User talk:Σ/Archive/2012/October

tagged De Heesterboom, Leiden for deletion,

Thanks. I was surprised that no page exists for this monument. I was trying to create a page for this Leiden Windmill, but seem to have run afoul of conventions. Please move forward with the deletion, and if anyone does create a page for this rijksmonument, I will be happy to add to it. PeteBobb (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

So....

I've turned this blue... I'd like to have a bit of time on Monday to have a tweak, so hang on at least 15 hours ;) Worm^TT(talk) 20:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, fantastic! I'll answer the questions and let the conominators know, if you haven't already told them. →Σσς. 20:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I haven't told anyone else yet :) Worm^TT(talk) 20:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Like LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 23:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

speedy delition

I tried to do as much as i can in just few minutes. I know it need a lot of improvements but I'm still looking for reliable resources. I am trying to buy some time for the Article to grow. can you remove the tag please ? :) --Zo3a (talk) 02:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The page is a copyright violation, which leads to legal issues. If you can remove the copied material, I can remove the tag. But at this point, unfortunately I cannot.

If the article does get deleted before you can clean it up, you can either recreate the article from your own words or try a different process such as WP:AFC, where a reviewer can review the article. →Σσς. 02:14, 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. Grapple X (submissions) currently leads, followed by Sasata (submissions), Cwmhiraeth (submissions) and Casliber (submissions). 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on your username

Hi Σ,

Firstly, all the best with your RfA. Just to advise you, I have added my support for a disambiguation page to be used at my old userspace, User:E. I notice you have already got a disambiguation link on my talk page and I'm absolutely fine with keeping it that way :)

Cheers, — JamesR ^(talk) 08:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response. I've edited the userpage accordingly. Regards, →Σσς. 22:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

RfA

Welcome to the 100+ club! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

\o/ →Σσς. (Sigma) 23:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

A well earned WP:100 membership. Well done and good luck after getting the tools! Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 23:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Help - my CSD log page

All the best for your RfA. I came to know about your long CSD log from there. Coincidently, I faced a problem today with my CSD log page. The last entry in my CSD log page doesn't get displayed. But I can see the entry in the edit window. Is there a maximum limit for it? Can you please check what's wrong with my CSD log page. --Anbu121 (talk me) 17:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I purged your CSD log and it showed up. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 17:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

RFA questions

Cunard is piggybacking on my follow-up question. I'm not interested in that level of detail. I'm just puzzled by your response. Were you altering the POV to what Wikipedia would call NPOV and Conservapedia would call liberal POV? Or was this something else?--Chaser (talk) 01:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) See TParis's response. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 01:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:REX#Carboniferous things

Hi! Is your request still open? Do you need it any more? Or is it free for archiving? Greetings, -- Doc Taxon (talk) 07:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Your RFA

I have asked your nominators if they wish to discuss the concerns raised about your candidacy by several editors at your RFA. Any discussion will take place on the talk page of your RFA. rgds. Leaky Caldron 11:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I will be raising a query as to whether such an action is appropriate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Sigma. I have withdrawn my query at you nominator's talk pages. Leaky Caldron 15:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Your RfA

Your RfA has become one of the most toxic RfAs ever. I admire and respect your decision to stop getting involved over there. What anyone does outside of Wikipedia is none of the community's business. Hang in there.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 23:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

+1 LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 01:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

It certainly scores fairly high on the toxicity meter I often thought that my own RfA was one of the cruelest where even an admin resorted to lies, deceit, and blatant insults and personal attacks and I've used it as a reference many time as an example of of how the system needs cleaning up. Whether Σ passes or not shouldn't deter him from seeing it through with the calm he has demonstrated. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Almost every time I look at an RFA I end up completely disgusted; the hazing is just pathetic. Most people would avoid putting themselves up for that kind of abuse. We have a shortage of good admins and there's it's obvious why we do. Sigh. Eeekster (talk) 03:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen an RFA this bad since my own last year. I know how you must be feeling. If you want to chat, you know how to reach me. Best, Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 00:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

RfA questions

Hi.

I've left a few questions for you at your RfA. They are of course fully optional. In the meantime, I'll be looking through your contributions history to try to get to know you better, or at least as much as one can through looking over edits : ) - jc37 00:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Evaluate carefully.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 02:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the questions. You are of course welcome to restore them if you were already working on them. I wish you well. - jc37 22:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Resilient Barnstar
	You know what it's for. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has been cringing at the RfA and impressed by your ability to resist the urge to respond angrily. Don't let it get to you. wctaiwan (talk) 04:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Your RfA

I just wanted to say that I'm sorry your RfA has become such a dramafest, and I feel practically embarassed and even somewhat ashamed that I've probably been one of the biggest proponents of the direction it's taken (in large part because of my perfectionist impulses, I actually have more edits to that page than anyone else, including you - check it out). It is very disheartening to see how many petty disputes have been borne of that discussion, and it's definitely a prime example of RfA at its absolute worst. If this request does not succeed, don't be discouraged; keep up your stellar NPP work for another six months or so, continue to demonstrate a calm demeanour and a willingness to grow, and I have no doubt your next RfA will be successful.

Again, I'm very sorry for everything that's transpired over the past week. I hope the whole ordeal hasn't put a damper on your enthusiasm for Wikipedia. Kurtis (talk) 06:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'm sure that Σ will take your apology in the very best of good faith. Personally I'm more concerned that this kind of ordeal puts a damper on everyone's enthusiasm for Wikipedia - especially future potential candidates. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• I'm saddened to see the plummeting percentage of support over the last few days. Unfortunately there are always a lot of users who seem to wait to comment until there is some issue they can use to "pile on" thus making them feel as though they picked the winning "side" in the discussion. As for conservapedia, I can't imagine why anyone gives a shit what you may or may not have done over there. It is essentially a bad-faith project in that they pretend to be an educational project but it is quite obvious that they are in fact an advocacy website full of intellectual dishonesty. I hadn't looked at it in a while until I followed your link to their article on the theory of relativity. It is a perfect example of why they are a joke, and deserve nothing more than to be treated as such. What actual educational project would actually use the term "lamestream media" in a supposedly informative educational article? The whole site turns my stomach, only because the of the unfortunate homeschool kids whose idiot parent actually trust them and let their kids read and believe the hogwash posted there. Anyway, don't let it get you down, many a fine admin didn't make it on their first try because of a pile on of opposes over a minor issue. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

All things must pass

This RfA may seem like a big deal now, but in a year you'll feel better.

If you try again in 6 months, you will probably pass, although a significant number will suggest that the Conservapedia vandalisms render you too risky to support. It may be best therefore to start again in a new account, if you wish to avoid that issue being raised in your future RfAs.

I do wish you good luck. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

No need for a new account. An honest nomination statement where you fully explain and take full responsibility for your actions will suffice. I think that the nomination statement (self-nom, btw) on my second RfA was a large reason for why it was successful. No one (and I mean no one) here is perfect, everyone has a smudge on their record in the past. Sigma's is relatively minor and entirely surmountable. -Scottywong| confer _ 02:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

As one of the neutral !voters, I'd sincerely like to be able to support you at your 2nd RfA, for which I'm sure you'll be able to prepare robust responses to previous naysayers. All the best for getting back into things in the near future. Cheers. PS And I disagree that a new account would be either necessary, or particularly helpful. -- Trevj (talk) 05:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

We agree that a new account is not necessary, and we agree that after 6-24 months a new RfA would probably be successful. A new account would avoid having a minority of voters discussing vandalism. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

RfA closed

Hi Σ. I'm sorry to report that I've closed your request for adminship as "consensus not reached." I know unsuccessful RfAs are no fun (my first RfA was also unsuccessful), but I hope you will be heartened that well over 100 of your fellow editors supported your bid, and that among those who opposed, many expressed a willingness to support at a later date. I hope you will continue to offer Wikipedia your valuable contributions. Let me know if you have any questions. Best, 28bytes (talk) 02:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

RFA

Sorry that you didn't get the tools this time around. In 6 months, it'll be a landslide. There is no excuse, however, for the ugliness that it took. Good luck in the future. Go Phightins! (talk) 02:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Σ/Archive/2012. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 02:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Please note that USPS said it will take 2-3 days to arrive. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 02:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

If it's any consolation...

...my first RfA resembled yours (although far fewer support votes), but my second passed relatively easily. Try not to get too discouraged by the bullshit drama. -Scottywong| confer _ 02:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Resilient Barnstar
	I hardly hand out Barnstars. I only give them to people I think deserve or need them. Your resilience to this is remarkable. I'm sorry it tanked as it did. —cyberpower ChatOffline 03:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Not quite an exploded badger

I don't even know. Hi? -— Isarra ༆ 04:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Your RfA should have been 1528% less of a cesspool of fuck than it turned into. Don't let the dramafest get to you; you're one of my favorite editors on Wikipedia and IRC, something that makes you truly special. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 04:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes hello

You mentioned needing people to quit writing on your talk page, so I couldn't resist. Lots of love, and sorry to see you failed an RfA this time around because of some stupid bullshit. Don't let it drag you down! <3 208.180.95.99 (talk) 05:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

A disgrace

I think you were treated disgracefully in that RfA, and it is to your great credit (and says a lot about the maturity that so many claimed you do not have) that you did not respond to the baiting and character assassination that went on. I sincerely hope you will run again in the future (though you would be entirely justified in telling us where we can stick our admin tools and refusing to subject yourself to such a witch hunt again). I'm currently feeling ashamed to be part of our so-called Community. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Be heartened by the fact that although your RfA was one of the nastiest in the history of Wikipedia, the number of supports was very high with almost an unprecedented participation of admins, crats, and a steward. Your RfA was used as a platform to attack the concept of adminship in general, and this should never happen. The level of civility was atrocious, and there are editors there who should be brought to answer for their actions. The RfA reform project has been moved and reopened and new discussions start here and let's hope that this time round something will be done, because if not, by around mid 2014 there will not be enough admins, Wikipedia will have become an anarchy, and itself sunk to the depths of Conservapedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree with you two. Being a user just over a year, I have never seen anything as nasty as that ever here on Wikipedia. Even worse, I, without intention, fed to some of this drama which lead to an editor accusing me of hazing, bullying, and lying. I started threads which lead to editors fighting towards each other when my intention was to try to calm things down. I will be taking some time off of Wikipedia for a while while contemplating whether Wikipedia is the right place for me after the damage I've caused.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 13:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no matter how sincere you are, no matter how much you wish to AGF, no matter what you actually say, some people will misunderstand, or in some cases, miscontrue, misinterpret, and/or even out right lie. It's sad. But POV pushing isn't only in ontent-related discussions.

This isn't the worst trainwreck of an RfX I've seen, but I think it ranks up there. - jc37 16:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Advice

More on that darned RFA... I wish you had received better advice that the off-WP vandalism-for-LOLz issue had swamped the RFA. This was readily evident more than a day before the close and a lot of the bitterness of the proceeding could have been averted with a timely "Whoops, this is a bigger issue than I thought — I'm sorry, I withdraw for now, and will ponder things." That, combined with a proper expression of contrition about the issue at a 2nd try in the future would be exactly what most of the opposers would be looking for...

In contrast, the path taken that the events were in the distant past and that Conservapedia is so stupid and transparently a political agenda pushing exercise rather than a scholarly resource that tweaking their nose for fun is of no import completely missed the point. Vandalism IS a big deal. You know as well as anyone how much volunteer time and effort is put into stopping it here. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," and all that... Next time, take the approach not "I screwed up BUT..." — rather take the approach "I screwed up AND..." That's really what those who opposed this time around are going to be looking for.

Sorry that things turned out the way they did this time, but it's best for the longterm health of the project to have very high standards and expectations and an administrator corps who has to work hard to meet them. Keep working hard and good luck in your next try in six months or a year. I look forward to supporting you then. best, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 21:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I have little to add to what Carrite already said very well. I would have remained firmly in the support column had there been sufficient acknowledgment that vandalizing Conservepedia was wrong. I have been doing anti-vandalism work here for more than half a decade, and it has given me a lot of respect for the creative works of others... whether I agree with them or not. I feel it is unequivocally wrong to destroy the work of others... I don't care if it's Wikipedia, Conservepedia, Stormfront, or a brony convention on 4chan. I think your problem was twofold... a refusal to take full responsibility for your actions, and the fact it was coordinated on IRC. The community has ALWAYS been distrustful of IRC and the lack of transparency that exists elsewhere on the project.

I don't feel you need to wait six months. I think you will pass right around the beginning of the year by a very wide margin. I also look forward to supporting you then. Trusilver 23:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Me too. A few hours after I switched my vote, I felt like I did the wrong thing. Unfortunately, I was too busy to go online until this morning, when I saw that it got closed. I've never heard of Conservapedia before, but after looking around their site for a few minutes, it seems more political than constructive. Considering that it was over a year ago, and the IRC issues were taken from a chat with no private logging allowed, there was no real reason to oppose you and I would like to apologize. Yesterday, an admin rollbacked all of my edits to my userrpage accidentally, and I've seen some admins or other experienced users use rollback incorrectly once or twice. That RFA was the worst I've seen here and I hope that it doesn't affect your outstanding performance here. I suggest waiting 2-4 months and trying again. You're arguably one of the best new page patrollers we've got here. Your work with the coal ball article is excellent, considering that many patrollers don't create articles. I'm sorry it turned out this way and that I opposed you and I'm confident that you will get the mop in a few months. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 14:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

REVISIONUSER

Hi Sigma, the revisionuser template on user talk page edit notices has broken, and in trying to find a solution I found this discussion from last year, which said you had fixed it. Do you have any idea what might be wrong with it now, or whether a different template can be used instead? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) {{REVISIONUSER}} isn't a template, it's a magic word. There's some documentation at Help:MW#Variables. Though it seems to work here: MalnadachBot. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 19:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Lego. I'm looking for the thing that says "Hi X," when X makes an edit to that person's user talk page. REVISIONUSER used to do that, and now apparently doesn't. Or at least, it doesn't for me. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

According to the documentation at mw:Help:Magic_words#Technical_metadata, it says: The username of the user who made the most recent edit to the page, or the current user when previewing an edit. I think the page might need to be purged to make that properly show up though. Is that what you're looking for? Or something else? LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 22:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

If you go to my talk page, and you click on edit, you used to see a welcome notice that said: "Welcome to my talk page, Legoktm!" (or whoever it was). Now all you see is: "Welcome to my talk page, !" without a name. I'm experiencing the same thing when I go to other people's talk pages. Perhaps it's my browser or preferences that are causing the problem. Would you mind clicking edit on my talk page and telling me what you see? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

"Many editnotices use {{REVISIONUSER}} to show the name of the user viewing the page. This was always considered a bug and has been fixed. It should now show only the name of the last user to edit the page, but instead it shows nothing. See T21006 and T33398." from here. Basically, it doesn't work anymore, and no such functionality exists at this time, unless {{CURRENTUSER}} (discussed here and here) is enabled. Goodvac (talk) 23:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. Pity, as that was a nice feature. Thanks for the information. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

I'm really sorry for what I did to your RfA. I had no idea that a single oppose would cause such trouble. You're a great editor, don't feel discouraged. Please, if you do another RfA in the future, let me know, I'd be more than happy to (co-)nominate you. Frood! Ohai What did I break now? 23:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	First time I give this barnstar and is for you. I don't care what happened at your RFA, you deserve this award and more. Thank you for being part of this big community called Wikipedia. — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Template:X1/sandbox/is not talk

Per the TfD, I have moved Template:X1/sandbox/is not talk to User:Lowercase sigmabot/is not talk, but feel free to move it to another place in userspace. I will delete the redirect in a day or two. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I have updated the source. →Σσς. (Sigma) 00:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Lonecloud

I have substantially re-worked the text from the source it was taken. I will continue to add to the article other sources. I encourage you to read both sources and to delete the copyright violation. --Hantsheroes (talk) 08:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I did read the sources, spending 15 minutes comparing the article's text with that of the source. As it stands, the article is a copyright violation. And as such, the tag should not be removed until the issue is rectified. →Σσς. (Sigma) 08:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Just dropping by...

Heya Sig, how ya doin? Missed your RfA, I afraid. :( Give it a few months. You'll be fine, I trust. Don't have much time on WP, but I wanted to say hi. Best, Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 14:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Σ. You have new messages at Go Phightins!'s talk page.
Message added 03:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Go Phightins! 03:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

RfA

Hi. Could you just check that all recently closed RfA have been correctly listed in their various places. Cheers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) By looking at Special:Whatlinkshere/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AutomaticStrikeout and Special:Whatlinkshere/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Farrtj it appears that they have been listed at the proper pages. Legoktm (talk) 04:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Assistance required

Hello,

I appreciate what you have said in regards to my new page Brocky's Tv, and understand what you are saying.

Unfortunately I am not sure of the best way to adjust the page and if you could please delete the parts that are a problem, I would appreciate that.

I have looked at Jim's Mowing page, and found it to be very similar, and it has links at the bottom as does mine. I would like to know if you can help make this page an informative page stating that Brocky's TV exists and where it operates.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrockyAspland (talk • contribs) 07:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. To whatever extent possible, Wikipedia steers clear of bias, and represents facts clearly. This policy is called WP:NPOV. Brocky's TV takes a stance, though, using text like You can Book Online... or Call the 7 day toll free number... today.

You may find this helpful in cleaning up the article. →Σσς. (Sigma) 08:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Article you requested per fair use

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/9158964/Coal%20balls.PDF

Please let me know when you are done. Churn and change (talk) 15:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Σ. You have new messages at Webclient101's talk page.
Message added 05:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Webclient101 (talk) 05:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

BAGBot: Your bot request Lowercase sigmabot III

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lowercase sigmabot III as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 06:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.

Deleted Chesapeake Conservancy entry

Dear Σ, I am trying to create an organizational page for the Chesapeake Conservancy, just like the ones for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and Defenders of Wildlife. I was in the process of adding additional links, references, and information about the large landscape projects the Conservancy works on within the Chesapeake watershed. It has been removed because it was perceived as a promotion, which it is not. Would it be possible for you to reverse the deletion. Or do you have suggestions of how I can create this page without it being perceived as a promotion and, thus, deleted? Thank you very much. Best, Twigatembo (talk) 00:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello.

First off, I wouldn't model a page off of Chesapeake Bay Foundation. Parts of it, most notably the second and the last paragraphs, are quite promotional.

To whatever extent possible, Wikipedia steers clear of bias, and represents facts clearly. I thought the article you wrote did not read like a summary of the organisation. Text such as The Conservancy promotes technological, methodological and financial innovations to encourage exploration and develop new techniques and partnerships for saving the Bay. They use innovations to: [...] reinforces my belief.

You may find this helpful in cleaning up the text. I cannot retrieve the text for you, because I am not an admin. GorillaWarfare is, though, and you should contact her for it. She can assist you further. I hope this answered your questions. →Σσς. (Sigma) 01:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm adding a pointless section to your talkpage.

It's a form of stalling. That said, hi. You're shiny. Please continue to be shiny. Shiny is good.

Yes. -— Isarra ༆ 06:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)