention that you quick-failed the GA review of San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic Committee due to a misunderstanding of the public domain status of some of its source material. See Talk:San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic Committee/GA1. It also seems that you had a similar misunderstanding with regard to Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Wisconsin. Please review these issues. Thank you. &mdash;Bill Price (nyb) 22:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Delphine LaLaurie (Barnstar)
(While on the topic, I've just made a few small wording changes to that article that I think are justified but I'm not wedded to any of them if you see good reason to revert.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:53, 16 September 2011 (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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 September 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 10:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

speedy a7
You seem to have deleted the article on Bangladesh international school and college, jeddah as a7, though that category does not apply to schools. Since it remains a copyvio, though, as at the previous speedy. I'm certainly not asking you to restore it. I've warned the editor about his repeated copyvios.  DGG ( talk ) 18:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Research into the user pages of Wikipedians: Invitation to participate
Greetings,

My name is John-Paul and I am a student with the University of Alberta specializing in Communications and Technology.

I would like to include your Wikipedia user page in a study I am doing about how people present themselves online. I am interested in whether people see themselves in different ways, online and offline. One of the things I am looking at is how contributors to Wikipedia present themselves to each other through their user pages. Would you consider letting me include your user page in my study?

With your consent, I will read and analyze your user page, and ask you five short questions about it that will take about ten to fifteen minutes to answer. I am looking at about twenty user pages belonging to twenty different people. I will be looking at all user pages together, looking for common threads in the way people introduce themselves to other Wikipedians.

I hope that my research will help answer questions about how people collaborate, work together, and share knowledge. If you are open to participating in this study, please reply to this message, on your User Talk page or on mine. I will provide you with a complete description of my research, which you can use to decide if you want to participate.

Thank-you,

John-Paul Mcvea

University of Alberta

jmcvea@ualberta.ca

Johnpaulmcvea (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Clean up with AWB
Hi, I've noticed that during your bursts of "clean up using AWB" over the last couple of days you've removed several valid images from infoboxes. ,, , , This is only in the small fraction of your edits which show up on my watchlist. I don't mean to sound moany, but as you are clearly an experienced and capable editor I thought I should draw this to your attention, in case you didn't realise you were doing it. Thanks, Clavdia chauchat (talk) 16:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, and thanks for the reply. Happy editing! Clavdia chauchat (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/IEEE_machine
I am stuck in edit conflict hell. You got there just as I was deleting it. LOL. Bearian (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

AH error
There was an ah error here that I couldn't sort. At first, I thought it was only a typo (FTA vs FTC), but then I saw it twice promoted, so there's more wrong there (and you added the second event twice)-- too much for me to sort :)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

It Was a Good Day
I was looking at the article's talk page and saw that you closed its GAR as delisted. However, it wasn't fully completed. I changed the history and removed it from WP:GA, as well as removing its GA template and I just think that you should change any other articles you demoted to see if you did it properly. GamerPro64 21:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

GAs
Wizardman:

If you could review Barney Gilligan or Brian Dinkelman I'd review your GA. Best, Albacore (talk) 18:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Christopher Wren GA Nomination
I have undone your deletion of the nomination of Christopher Wren as a GA article as next time, please could you start the review and say why you don't think it's good enough so I have time to improve it. Note: I will add more sources this weekend but I would like you to explain why you don't think the current sources are good enough, and if they are not, add the citation needed note in the appropriate places so I know where to add the sources. Thanks, GoldRock 23 (talk - my page - contribs)  18:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895) again at Featured article candidacies
Hey Wizardman, I see you were a reviewer at one of Sevastopol's many reviews. As it's last FAC was closed due to low participation, I"d like you to come and review it for it's current FAC, in order to get a better picture of its current situation. Thanks, Buggie111 (talk) 02:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 October 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 06:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q3 2011
MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 07:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

CCI update
--Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * (Contributor copyright investigations/Ose\fio is also closed. Yay! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)}
 * And now Contributor copyright investigations/FlyingToaster! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Pugin puzzlement
I notice you removed much of the Pugin article on the grounds of "presumptive copyvio". A lot of the material though comes from the article in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia available on wikisource, which I would have thought would have been alright to use, or am I missing something?

Though to be honest, it's pretty terrible stuff and the article's probably better off without it. Ruskinmonkey (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 October 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Falafel
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Falafel. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 07:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

mos on nicknames in lead
I saw your change to remove "Greg" from the lead of Greg Maddux. Is this a new mos? Otherwise, (aside from looking the article name) how would one know that he goes by "Greg" commonly as opposed to "Gregory". I notice that Manual of Style/Biographies doesnt have explicit examples of this anymore, but Bill Clinton still has William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton in his article.—Bagumba (talk) 20:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

One death on ITN
One death at a time on ITN? What? You must be kidding me. If two independent events are, on their own, worthy of ITN, it doesn't matter how close they are to each other; they both are generally posted and remain posted until their time is up (unless something that happened earlier is still ongoing). And, while I'm here, let me say this: making changes to ITN is not that difficult. Write an edit summary. Post a comment somewhere in the ITN realm pointing out and opening debate on controversial moves. And, replace an item you remove with something else. This is basic Wikipedia etiquette and common sense. No one should have to prod you to get you to do this. If you don't have time or don't want to do all of this, don't initiate such a change. --  tariq abjotu  03:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikibreak
Yes I know there's a bunch of idiocy going on right now on wiki, especially that we have the same interests so I see everything. Just ignore those people and write articles for a bit, just don't leave for an extended wikibreak, finish some of your 48 Cleveland Indians articles or something. Secret account 04:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Removal of game logs
What kind of idiocy is this? There has been a "consensus" among a few editors that the game log is not helpful. This obscure and now archived discussion hardly was subjected to the entire applicable community. The game log is the most useful part of a Wikipedia baseball season article. As a Braves fan, I use it multiple times on a daily basis. Having taken recommendations for the creation of a better baseball Wikipedia article with fellow fans, the game log was indeed the most heavily favored part of it. I am perfectly willing and happy to edit the game log because it helps myself and fellow fans/readers have a better understanding of what occurred in a given season. My goal is to provide as much information as possible with the easiest assess possible do it. Being as such, I will continue with the editing of a game log on the 2012 Atlanta Braves season article. Bbqsauce13 (talk) 19:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm still not getting how anyone finds it useful. It takes up space and feels like a waste of time that could go towards making the article itself good. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 19:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, personally speaking, I have the free time and ultimate will to edit it on a daily basis. It takes two minutes out of my day to provide a very structured and helpful means of portraying information. In the end, I see it worth it. I understand the points about unfinished game logs and that they should not be added to every page if a dedicated editor is not present to see it to completion. In cases where an article will be completed (as is the case with the Braves articles), I see absolutely no problem with it. Bbqsauce13 (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. That's usually my main problem though, a good 90% of season articles have unfinished or barely touched logs at all, and those are the ones that bother me big time, as that may be worse then not having one as it looks lazy. When they're finished then I don't care about them really. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 19:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I certainly share that sentiment. While I specialize in Braves articles, I try to keep an eye on other season articles. The condition of the game logs on articles like 2011 Padres is very troubling. There has been a feeling in the past that a game log is necessary for each season article. Perhaps this can bring about a change for future articles. And considering historical articles, I had planned on adding completed game logs to previous Atlanta Braves season articles. I would appreciate your input into this matter. Bbqsauce13 (talk) 20:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not to intrude on a conversation between two users, but I just wanted to point out that although there are some game logs that do need more regular updating so as not to create a back log of unfilled games, this page was always on the mark timewise with the game log and it was always filled in 95% of the time on the same day of a certain game. If you look on my edit stat page you'll see that 2011 Boston Red Sox season was my most edited article and that the game log constituted almost all of the edits on that page.

Besides, if the log on this page is deleted, I'll just have to hunt through a whole list of edit reversals to find it and it'll be up again in a snap. I am not saying I disrespect the anti-game log movement, but it is a movement -- therefore, not everyone on Wikipedia is going to agree with it. If you had brought up the issue on the article's talk page and gotten consensus from a wide variety of editors, then okay. But I believe to pop in unannounced and delete it with no forewarning is just a tad on the abrupt side of things. And, if you are going to continue doing this, I would suggest using a different edit summary than "per consensus". With the exception of a few, most game logs are not designed as templates; they don't pop up on TfD.  Red Sox Fan274  (leave a message ~contribs)  04:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you please link to the discussion on game log removal. I really don't understand how game logs be discontinued after 4 years of use without anyone objecting.  –BuickCenturyDriver 03:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The matter was discussed here. Bbqsauce13 (talk) 14:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/Jennifer Lopez discography/archive1
You left comments before the FL was restarted. Mind looking over it again to see if there are any more issues? — Status  &#x7B;talkcontribs 10:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 October 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 11:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Delegate request
User:Jim Sweeney has asked if he can assist in closing FTC/GTCs. Can you weight in on the discussion on if he can be a delegate? GamerPro64 22:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of Major League Baseball managers in 2010
Instead of a delete, consider my and Spanneraol idea so this won't end up as a no consensus for no apparent reason Secret account 23:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Source query
I really feel like this source could go either way, depending on how the review goes. I've seen it be accepted at FAC before, but standards have tightened a little since then. If the author is well-regarded, that's a point in the source's favor. Be ready to prove it if the page is questioned, as that is the best advice I can give you. You also may want to source some facts cited by that link to other things if possible, so it doesn't look like the article is overly reliant on that source. It's easier to get a positive response if something is sourcing a few (preferably non-controversial) facts, as opposed to 10 or 20.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 02:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Interview for the 2011 Wikipedia Fundraiser
Hello Wizardman, I hope you're well. My name is Aaron and I'm one of the Storytellers working on the 2011 fundraiser here at the Wikimedia Foundation. For this year's campaign we're seeking out and interviewing active Wikipedians like yourself, in order to produce a broader and more representative range of "personal appeals" to run come November. If you'd like to participate in this project, please email me at amuszalskiwikimedia.org. Interviews are typically conducted by phone or Skype and take between 30-90 minutes. (Note: This invitation is open to any interested Wikipedian — If you're reading this, and would like to be interviewed as well, please contact me.) Thanks! Aaron (WMF) (talk) 19:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Larger GT/FTs subsuming smaller ones
I thought that when a large-scale FT/GT was submitted that it subsumed smaller ones, like my Battlecruisers of the Royal Navy GT absorbed the individual class GTs. But the Armored cruisers of Germany GT didn't absorb the individual class GTs. I bring this up because the Battlecruisers of Japan GT that I just nominated should absorb the existing Kongo-class battlecruiser GT. And we wouldn't want to be inconsistent...--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Scjessey is disruptive
I see that User:II mentions on ANI that Scjessey has been judged by the suitable committee, yourself included. I also see that Scjessey is still acting disruptively against other users. User II notes this, not me.

Therefore, I propose that Scjessey just be banned from the articles.

As for me, I am just making a few suggestions on the Obama and Perry articles, asking people to re-examine what is important. Trivial details, such as a trivial law passed, is not a significant part of a biography and shouldn't be there. I ahve no political agenda, either for or against the men. BAMP (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note the ongoing discussions at AN/I, renewed edit warring at Barack Obama (the above editor is now topic banned), a sockpuppet investigation at Sockpuppet investigations/Gaydenver, etc. I'd guess it's one of the old disruptive editors back for a new spin.  - Wikidemon (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Brimstone (wrestler)
When will this page be unprotected? It has been protected for SIX MONTHS.Theclarkie (talk) 21:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 October 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 11:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Corey Delaney
I think a error of judgement has been made in many cases involving this page, in fact the majority of people actually support the page in some of the many cases its been mention, its actually had a Admin recreate it while its been protected, I seen that the page has been protested 5 times in deletion review and 6 times under his other name Corey Worthington. My question is why have you chosen to delete this page while is has over 100 new related references? Here a short guide of the evnts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Corey_Delaney_discussion

A timely apply will be welcomed. Ray-Rays 09:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Tarja Turunen
It looks like the original editor is taking care of it. If he leaves anything undone, let me know.-- INeverCry 18:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Vidyalaya Higher Secondary School
Hi Wizardman,

You recently deleted Sri Jarendra Saraswathi Vidyalaya Higher Secondary School

Would you mind transferring the last version to User:Sarathchandar/Sri Jarendra Saraswathi Vidyalaya Higher Secondary School, so that the author can work on it there.

Kind Regards -- Marek. 69  talk  16:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Wizardman -- Marek  .  69   talk  21:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

CCI update
--Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

GA for Tea processing.
Is it possible for you to finish the GA Review at Talk:Tea processing/GA1? -- Sjschen (talk) 20:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)