User talk:Wizardman/Archive41

The Signpost: 02 January 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 16:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Charlton Kings Infants' and Junior School Articles
I've only got a chance to get back on Wikipedia today and I see that my articles have been deleted. I suppose it was well justified, albeit I would love it if the decision could be reverted somewhat. I take it you are an experienced Wikipedian and you are the man to ask. You see Kudpung remarked that they should be kept "but convert[ed] to a REDIRECT to Charlton Kings#Schools per standard procedure. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world)." I agreed with this comment and thus, I wish for the articles "Charlton Kings Infants' School" and "Charlton Kings Junior School" to be redirected to Charlton Kings. Would this be ok? I hate to waste a link. Cheers. TDW  ✉  22:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

El Chico del Apartamento 512
Hey there :-) Would you mind stepping in? The editor seems to not want to review the article as I've notified him/her three times. Best, Jona yo!  Selena 4 ever  01:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

AfD closure
Hi Wizardman. I noticed you closed Articles for deletion/Knollwood Christian School as 'Delete'. I actually  see a clear consensus for 'Redirect', including  in  the nominator's own statement. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Wizardman. I noticed you closed Articles for deletion/Telok Kurau Primary School as 'Delete'. I do not  actually  see a clear consensus. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Wizardman. I noticed you closed Articles for deletion/St. Christopher's International Primary School as 'Delete'. I do not  actually  see a clear consensus. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Wizardman. Just a nudge for the three messages above. Do let me have your thoughts when you  have a moment. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q4 2011
MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 06:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Featured topic candidates/Faryl Smith/archive1
Hey, can I ask when the "report" will be created? Is the lack of report the reason for the minimal feedback? I'm in no great hurry, but I'd hate to see it closed after a few months of inactivity when, so far as I am aware, there's nothing wrong with it! Thanks, J Milburn (talk) 16:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

To talk page stalkers
Can someone tell me what's going on over at FAC in layman's terms? I don't have the time to actually look through. Looks bad whatever it is. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia stepped down Secret account 06:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow. Though I mean the whole wall of text from the past week rather than just the end. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 06:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It's related to the Malleus drama and some users are saying that FAC delegates should be nominated by the community instead of by Raul, it's too much of a mess right now and it's not really a huge impact for the community #justignoreit Secret account 06:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 06:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't read all of it of course (like I said above its too much of a mess). But skimming though most of it, it looks like that it became from a simple good faith community reply from Sandy to see what could be fixed for FAC 2012 to a huge mess from a couple of editors that doesn't like what is going on currently on FAC and they are seeking radical reform (presumably from the Malleus case). I never said you stepped down because of the reform. I personally believe it would be a disaster with you stepping down from FAC, because you are the best there in reading consensus and controlling a sometimes rowdy FAC crowd that makes editors scared of going to the process. I fully agree with your reasons that you want to focus on article work, which of course it's more important. I don't see the impact for the community unless you work closely with FAC, and it seems like there's certain users who wants to add fuel to the fire against article writers, so it's best to avoid all this drama. This is what I meant, but I'm kinda afraid about what I say in Wikipedia, so I didn't say my original comment with full detail. Sorry for the confusion. Secret account 06:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My resignation has nothing to do with Malleus whatsoever-- where did you get that impression? No need to be afraid :)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 06:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Found a bit of time to read that, and in a nutshell, the overarching attitude is what's tiring me of the site, and honestly is strongly making me consider retirement. I feel like the vast majority of editors have lost sight of what the site is supposed to be. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 22:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Not questioning whether they should have been deleted, just that they should have been redirects. I'll fix them today. &tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 22:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 09:16, 9 January 2012 (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) 05:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 January 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 05:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Could you review some sources to confirm reliability?
Hello Wizardman. I see that you are a FAC reviewer and you help out with the reviewing of pro wrestling related FACs. As I would like to add some websites to the reliable sources list I was told to find a FAC reviewer, so I was wondering if you could help.

Hmm firstly there's profightdb.com. We've already got a reliable source pwi-online.com (Pro Wrestling Illustrated) that links to profightdb and this PWI gave profightdb a 5-star review in its December 2010 issue (but they are independent). Their FAQ is here and here and they apparently have fact checking "All information used from any sources is evaluated for correctness and conflicts against other sources."

Secondly there's pwinsider.com. They've been around since 2004 (very long for a wrestling website) and they're headed by staff with credentials in the wrestling industry. Main thing about these site is that I want it to be accepted for non-controversial information like TV/PPV match results. This site is very detailed on the wrestling moves compared to other websites so it's very, very useful for adding to wrestlers' movesets which are mentioned on Wikipedia. If you do not consider pwinsider reliable for rumours, I do not really mind.

So could you help out with a reliable source stamp? Thanks in advance. Starship.paint (talk) 06:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your reply Wizardman. Yes, profightdb will mostly for match results, other info they have is on various wrestling Hall of Fames as well as some basic info: name, D.O.B., ring names. So do you consider pwinsider and profightdb reliable sources? I'd prefer for you to reply here so it's easier to prove that you did give the reliability stamp. For pwinsider, are you stamping it reliable for TV/PPV/news/rumours or just TV/PPV? Starship.paint (talk) 07:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey Wizardman, just a little bump, still waiting on your approval of the two sources :) Starship.paint (talk) 09:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Jessica Dykstra
A while back, I wrote an article about Jessica Dykstra, and it was deleted as she was considered unnotable. She has since been signed to Frederick's of Hollywood. Does that change things? http://www.fredericks.com/Heart_Lace_Panty/93788,default,pd.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.221.58 (talk) 10:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You never responded to this. Are Frederick's of Hollywood models considered notable? JS--71.3.221.58 (talk) 13:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Jon Weber (baseball)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jon Weber (baseball). 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. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Good article help?
Hi. I thought you might be interested in an idea I had and would appreciate your opinion on this. It is essentially a noticeboard where new reviewers can ask questions about reviews that they are conducting. It is something that I would have found useful when I started so hopefully others might too. I am asking a few GA regulars for their opinions before I make it fully public at WP:GAN. If you are interested in helping or have any ideas feel free to leave comments on the talk page or even make change to the page. AIR corn (talk) 11:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

ITN international recognition
Hi, normally we do not look for "international recognition" on ITN when dealing with former leaders of countries. Consider Taiwan which is internationally not recognized. The question should be "is this person notable enough for ITN" and not a matter of international politics. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 21:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 07:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

FTC
The backlog is 16 pending candidacies, some dating back to November. Are you willing to dust off the brick shards or are you still too tired to do so? igordebraga ≠ 15:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

GT question
Would it be considered to be "cherry-picking" problematic in general if not all of the "Category 4 Pacific hurricanes" have an article in a good/featured topic? Some definitely won't due to lack of notability (no effects on landmasses). (BTW, thanks for promoting!) Hurricanefan25  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 18:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

RE
Hey Wizardman :) Thanks for taking on the review, its much appreciated. I believe I addressed your points.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   01:07, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited List of Major League Baseball players (A), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frank Allen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Golding Bird
You may be interested to know that Golding Bird, an article which you reviewed for GA, has been nominated for FA. You are welcome to add your comments there.  Spinning Spark  13:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion query
Hi, I have restored Talk:Elisabeth Sladen/GA1 which you had deleted per WP:CSD, as a "test page". I'm wondering why you thought that this was the case: to me, it looks like the perfectly valid commencement of a GA assessment. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wizardman, I independently began to delete the page, and I have left an explanation on Redrose64's talk page. J Milburn (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

John Wooden ITN
You are incorrect on your research it did in fact make ITN, which here is the evidence of ITN archives/2010/June! I think you better lean to support!HotHat (talk) 03:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am going to stay out of it as well because if you support or oppose it you are getting called a bunch of names!HotHat (talk) 04:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Bidi Bidi Bom Bom
I have most of your concerns. Best, Jona yo!  Selena 4 ever  05:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 January 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 19:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thurman Tucker
I apologize, but my plate is quite full right now. I will be unable to review Thurman Tucker.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I can probably have another look, but it may take a few days. Possibly early/middle of next week? If I haven't done anything then, ping me. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Please review this article:
Just review Invaders Must Die by reading it, and then create Talk:Invaders Must Die/GA1, rather than remove the GAN template (please). 206.15.252.30 (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Requests for comment/F&aelig;
A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:F&aelig;. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 January 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 04:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject United States
Greetings and good morning. We are getting a pretty lengthy list of updates that need updated for Template:WikiProject United States. All the changes are implemented in the sandbox but they need to be implemented. Sorry to bother with this but the request has been open for a long time. --Kumioko (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Awesome thanks for the quick response. --Kumioko (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 January newsletter
WikiCup 2012 is off to a flying start. At the time of writing, we have 112 contestants; comparable to last year, but slightly fewer than 2010. Signups will remain open for another week, after which time they will be closed for this year. Our currrent far-away leader is, due mostly to his work on a slew of good articles about The X-Files; there remain many such articles waiting to be reviewed at good article candidates. Second place is currently held by, whose points come mostly from good articles about television episodes, although good article reviews, did you knows and an article about a baroness round out the score. In third place is, who has scored 200 points for his work on a single featured article, as well as points for work on others, mostly in the area of pop music. In all, nine users have 100 or more points. However, at the other end of the scale, there are still dozens of participants who are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly!

The 64 highest scoring participants will advance to round 2 in a month's time. There, they will be split into eight random groups of eight. The score needed to reach the next round is not at all clear; last year, 8 points guaranteed a place. The year before, 20.

A few participants and their work warrant a mention for achieving "firsts" in this competition.
 * was the first to score, with his good article review of Illinois v. McArthur.
 * was also the first to score points for an article, thanks to his work on Hurricane Debby (1982)- now a good article. Tropical storms have featured heavily in the Cup, and good articles currently have a relatively fast turnaround time for reviews.
 * was the first to score points for a did you know, with Russian submarine K-114 Tula. Military history is another subject which has seen a lot of Cup activity.
 * is also the first person to successfully claim bonus points. Terminator 2: Judgment Day is now a good article, and was eligible for bonus points because the subject was covered on more than 20 other Wikipedias at the start of the competition. It is fantastic to see bonus points being claimed so early!
 * was the first to score points for an In the News entry, with Paedophryne amauensis. The lead image from the article was also used on the main page for a time, and it's certainly eye-catching!
 * was the first to score points for a featured article, and is, at the moment, the only competitor to claim for one. The article, "Halo" (Beyoncé Knowles song), was also worth double points because of its wide coverage. While this is an article that Jivesh and others have worked on for some time, it is undeniable that he has put considerable work into it this year, pushing it over the edge.

We are yet to see any featured lists, featured topics or good topics, but this is unsurprising; firstly, the nomination processes with each of these can take some time, and, secondly, it can take a considerable amount of time to work content to this level. In a similar vein, we have seen only one featured article. The requirement that content must have been worked on this year to be eligible means that we did not expect to see these at the start of the competition. No points have been claimed for featured portals or pictures, but these are not content types which are often claimed; the former has never made a big impact on the WikiCup, while the latter has not done so since 2009's competition.

A quick rules clarification before the regular notices: If you are concerned that another user is claiming points inappropriately, please contact a judge to take a look at the article. Competitors policing one another can create a bad atmosphere, and may lead to inconsistencies and mistakes. Rest assured that we, the judges, are making an effort to check submissions, but it is possible that we will miss something. On a loosely related note: 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 00:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Re:Faryl FAC
Sure, will do. Thanks, J Milburn (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 February 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Svengali
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Svengali. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 10:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

template:WikiProject United States
Sorry to ask again so quickly but would you mind updating the WPUS template again whenever you have some time. We added several more projects and made a few fixes. --Kumioko (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

PumpkinSky CCI
Thanks for looking! But only 1 to 560 need to be checked, the others didn't add content, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Restored redirect
I've restored Template:USA-bio-stub. It seems to me like a common typo, and having it there saves the time which editors have to spend looking for the right syntax. I'd also suggest restoring Template:USA-stub. If you disagree, I'd like to see a full RfD discussion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 19:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 February 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 04:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview
Dear Wizardman,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:
 * Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
 * Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
 * All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
 * All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
 * The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Userspace request
Please undel and userspace Roy Apancho (which you deleted, per AfD) to User:SMcCandlish/Incubator/Roy Apancho, with talk page if any. It'll be trivially easy to demonstrate his notability from billiards industry sources like Pool & Billiard Magazine and Billiards Digest. Apancho's well known in the field, and has long been in the top 100 pool players in the world according to WPA stats. He's placed in more events than the one his stub mentioned. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 18:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but that didn't work right. If you go to Roy Apancho it still says only:
 * 15:28, 30 October 2011 Wizardman (talk | contribs) deleted "Roy Apancho" ‎ (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy Apancho 2)
 * with no record of the undel and userspacing. Compare Erik Gatmaitán:
 * 07:56, 24 March 2010 Athaenara (talk | contribs) moved Erik Gatmaitán to User:SMcCandlish/Erik Gatmaitán [without redirect] ‎ (per SMcCandlish's 07:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC) request on my talk page) (revert)
 * 07:55, 24 March 2010 Athaenara (talk | contribs) restored "Erik Gatmaitán" ‎ (27 revisions restored: restoring per SMcCandlish's 07:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC) request on my talk page.)
 * 22:51, 12 November 2007 Athaenara (talk | contribs) deleted "Erik Gatmaitán" ‎ (Expired prod. Zero references for pool player stub, no improvement in past year. Created by Special:Contributions/BShaw20.)

The entire history of the page at User:SMcCandlish/Incubator/Roy Apancho says only:
 * 19:04, 16 February 2012‎ SMcCandlish (talk | contribs)‎ (1,267 bytes) (retagging) (rollback | undo)
 * 19:01, 16 February 2012‎ SMcCandlish (talk | contribs)‎ (1,197 bytes) (uncat) (undo)
 * 18:56, 16 February 2012‎ Wizardman (talk | contribs)‎ (1,190 bytes) (userfying per request)
 * and is missing all the original editor history (unlike User:SMcCandlish/Incubator/Erik_Gatmaitán), which is against the GFDL attribution terms. If you have to clobber what I've done to it (template and cat. tweaks) to fix it, please have it. :-)
 * PS: I could have sworn this had a talk page, too. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 19:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Re: "took quite a bit longer than I expected" – you kiddin'? I barely had time to report the problem! Heh. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 19:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Hobart
I just wanted to be sure that you had seen Garret Hobart in all its glory. I finally got back to Paterson and took care of business on the statue. Also a film clip which shows a blob reputed to be him for a couple of seconds.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Precious

 * Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for you hard work there, Wizardman! Amalthea  12:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for finishing! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you guys for helping out as well. Hopefully we can continue the momentum and close the related CCI as well. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 03:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Tucker
Oh sorry man, I've been meaning to return but been busy with so many things I haven't been able too. I'll check it here in a few.-- Will C  23:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Stuck out all comments but one which I think is unresolved due to sentence structure sounds poor.-- Will C  06:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 00:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

My RfA
Thanks for your support at my RfA, which was successful and nearly unanimous. Be among the first to see my L-plate! – Fayenatic L (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Alaska topic
Hello

What about my entry? Voting is just yes/no or you are checking also description? PMG (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Nalapani
Wizardman,

Article: Battle of Nalapani.

I've added another two WikiProject Templates for the above article. Was wondering if they could be as well be updated to GAN class? They were not originally there. Adamdaley (talk) 02:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 02:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

WindSeeker FAC???
Hello, not sure if you remember me but I just wanted to ask you to do a quick scan of the WindSeeker article is good enough to at least become a FAC. Can you please just post what you think of the article on my talk page as that will help me alot. Thanks! Dom497 (talk) 00:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 February newsletter
Round 1 is already over! The 64 highest scorers have progressed to round 2. Our highest scorer was, again thanks mostly to a swathe of good articles on The X-Files. In second place was, thanks an impressive list of did you knows about racehorses. Both scored over 400 points. Following behind with over 300 points were, , and. February also saw the competition's first featured list: List of colleges and universities in North Dakota, from. At the other end of the scale, 11 points was enough to secure a place in this round, and some contestants with 10 points made it into the round on a tiebreaker. This is higher than the 8 points that were needed last year, but lower than the 20 points required the year before. The number of points required to progress to round 3 will be significantly higher.

The remaining contestants have been split into 8 pools of 8, named A through H. Round two will finish in two months time on 28 April, when the two highest scorers in each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers, will progress to round 3. The pools were entirely random, so while some pools may end up being more competitive than others, this is by chance rather than design.

The judges would like to point out two quick rules reminders. First, any content promoted during the interim period (that is, on or after 27 February) is eligible for points in round 2. Second, any content worked on significantly this year is eligible for points if promoted in this round. On a related note, 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 would 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 (talk &bull; email) and The ed17 (talk &bull; email) 00:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

CCI update
--Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

File:CupNoodle.jpg
Hi. I notice you've participated in image deletion when Fastily takes a rest from it. Would you please take a look at. Fastily is on Wikibreak, and in spite of his invitation at the top of his page to un-do any of his actions if necessary, I'm hesitant to un-delete this image due to being WP:INVOLVED. I suspect that in his flurry of closing the image deletion discussions, Fastily didn't notice that the PD rationale had been replaced by a proper fair-use rationale before he deleted it. Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I noticed in my watch list that you restored it. Thanks! ~Amatulić (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Featured topic candidates/Faryl Smith/archive1
Faryl is now an FA. I've not intention of nominating Wonderland any time soon, but I may get around to it eventually. Thanks, J Milburn (talk) 12:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello
I nominated Music of the Sun over a month ago for GAT, and it has had three supports, one comment and one oppose. I was wondering when it will be closed and what the outcome is likely to be. Thanks. Aaron  &bull; You Da  One 20:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

GA advice
I know you spend a bit of time working with old reviews and was wondering if you could help. Starting the Talk:The Lion King/GA2 was someones second edit and they have not touched it for nearly a month. I would normally just tag it for deletion, but someone else has left a simple comment on the review and I am not sure it would be right to delete it. Is there another way to archive a GA review without forcing the article to the bottom of the queue? It is being discussed at WT:GAN, but is not getting many responses. Thanks AIR corn (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sorting that out. AIR corn (talk) 05:24, 5 March 2012 (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) 02:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)