User talk:Wizardman/Archive45

The Signpost: 17 September 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 17:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready
Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email! If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia). Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
 * 2) Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code.  Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
 * 3) Create your account by entering the requested information.  (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
 * 4) You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID.  (The account is now active for 1 year).
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
 * Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
 * Show off your Questia access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Old copyvio
Hi, bobrayner (talk) 08:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I gather you found some very old copyvio recently...? You might want to add it to WP:RECORDS, if you want that dubious honour.
 * I recently found a six-year-old copy & paste, which seems to have survived by virtue of the original source having typos - the typos were quickly fixed in the article, so a simple google search would no longer find a match with the original source - but eight years is really quite impressive. How did it survive so long?

Thurman Tucker
Hi, I'm not sure if you knew that someone had suggested that this article should appear as TFA in the near future - the discussion is at Today's featured article/requests and you might want to add your views. Yours, BencherliteTalk 15:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Allie Clark/GA1
I have reviewed the GA nomination for this article, and really only have one concern. Wanted to hear your thoughts before I pass the nomination. Regards, Resolute 23:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

PR for Doby
Hello there. Thanks for the head's up. I am looking to gather some more sources and will definitely look at another run through. Another PR wouldn't hurt before it goes for FAC. (I'm trying to finish finished up Nap Lajoie and get it to GAN.) Lajoie's a GAN so will look at the Doby article again. Zepppep (talk) 02:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 September 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 18:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Sawtooth National Forest/GA1
This is a bit of an odd duck. Us441 (talk · contribs opened the review on August 21, and added nothing more to the review talk page. Through August 27, Us441 made 26 edits to the article itself, along with conducting bits of the review on the main article's talk page Talk:Sawtooth National Forest. Finally, on September 1, the most recent day Us441 has made any Wikipedia edits at all, Us441 filed this: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive766, about an OR issue raised on August 27 and not responded to. That's the last that was heard.

I think a new reviewer needs to be found to take this one over; since I haven't a clue what to do about this oddity, I'm afraid I'm dumping it in your lap. Thanks, and apologies. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi
Hi there Wizardman. This is GamerPro. First off, sorry for not editing for four months. I wanted to take a break from Wikipedia after 5 years. Secondly, thanks for keeping me as a delegate for Featured Topics while I was gone. I will try to help with the nominations later this week. If there's any need of help now, let me know. GamerPro64 15:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 September newsletter


We're over half way through the final, and so it is less than a month until we know for certain our 2012 WikiCup champion. currently leads, followed by, and. However, we have no one resembling a breakaway leader, and so the competition is a long way from over. Next month's newsletter will feature a list of our winners (who are not necessarily only the finalists) and keep your eyes open for an article on the WikiCup in a future edition of The Signpost. The leaders are already on a par with last year's winners, but a long way from the huge scores seen in 2010. That said, a repeat of the competition from 2010 seems unlikely.

It is good to see that three-quarters of our finalists have already scored bonus points this round. This shows that, contrary to criticism that the WikiCup has received in the past, the competition does not merely incentivise the writing of trivial articles; instead, our top competitors are still spending their time contributing to high-importance articles, and bringing them to a high standard. This does a great service to the encyclopedia and its readers. Thank you, and good work!

The planning for next year's WikiCup is ongoing. Some straw polls have been opened concerning the scoring, and you can now sign up for next year's competition. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. 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 or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 October 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 22:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Drive overhaul
Hey. I saw your comment at GAN and I agree with you. The last drive didn't achieved its goal to reduce the backlog and brought several problems with reviews and reviewers. In the case of an overhaul, which improvements will you consider to add? We already talked about erasing the #1 barnstar, reducing the barnstar number, deleting the leaderboard, and some reviewer/verifier proposals I made that were unsuccessful. Any other idea? — ΛΧΣ  21™  14:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The Doon School
Dear Wizardman, in light of your recent review of Hwa Chong Institution's GA nomination, may I request you to look at the Doon School page? It's a previous GA nominee. If you have the time, I'd be grateful for some suggestions; which can help in a successful GA nomination. Thanks! --128.86.145.180 (talk) 19:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2012 Toronto FC season
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2012 Toronto FC season. 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) 18:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Mike Capel
Can you move the page User:Albacore/Mike Capel to Mike Capel? When I tried to move the page I was told not to "manually move the article by copying and pasting it; the page history must be moved along with the article text." Thanks. Albacore (talk) 15:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Greetings
I hope you don't mind if I collapse your comment into the top of the good article review of Malaria. I didn't intend for the review to take this long, but we're in a bit of a groove of "getting things right" so I don't see an issue. Let me know if we're breaking a rule by going slow and steady though. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 19:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Featured topic candidates/Independiente (Ricardo Arjona album)/archive1
Hey Wizard. Is it alright if we put this Topic nom on hold? The nominator is missing one article that is about a world tour that just ended and has another article up for Peer Review. GamerPro64 21:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, Metamorfosis World Tour is already at GAN. I hope it will have the green icon soon. — ΛΧΣ  21™  04:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, gimme a shot if you need anything :). — ΛΧΣ  21™  03:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 October 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 21:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

GA Artical
How do I nominate Alexandra Burke's page for GA? I'm just learning, you see. --ᶛᵃʳᵏ ˢͪᵃᵈᵒʷᵀᴬᴸᴷ 18:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q3 2012
MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 16:04, 15 October 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) 00:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 October 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 22:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

American Horror Story GA reassessment
Hi. As a major contributor, I requested a reassessment of the article. There is a new season and some things were added to the main page while waiting for the second season's article to be created. I would like you to re-assess, if that's allowed, to make sure it is still a GA. Thanks! — WylieCoyote (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations on Covey!
I was about to give it my support, but I was away from my computer for the weekend. Good work! – Muboshgu (talk) 15:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Of interest
As a fellow worker on the CCI, you may be interested. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/PumpkinSky  Montanabw (talk) 20:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 October 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 13:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Topics
Hi Wizard. I was wondering, if you're not too busy, if you can close some of the nominations for Featured Topics. I would ask Grapple X but he's been part of some of the reviews. GamerPro64 14:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's understandable. Lack of free time was partly a reason why I was off for four months. But the important thing is that the nominations are at a respectable area. GamerPro64  05:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Carthage44 retirement
I saw you unretired the user. As went and marked themselves as retired, shouldn't we respect that? Granted, I still believe that Redmen44 is an active sock.—Bagumba (talk) 21:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The blocked editor edited his own page after he was blocked. I would argue any action performed after a block is worthy of being reverted, even if it's editing one's own user page. Zepppep (talk) 23:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Retiring says retirement may occur due to a block. Aside from making a point that he was blocked before he was retired, I'm trying to understand what else can be gained from the revert.—Bagumba (talk) 23:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess it wasn't needed, but it's still rather dishonest in my mind. Perhaps the retiring page should be changed for indef'd people. Wizardman  03:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:Retiring states "...can be seen as an 'official' statement that a user does not intend to return." If the user has indeed returned under a different handle, as is suspected, they have indeed not retired and thus it would be disingenuous to have "retired" on a blocked user page me thinks. Per WP:Blocking policy, "blocked users can continue to access WP, but cannot edit any page (including their own user pages)." The blocked user put up the "retired" sign after they were blocked, right? So Wizardman was simply reverting a block that the user was technically not allowed to make. In the end, I think the bigger issue is possibly sockpuppetry rather than the actions done by either Carthage or Wiz. What's the latest on that case, Bagumba? Zepppep (talk) 07:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * User page and user talk page are different, but I'm OK to leave the decision to others at this point on "retiring". The suspected sock, which in my opinion passed the the duck test, instead went thru checkuser which was not definitive but closed as being somewhere between "possible" and "likely", while also citing that no disruptive edits had happened yet and good faith was to be assumed. You can look at the link above.  Frankly, the continued edit pattern by Redmen44 to me only reinforces the duck test, unless someone is also a huge Wisconsin Badgers fan as well as the Chicago White Sox and all of there minor league affilitates, and is big on editing stats as well. On principle, it seems wrong based on WP:EVASION, but perhaps I should let it go as a WP:CLEANSTART. Feel free to re-open if you see fit.—Bagumba (talk) 08:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw the reply to the sockpuppetry test you raised, Bagumba, and the decision literally had my eyeballs rolled back so far it was a week before I could read again. The duck test no doubt revealed a duck but the parties involved tried pretty hard to convince us it was a loon instead. This is one reason why WP has the issues it does: it clearly states editors should work in a collaborative effort and when the occasional editor crosses the line, puts up policies that are easy to evade and therefore are anything but such. The statement "the blocked user doesn't seem to be causing any harm" is besides the point; the editor was told multiple times they, the person, not the handle, were blocked, yet the forces that be seem intent on doing anything about it. Oh well, let's not let it ruin our day, eh mates? rZepppep (talk) 09:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 October 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 10:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 October newsletter
The 2012 WikiCup has come to a close; congratulations to, our 2012 champion! Cwmhiraeth joins our exclusive club of previous winners: (2007),  (2008),  (2009),  (2010) and  (2011). Our final standings were as follows:



Prizes for first, second, third and fourth will be awarded, as will prizes for all those who reached the final eight. Every participant who scored in the competition will receive a ribbon of participation. In addition to the prizes based on placement, the following special prizes will be awarded based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, the prize is awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round.


 * The featured article award goes to, for four featured articles in the final round.
 * The good article award also goes to, for 19 good articles in the second round.
 * The list award goes to, for three featured lists in the final round.
 * The topic award goes to, for three good topics (with around 40 articles) in round 4.
 * The did you know award goes to, for well over 100 DYKs in the final round.
 * The news award goes to, for 10 in the news items in round 3.
 * The picture award goes to, for two featured pictures in round 2.
 * The reviewer award goes to both (14 reviews in round 1) and  (14 reviews in round 3).
 * Finally, for achieving an incredible bonus point total in the final round, and for bringing the top-importance article frog to featured status, a biostar has been awarded to.

Awards will be handed out in the coming days; please bear with us! This year's competition also saw fantastic contributions in all rounds, from newer Wikipedians contributing their first good or featured articles, right up to highly experienced Wikipedians chasing high scores and contributing to topics outside of their usual comfort zones. It would be impossible to name all of the participants who have achieved things to be proud of, but well done to all of you, and thanks! Wikipedia has certainly benefited from the work of this year's WikiCup participants.

Next year's WikiCup will begin in January. Currently, discussions and polls are open, and all contributions are welcome. You can also sign up for next year's competition. There will be no further newsletters this year, although brief notes may be sent out in December to remind everyone about the upcoming competition. It's been a pleasure to work with you all, and we hope to see you all in January! J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The Edward Richardson Community Primary School
Dear Wizardman,

I would like to ask if I can recreate the above page. The page was created by myself, as I am a former pupil of that school, and my mother (a.k.a. my Class 4 teacher) is still working at the school.

Would it help if I put a "Page under Construction" notice before it?

I await your reply.

Alastair Carr (talk) 10:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Ortrun Enderlein
Hello,

you failed the first GA nomination of Ortrun Enderlein because of prose issues. Now as it was copyedited you are welcome to re-review it for GA-quality. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 20:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Seafood
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Seafood. 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) 19:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 November 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 02:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

My CCI (from 2010)
Hi. I was wondering if you could help with my CCI. I would really like to know which articles to rewrite and to be able to close this thing out for once and for all. Thanks. Quis separabit? 19:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Resurrecting a deleted article; it's notable now!
Hey Wizardman, I'm remaking an article in 2010 that was deleted for not being notable, because it now meets notability requirements. In 2010, the article subject was a failed candidate for office, but has since been elected to a state legislature, which meets notability requirements. Since you deleted the article before, thought you ought to know. It's Elizabeth Scott (politician). For the record, it was inappropriate of me to have made the article the first time, and respect that you deleted it before, but now I think it's fitting. Thanks! --Wikibojopayne (talk) 05:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

FTC Length Question
Hi Wizardman! I realize it's been a while since I first bothered you about the Armero tragedy FTC. I finally got around to transcluding it. It's been sitting for a while with only one support. I was just curious; what is the typical duration for an FTC before it gets closed? Is it common for them to be closed due to lack of response? I'm sure you know that's been a problem at FAC before, I was just wondering. Thanks!  ceran  thor 20:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc./GA1
I put some reminders in a handful of very old reviews, and this one got a response from the nominator suggesting it be closed. The reviewer hasn't been around all that much lately: not at all for the six weeks after starting the review, and then a bit for a week before disappearing again five days ago. If you can just close it, maybe you should? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:17, 12 November 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) 00:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Mike Redmond
The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

ACE2012 Voting Guide
Hey Wizardman, would you mind if I lifted the formatting of your voting guide and used it for my own? Kurtis (talk) 01:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Go for it. Wizardman  03:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, never mind. I made my own. =) Kurtis (talk) 07:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 November 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 14:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Metamorfosis World Tour
So checked to see Metamorfosis World Tour's Peer Review and saw that it was closed. As well, no one made a comment on it. Does that affect the topic nom or can it pass even though technically a Peer Review wasn't made? GamerPro64 16:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom elections
Speaking of the elections... interested this year? : ) - jc37 07:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a chance. If there was a draft me movement I'd still say no. Wizardman  23:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Nod. I've found that most former members have that opinion. - jc37 23:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Personal attack
If you're going to attack me as a troll in your voter guide, maybe you should tell the readers of your involvement supporting Ideogram in Requests_for_arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram/Evidence--YOLO Swag (talk) 07:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There was nothing in there supporting Ideogram (Never came across him before, during or since). All it shows is you've had problems stemming back that many years, further proving my point. Wizardman  12:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What you failed to mention is you also edit warred on Keeley Hazell back in 2006. I haven't been edit warring. Ideogram was found to have trolled me Administrators%27_noticeboard/Community_sanction/Archive11 in a despiable attempt to drive me off the project (note Bishone and Jehochman's posts). ArbCom also removed my sanction Requests_for_arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram. Once again I ask you to stop calling me a troll because you obviously have no idea what you are talking about--YOLO Swag (talk) 01:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
TBrandley 05:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Carl Eytel GA assessment
Thanks so very much, Wizardman, for the Carl Eytel GA assessment. It is my first such accomplishment. Now could I go on to get a FA on him? Alas, he is literally the "forgotten artist", so I've just about exhausted the available material. Well, I might work to get him a Golden Palm Star on the Palm Springs Walk of Stars. This GA would help justify that honor. --S. Rich (talk) 15:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

TTN
I'm sorry that you see my empathy for TTN as lack of maturity. There's no doubt that he became the locus of profound disruption, and there was probably no saving him at the end. Still, his judgement as to which articles failed WP:N and WP:V was quite good, and the vast majority of the people undoing his redirects were consciously and intentionally acting against guidelines and policies. As administrators, we have to be content neutral, but we are still expected to act in accordance with guidelines and policies. This puts these kinds of disputes into an awkward position. We can try to treat the editors all equally, but this has the effect of not upholding policy. We can try to favor the editors that are acting in accordance with guidelines and policies, but that has the effect of implicitly taking a position on content. Neither way is really right, and it always becomes a balancing act: trying to support an editor that is following policy and helping him through dispute resolution policies while not completely alienating a large group of editors, because that large group of editors may be reflecting a shift in consensus over those very guidelines and policies. The E&C cases did not successfully balance those pressures. They became an issue of guidelines and policy vs. mob rule, and, in the end, we came down on the side of mob rule. That disturbs me even today, and I still see the echoes of it in similar disputes. I think it marked a turning point in the issue of consensus being measured by strength of argument vs raw headcount.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

JSTOR
Hi there. You're one of the first 100 people to sign up for a free JSTOR account via the requests page. We're ready to start handing out accounts, if you'd still like one.

JSTOR will provide you access via an email invitation, so to get your account, please email me (swalling@undefinedwikimedia.org) with...


 * the subject line "JSTOR"
 * your English Wikipedia username
 * your preferred email address for a JSTOR account

The above information will be given to JSTOR to provide you with your account, but will otherwise remain private. Please do so by November 30th or drop me a message to say you don't want/need an account any longer. If you don't meet that deadline, we will assume you have lost interest, and will provide an account to the next person in the rather long waitlist.

Thank you! Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   21:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 November 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 01:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom
Hi. Just to clarify one thing. I personally didn't want to open that as a case. I essentially wanted arbcom review, but was informed by the arbs that the only way to currently do that would be to open a case. I'll fully cop to the tldr though : ) - jc37 01:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Due to another discussion, I've expanded/clarified a few of the answers to the questions. 1b in particular. Happy reading : ) - jc37 22:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

River martin FT nom
There's a current nomination at WP:FTC to bump a current GT up to Featured status as it has passed the 50% threshold (here); does this need to pass with a new consensus for promotion or can it be upgraded automatically as it has already passed as a topic and the promotion now is basically a bookkeeping task? GRAPPLE  X  14:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 November 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 10:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

O'Connor GAN
Hi! Thanks for reviewing this article; I'm sorry I didn't see it until now, but it was such a long time ago that it had dropped off my radar a little, especially since I've been less active of late. I did reverse the changes you made from "Federation" to "the Federation", in line with the general use of the term. It's never referred to as "the Federation". Thanks again! Frickeg (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)