User talk:Calmer Waters/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

203.188.254.132

Hi! I noticed from the SPI case that you blocked 203.188.254.132 for spamming. A 31-hour block seems a little short considering that the IP seems to have been used only for tobacco spamming since 2011. Any objections to extending the block to 6 months or so? Jafeluv (talk) 10:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I looked into the IP address and it appears to be a static IP address assigned to a business. I have emailed the person that the account in assigned to. Hopefully, I will receive a response back. I am also concerned about a first time lengthy block on an IP, but more than willing to keep an eye on it and progressively increase the duration. Calmer Waters 20:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

All right, sounds reasonable. Thanks, Jafeluv (talk) 22:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

STiki warning messages

Hi Calmer Waters,

You have a reply at Wikipedia talk:STiki#IV reports on stale final warnings. It seems to have turned into an interesting discussion about how the system of warnings should work. So as not to interupt that, I will respond to the other bit of your message here.

You said "Currently, I'm not sure exactly what kind of warning (#1, #2, #3, #final, or AIV report) until the request has been sent. Am I missing something in the interface that would help with this, rather than opening up the user talk page link and user contributions before each warning?".

The answer is that you are not missing anything. The only way to tell what level warning STiki will give is to look at the user talk page and look for the highest warning listed under the current month. As Andrew alluded to, if there is more than one section named after the current month, the first such section will be interrogated by STiki. Obviously if no warning have been given in the current calendar month, a level 1 warning is given.

Yaris678 (talk) 17:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up Yaris. I do appreciate it. I can understand how complicated it could be to make a program such as this. Was just bringing up an observation from the blocking admin perspective. You might be surprised at the amount of reports we have to decline as not actionable or require a lot more research than the noticeboard is intended for (ie. content disputes). Not that we won't block for those too, but some are better handled by those who deal with the topic regularly (especially when dealing with possible blocks for established users, which aren't so matter of fact). I would admit it is something as a whole the declining admins or editors should probably follow up more with the reporting editors. I do like how it does prompt a DTTR notice when dealing with users over 50 edits. Calmer Waters 20:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Building a case for a RfC/U

Hello! I am currently in the process of putting together a Request for Comment/User conduct regarding the potentially disruptive editing by user Tim Zukas. It is pertaining to this user's continued refusal to cite sources properly, including on some articles with GA status. As you can see on his talk page here, this has been going on for quite some time now. I am asking for your input due to the fact that you have commented on this user's talk page about these problems.

If you would be so kind, please pop over and take a look at the draft I have created for the RfC/U and add your comments. If you would like to be a part of this, let me know and I will keep you posted once it is ready to be submitted.

Thanks! nf utvol (talk) 23:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe my only interaction with Tim Zukas was holding off on a block request that was placed at the noticeboard at WP:AIV due to the above issue. My hopes were, that by writing a personal note reflecting on why his citation method was being noted as problematic, he might consider addressing the issue. A quick review shows that this was not taken on board as well as I had wished and his response was IMO less than cordial. I will not have a chance to look in depth to the whole history of the situation to this until later in the weekend thru. Calmer Waters 03:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

You're right about the less-than-cordial responses. Even when people have attempted to be civil and provide advice he often replies in a very defensive nature. Take your time though, just putting things together and gauging the responses of other users who were involved at the moment.nf utvol (talk) 14:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for all your good work handling requests at WP:PERM/R. Kindly, Anderson - what's up? 21:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Cool. Thank you Anderson. :) That was kind very kind of you. I appreciate it. Kindly Calmer Waters 05:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: Block

Hi, I've reconsidered the block after your explanation. I changed the block length to only 24 hours. When making the original block, I had noticed other instances of blanking vandalism as well (in other articles), and I did not thoroughly check the substance of the most recent edits that had come under question. Given the entire history, I still believe a block is warranted, but for a much shorter time than I had originally given (length changed to only 24 hours). Thanks for letting me know, Spencer^T♦C 16:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Spencer. I also agree that the user had some other problematic edits. Just concerned that some editors get a little too trigger happy with the revert button when dealing with IPs and new users, without consider why they might be making certain edits. Any woo. Take care :) Calmer Waters 01:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Ashishchandradev

Hello CW, I noticed that you (quite correctly) blocked this editor for spam links. They've agreed to stop spamming and acknowledged they need to find decent sources rather than flogging their own site. Any objections to a second chance, contingent of course on the behavior actually improving? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. The last requests seems to show that they genuinely understand what the block was about and why the account was blocked and IMO addresses the points raised by Amatulic. This editor could be quite a valuable contributor if he can truly separate his work here and that of his own site. I'm fine with him being unblocked Seraphimblade. Kindly Calmer Waters 05:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Two new categories for The Dark Knight Rises

Hi, can you adding these two categories Category:Screenplays by Christopher Nolan Category:Screenplays by Jonathan Nolan on The Dark Knight Rises? Thanks.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 00:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

 Good to go Calmer Waters 00:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 00:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you add Category:Films about nuclear war and weapons and Category:Films about terrorism on The Dark Knight Rises as well, since the story is about stopping a nuclear bomb in the city.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I tend to be very careful when editing across full protection. Never editing for myself and only when answering edit requests. The first two seem fairly straightforward in regards to the producers, screenwriters, and directors. I am hesitant about adding the later ones right now. There are so many possible "about" cats that this movie could possibly fit into and somebody out there might have a different opinion about it. Not that I either agree or disagree with those cats, only that I would personally prefer to hold off and wait till the protection is lifted. You are obviously still free to ask at the talk page if you like and hope you understand my rationale. Kindly Calmer Waters 04:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Oaky dookey.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 06:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Please edit the box office collections of the movie they are above 700 million dollars while the article shows only above 550 million dollars.Thank you. --MegaCyanide666 (talk) 09:37, 09 August 2012 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello - Perhaps you might wish to reconsider your approval of User:Username withheld's Rollback request, as this user has been blocked indefinitely. Cheers, --Seduisant (talk) 22:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I am aware and nah. See User talk:Beeblebrox#Huh? if you wish for more background information. The one thing does not have to do with the other (ie. the block and having rollback). To take it away would serve no purpose (it can't be used while blocked) and if unblocked, there would be no reason to not give it back. Does that make sense :). Take care. Kindly Calmer Waters 02:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Benidorm (TV series)

Hello Calmer Waters, I wondered if you would take a look at the article Benidorm and see if it warrants semi protection?

Around 328 of the past 500 edits have been from IP editors, many of whom are adding unverifiable and unconstructive content, others are damaging the page formatting and saving very poorly written changes.

Most of the edits by logged in editors have been fixing the changes made by the IP's. I have left comment on the talk page asking new editors to excercise care and give references which hasn't helped any. Please see this section and this section on the articles talk page. Thanks Fraggle81 (talk) 18:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I see all the reverts taking place on the article and would normally say that the constant addition of unsourced information was becoming disruptive; however, if you look at the contribution history [1] it appears that the article has been built and updated mostly by IPs and the article is largely unsourced as a whole; except for one reference. Unfortunately, it does not appear that the article has an experienced editor core that could help bring this into alignment with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television or Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction, and structure it to something on the lines of Degrassi: The Next Generation (a series feature article). The information going into could be correct, but with little to no editorial oversight, and examples like the mentioned FA's own characters list being just about as unsourced, it makes this a difficult article to assess the constructiveness of the various additions in less one knows or watches the program. They also seem good faith, and to semi-protect would almost be to lock the article. It appears that the sixth season seems to be a point of contention. Is there a source that can be cited stating that it has not yet been confirmed that can be added? I will take a look online later. What the article needs more than anything is to have someone who is interested give it a facelift. You think REVUpminster might be interested? What's your thoughts? Calmer Waters 03:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I can see your point about the article being built mainly by IP's. It doesn't seem there's a lot of bad faith going on with most of them it seems to be more to be just newbies making poor edits. I've been trying to find a reliable source to settle the sixth season issue for a while but it would appear nothing has been officially announced either way. I'm not sure REVUpminster would be willing to take it on, he tells me he likes keep a low profile, most of his edits like mine are minor maintenance stuff. I've considered taking on myself however my area of expertise is more anti vandal work and it needs someone with more of a passion for the subject matter. I'm wondering if I can find someone on WP:BTVS or WP:TV to tackle it. Thanks Fraggle81 (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I spent some time trying to find some information about the show, but everything I came across suggests that the programme is now over. Any links that would allow me to view the show seem to be disabled in the US. It is odd that a show that was on for five seasons and nominated at the BAFTAs would have so little information readily available. Maybe I have gotten a little lazy since finishing classes. I remember crawling the internet for hours sometimes in order to verify the right information for putting a couple of sections together. Maybe it is time for me to create some content. Just too bad it isn't the British show Coupling, I loved that show when they had it on PBS :) Calmer Waters 04:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Similar disruptive edit!

Now an anonymous editor is making is making similar disruptive edits in the article! --Tito Dutta ✉ 04:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Blocked the IP per WP:Duck. Suppose we will have to see what happens after the block runs out and if the same editing behavior will continue. Calmer Waters 07:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Noel Coward vandal

What is the cutoff for staleness? This edit was made just less than two days ago, and the account is a vandalism-only account, making about two dozen vandal edits recently. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no set in stone cutoff. Depends on a lot of factors like whether the address looks stable, whether it is a registered account (those are usually indef'd if obvious vandalism has been reported), if editing pattern has changed, history of contributions as a whole, and finally who answers the report. As an IP account, the first block is usually 31 hours, unless some special circumstance is involved like a block evasion on a long term static address. Calmer Waters 20:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: Page unsalted

Thanks --Tito Dutta ✉ 21:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Your welcome. Calmer Waters 21:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Order from Tokyo to execute POW's "in the field".

I am interested in the statement that Abe received an order from Tokyo to execute all prisoners in the field rather than send them back to Japan. Are you able to provide me with a source reference for this as it would help my own research.

I have checked both: - Whitman, Edward C.. "SUBMARINE COMMANDOS: "Carlson's Raiders" at Makin Atoll". Undersea Warfare. - Morison, Samuel Eliot (1949 (reissue 2001)). Coral Sea, Midway and Submarine Actions, May 1942-August 1942, vol. 4 of History of United States Naval Operations in World War II. Champaign, Illinois, USA: University of Illinois Press. ISBN 978-0-252-06995-6.

Neither mention this order, so it must be from somewhere else, that you got this information. I would be extremely grateful if you could help me.

" However, Abe was advised by central military authorities in Tokyo that the new official policy was to execute all prisoners of war in the field, and not to hold any in captivity or to send them to the home islands."

KevalM (talk) 10:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry KevalM that it had taken me so long to reply. I was hoping to find some information either verifying or debunking the statement from the article Kōsō Abe. I was unfortunately not able to do either yet. My only interaction with that article was moving your observation to the talk page. You have assess to the cited book? If so and it does not reflect the information that is currently in the article, please feel free to either remove the sentence or reword it more accurately. It will take a little time to comb the history to see who exactly added that portion and whether they still are actively editing. Calmer Waters 02:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Las Bananas Enojadas

Las bananas enojadas are a very true and fierce gang. They tend to work undercover as to avoid being disbanded. Just because you're ignorant and know nothing about this subject, does not certify your expertise. Please refrain from assuming that anything you don't know about is untrue. Thank you for your cooperation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.97.162.189 (talk) 19:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Well if you yourself looked closely at the edit I reverted, you would see that you changed the amount killed from 50 soldiers to 500,000,000 soldiers (or about a 16th of the world's population). Calmer Waters 23:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

New and confused!

Hi there- I received your message about the text being a conflict of interest. What do other companies do about posting summary descriptions of themselves? I am also very confused on how to make the page "live". You had mentioned my content was not approved- I have since cut it down and would like for you to review it. Do I just post it here or is there a private space to post? Ironshore Inc. (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)Ironshore Inc.

Hello and sorry for not being able to get to this sooner. I noticed two drafts in your user space including User:Ironshore Inc./sandbox. I will be able to give them a look in a few hours after I return from work and can see where the article is current at in regards to notability, neutral point-of-view, and verifiability if someone has not been able to already. Kindly Calmer Waters 01:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Calmer Waters. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 03:48, 27 August 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.

 Ryan Vesey 03:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

? Calmer Waters 03:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, is your Wikipedia email correct? All I asked was for you to email me so I could send you a copy of the text file for the DAB pages. Ryan Vesey 03:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Weird because I get the notices that my talk page changes from MetaWiki, but not the email. Hmmmm Calmer Waters 04:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Right, you just want to shoot me one with the link on my page? All I needed was that so I had your address. It seems like I can't save it in a sandbox, when I try to preview my edit the page shuts down. Ryan Vesey 04:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Calmer Waters. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is hopefully.
Message added 04:32, 27 August 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.

 Ryan Vesey 04:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

yeah, it works. Thanks Ryan :) Calmer Waters 04:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! I'm glad you got it. What are you planning on doing with them anyways? Ryan Vesey 04:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea, but I'm sure I can find something. I had thought maybe I have previously signed up for a project or you were recruiting for one. I hope you didn't have to perform a data run just for me. I can't think of requesting this particular one. The last one along these lines was a long while ago for redirect talk page wiki project/task force templates for all the disease redirects at List of cutaneous conditions Kindly Calmer Waters 05:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Ha, see my last email. Mixup on my part. I hope that it cleared up the confusion. That said, if you are interested in anything similar, shoot me a line. Ryan Vesey 05:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You've probably been sitting there going "what on earth is this guy doing?" I suppose it's not every day that someone sends you 217,000 page and asks you what to do with them. I hope you found this as funny as my dad and I did. Ryan Vesey 05:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Too funny. It just kept scrolling and scrolling! Was frantically trying to think of someway to put it to use. lol Calmer Waters 05:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised you actually tried to find a use. I still don't know what the use was; although, I feel like I wanted to do a disambiguation page run long before I knew how to do it. I can't remember what I would have done with them. I'm assuming it will be to clear DAB links, it might be to unify formatting. It could also be for research. Ryan Vesey 05:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Derek Hough

You made a mistake. Kate Voegele's song is called 99 Times, not 99 Crimes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.92.104 (talk) 03:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You are correct. I have corrected the link. My apologies. Calmer Waters 03:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for extending the rollback rights. I appreciate it. Guðsþegn (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Your welcome Guðsþegn. Calmer Waters 02:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm

Kind of disagree with your block of User:AnneBlock45. I edited conflicted with your block notice while trying to replace the warning with {{welcome-COI}}. The disruptive edits are consistent with what the target of an attack page would do, not knowing how Wikipedia works. Regards, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 02:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. I'll go ahead and unblock the user and remove the notice, as you were the one to first act on the deletion of the article. Thank you for dropping the note. Kindly Calmer Waters 02:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response! :-) CharlieEchoTango (contact) 02:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for taking care of the article and the editor after I went off-wiki. Despite my warning to the editor, it was a tough situation for me to determine the equities. I didn't have the confidence to delete the article, as Charlie did, even though I referred to it in the AfD as an attack piece. In addition, I hold a generalized dim view of article subjects disruptively editing, even when they are ostensibly reacting to negative information about them. Finally, this particular subject is at least controversial, making it that much harder to sort out. We're clearly better off without the article, and my hope is the editor will lose interest as there's nothing left for her to blank or replace.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Kind of a catch-22. I also share your hope :). Calmer Waters 04:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Pending changes?

Your input is requested at Wikipedia:Help desk#What's happened to the revision history?. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 August newsletter

The final is upon us! We are down to our final 8. A massive 573 was our lowest qualifying score; this is higher than the 150 points needed last year and the 430 needed in 2010. Even in 2009, when points were acquired for mainspace edit count in addition to audited content, 417 points secured a place. That leaves this year's WikiCup, by one measure at least, our most competitive ever. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:

1. Grapple X (submissions) once again finishes the round in first place, leading Pool B. Grapple X writes articles about television, and especially The X-Files and Millenium, with good articles making up the bulk of the score.
2. Miyagawa (submissions) led Pool A this round. Fourth-place finalist last year, Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, and has reached the final primarily off the back of his massive number of did you knows.
3. Ruby2010 (submissions) was second in Pool B. Ruby2010 writes primarily on television and film, and scores primarily from good articles.
4. Casliber (submissions) finished third in Pool B. Casliber is something of a WikiCup veteran, having finished sixth in 2011 and fourth in 2010. Casliber writes on the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. Over half of Casliber's points this round were bonus points from the high-importance articles he has worked on.
5. Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came second in Pool A. Also writing on biology, especially marine biology, Cwmhiraeth received 390 points for one featured article (Bivalvia) and one good article (pelican), topping up with a large number of did you knows.
6. Muboshgu (submissions) was third in Pool A. Muboshgu writes primarily on baseball, and this round saw Muboshgu's first featured article, Derek Jeter, promoted on its fourth attempt at FAC.
7. Dana Boomer (submissions) was fourth in Pool A. She writes on a variety of topics, including horses, but this round also saw the high-importance lettuce reach featured article status.
8. Sasata (submissions) is another WikiCup veteran, having been a finalist in 2009 and 2010. He writes mostly on mycology.

However, we must also say goodbye to the eight who did not make the final, having fallen at the last hurdle: GreatOrangePumpkin (submissions), Ealdgyth (submissions), Calvin999 (submissions), Piotrus (submissions), Toa Nidhiki05 (submissions), 12george1 (submissions), The Bushranger (submissions) and 1111tomica (submissions). We hope to see you all next year.

On the subject of next year, a discussion has been opened here. Come and have your say about the competition, and how you'd like it to run in the future. This brainstorming will go on for some time before more focused discussions/polls are opened. 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) 00:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

education

Hi! Thanks for approving the article I wrote about English, baby! Here's another one I put together about another major entity in the education field. Would love if you could take a look at this one and potentially approve as well. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/iTEP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caffrey, Neil (talk • contribs) 05:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi! As a fellow AFC reviewer (and a talk page stalker of Calmer Waters), I recommend that you add on some reliable sources to the AFC submission to help establish notability. Electric Catfish 17:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh PDFs :). Well for example, if the Colombian government is using the iTEP as a required English proficiency exam, it would appear to meet the general notability requirements. Just need a little time to comb through the PDFs and make some online queries and some possible sources and such. Calmer Waters 00:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks guys! I will try to dig up some more sources... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caffrey, Neil (talk • contribs) 01:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC) OK I added a couple of more sources. The PDFs are still the only places to get certain facts so they're still in there. Sorry for the hassle! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caffrey, Neil (talk • contribs) 04:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

User:203.44.11.76

I just noticed after leaving the note requesting he be blocked that his prior block was in August 2011, not 2012. By the time I found it it was too late. My apologies. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 00:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, unfortunately, straight off the block the IP address went right back to vandalizing. We don't indefinite IPs, but with that kind of history we get pretty close. I would be surprised if in a couple of years there were any schools without some kind of block against them. Few ruining it for the many and all that :) Calmer Waters 00:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 01:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Evanh. It is a shame how some wish to spend their free time here. Calmer Waters 01:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

User:AnneBlock45 again

She made a legal threat at Talk:Anne Block, so I had to block her again. I felt I should let you know. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

This is unfortunate. Thanks for dropping the note Mike and doing what needed to be done. Kindly Calmer Waters 02:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

While you're at it

Special:Contributions/Suansworks strike Suansworks's latest edit summary? Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 07:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Jim. Hopefully she can read up on why they were removed now or frankly what needs to be done to keep the one from being removed without taking it so personal. Nice quick action on the reverts too. Calmer Waters 08:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Help! I'm Huggling, and I can't stop clicking! Whew! Huggle buffer-overflow-crash. Saved. Your welcome! Thank you! Good night. Jim1138 (talk) 09:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I heard they are coming out with a Huggle that supports iMacs. Can't wait, might even have to give the great Jim1138 a run for his money :) Calmer Waters 03:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

New Article creation

Dear Calmer Waters, I am trying to post a new article about the search about lunar rocks involving Joseph Gutheinz. The article name is "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V. ONE LUCITE BALL CONTAINING LUNAR MATERIAL (ONE MOON ROCK) AND ONE TEN INCH BY FOURTEEN INCH WOODEN PLAQUE". This involves a court case about a lunar rock recovery. Can you please do what is necessary so I can post this article? Please let me know if there is anything further I can do. Thank you.

David AuldsDavidaulds (talk) 02:09, 12 September 2012(UTC) Here is the error message I got:

The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism.

If you receive this message when trying to edit, create or move an existing page, follow these instructions: Any administrator can create or move this page for you. Please post a request at the Administrators' noticeboard. You may also contact any administrator on their talk page or by e-mail.

Be sure to specify the exact title of the page you are trying to create or edit, and if it might be misunderstood (for example, an article with an unusual name), consider explaining briefly what you want to do.

If you wrote any text, save it temporarily on your computer until you can edit the page.

Thank you.

Well David, one thing is you might want to shorten the name of the article, per our naming conventions if the article does not exist or is not contain within one the the pre-existing articles we have. Also and more important, are you also editing under the username User:SundanceXP? Kindly Calmer Waters 02:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Errant template?

So far as I can tell, this IP [2] has been mis-tagged as it does not seem to be a school. I ran a couple of different Whois checks & Googled the address and was unable to find a connection with an educational institution/library/etc. I am contacting the admin who originally placed the schoolblock-Notice on the talk page & asking them for their rationale (am thinking it was probably a typo, but want to check with them). I don't like to change other editors' posts on talkpages, but thought you'd want to know since you blocked the user. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 18:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Your correct. I placed the template after reviewing the prior block log and seeing the last one place was a school block (twinkle automatic places the template in addition as well as deselecting ACB with that and the anon block templates). Good catch Shearonink and something I will try to keep in mind for the future. It looks like Floquenbeam has already fixed the templates. Thanks again. Kindly Calmer Waters 22:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Rollback

Does this mean I should Re-Apply for Rollback, wait, or ask another time? ♠♥♣Shaun9876♠♥♣ ^{Talk Email} 00:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd give you Rollback, just worried about what happens if someone post on your talk page something on the lines of ... "Hey, why did you remove my edit? That wasn't vandalism!!!" or a simple "what did I do wrong?". One of the additional ways we can help those vandalizing is to explain why the edits in question are inappropriate when they come to you. Maybe they will become productive. Not often, but it happens :). As none of us is prefect and it is equally important to acknowledge when we error as this is a community project. Just curious what you would do in the proceeding situations. It was my only point of hesitation. Kindly Calmer Waters 00:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, ♠♥♣Shaun9876♠♥♣ ^{Talk Email} 01:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Help

Can you help fix "general manager" entry in the box on right? http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Fort_Worth_Cats

Also "media" is blank, and should not appear.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccirulli (talk • contribs)

 Fixed CTF83! 10:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Articles for Creation urgently needs your help!

Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 1835 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our Help Desk. Do you have what it takes? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not? Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions? Can you review submissions based on their individual merits? If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions. PS: we have a great AFC helper script at WP:AFCH! News Good article nominee 04 Aug 2012 – Parental brain (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Carina1205 (t · c); see discussion AFCH script improvements 1.16 to 1.17 Batman still works!

Sent on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation. If you do not wish to receive anymore messages from this WikiProject, please remove your username from this page.
Happy reviewing! TheSpecialUser ^TSU

• Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 08:57, 23 September 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) 19:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Untitled section

Hi , what did you find so threatening about the truth? Pleas advise on which sections needed to be deleted initially as a court order with the specific performance will get it published.

Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drofmicrocaps (talk • contribs) 05:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Court order? Please explain. Also, you very well know that the first portion of your article was ridiculous to not be known as an attack, making any portion of the proceeding text slanted against any realistic good faith that might be afforded. Any further edits such as that will end with an immediate block. Calmer Waters 05:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Did you talk to Dan himself or attempt to verify any of it? If you did you would know that he is a considered a very "Scary Man". You published a Wikipedia about Aleister Crowley was it upsetting you approve as the truth? What about Chain Saw Al Dunlap. Newell shareholders are down 8.5 Billion dollars since the 14 Billion dollar man decided to push for it to be pursued.

You need mean take out the parts about Sorcery initial and there is a thing as a matter of law to be ordered to do the "Specific Performance" of Something.

Finally, a Member of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is associated with Stanford and knows Dan.

In closing, it was forward to Herb Greenberg at CNBC for his review as he was highly critical of the megamerger between Newell and Rubbermaid. and would probably love to see your responses.

Thanks, please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drofmicrocaps (talk • contribs) 06:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Write it within our policies in a neutral, accurate, and balanced way with provided reliable third party sources cited and there isn't any issues. Write about things such as sorcery and with a primarily negative point-of-view commentary appearing as an agenda and the article will be deleted and your privileges to edit this site will be removed. I have no stake in this. Those are just the rules. If you want to contribute constructively please do, if there is an ax to grind, there are other sites that might be more tailored for you. Take care Calmer Waters 06:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Link for your Review

You will find Dan admits that "we paid $7 dollars per share to much"

http://www.masteringthemerger.com/masteringthemerger/case_example_newell.asp

Thank you for your further Due Diligence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drofmicrocaps (talk • contribs) 06:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

See above Calmer Waters 06:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Not a Problem knowing Dan I thought he'd like it. I did forget Hamilton College and how money has gone there as well. And yes it is a Fact that The Church of Jesus Christ sent over 1 million to Hezbollah and you find it strange when the "Star of David is on the Assembly Hall in Temple Square?

I will re-write and start small with references and links and then add to it a little later.

Thanks,

Drofmicrocaps (talk) 06:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

BLP concerns

Hi. I noticed that you had deleted this as an attack page. I'm not an admin so I have no idea what was in the deleted page, but its creator seems to have created this article yesterday. I've just removed some bizarre claims from it [3]. You might want to keep an eye on it. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject:Articles for Creation October - November 2012 Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from October 22, 2012 – November 21, 2012.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

EdwardsBot (talk) 00:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

New medical organization

Hi

I'm contacting you because, as a participant at Wikiproject Medicine, you may be interested in a new multinational non-profit organization we're forming at m:Wikimedia Medicine. Even if you don't want to be actively involved, any ideas you may have about our structure and aims would be very welcome on the project's talk page.

Our purpose is to help improve the range and quality of free online medical content, and we'll be working with like-minded organizations, such as the World Health Organization, professional and scholarly societies, medical schools, governments and NGOs - including Translators Without Borders.

Hope to see you there! --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 October newsletter

The 2012 WikiCup has come to a close; congratulations to Cwmhiraeth (submissions), our 2012 champion! Cwmhiraeth joins our exclusive club of previous winners: Dreamafter (2007), jj137 (2008), Durova (2009), Sturmvogel 66 (2010) and Hurricanehink (2011). Our final standings were as follows:

1. Cwmhiraeth (submissions)
2. Sasata (submissions)
3. Grapple X (submissions)
4. Casliber (submissions)
5. Muboshgu (submissions)
6. Miyagawa (submissions)
7. Ruby2010 (submissions)
8. Dana Boomer (submissions)

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 Grapple X (submissions), for four featured articles in the final round.
• The good article award also goes to Grapple X (submissions), for 19 good articles in the second round.
• The list award goes to Muboshgu (submissions), for three featured lists in the final round.
• The topic award goes to Grapple X (submissions), for three good topics (with around 40 articles) in round 4.
• The did you know award goes to Cwmhiraeth (submissions), for well over 100 DYKs in the final round.
• The news award goes to ThaddeusB (submissions), for 10 in the news items in round 3.
• The picture award goes to Grandiose (submissions), for two featured pictures in round 2.
• The reviewer award goes to both Ruby2010 (submissions) (14 reviews in round 1) and Grandiose (submissions) (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 Cwmhiraeth (submissions).

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) 00:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Articles for creation needs YOUR help!

Articles for creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 1835 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our help desk. Do you have what it takes? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not? Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions? Can you review submissions based on their individual merits? If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions. Plus, reviewing is easy when you use our new semi-automated reviewing script! Thanks in advance, Nathan2055talk - contribs

Sent on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation at 22:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC). If you do not wish to receive anymore messages from this WikiProject, please remove your username from this page.

Alerting you to a possible vandal change prior to the one you flagged.

I saw a discussion about this author/pen name on another list. As is normal for me on unsourced pages, I read the history and saw that on 2009-09-01 a major change had been made by a non-account after the not sourced material banner had been added and without any new citations being added. I suspect this page was vandalized initially but have no direct source information to make any corrections. As you recently worked on the page I am contacting you. to make you aware. Rjhawkin (talk) 04:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

That appears to be from a few years ago. What page is this as I have not edited in awhile, just reading from time to time Calmer Waters 16:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for creation newsletter

Delivered 00:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC) by EdwardsBot. If you do not wish to receive this newsletter, please remove your name from the spamlist.

Happy New Year!

CURTAINTOAD! ^TALK! — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hey Calmer Waters! Wishing you a very happy New Year :) CURTAINTOAD! ^TALK! 09:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 starting soon

Hi there; you're receiving this message because you have previously shown interest in the WikiCup. This is just to remind you that the 2013 WikiCup will be starting on 1 January, and that signups will remain open throughout January. Old and new Wikipedians and WikiCup participants are warmly invited to take part in this year's competition. (Though, as a note to the more experienced participants, there have been a few small rules changes in the last few months.) If you have already signed up, let this be a reminder; you will receive a message with your submissions' page soon. Please direct any questions to the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! J Milburn 19:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Madonna

• (Discuss) – Madonna (art) → Madonna I am notifying you because you were involved in writing this article. Kauffner (talk) 11:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 January newsletter

Signups are now closed; we have our final 127 contestants for this year's competition. 64 contestants will make it to the next round at the end of February, but we're already seeing strong scoring compared to previous years. Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) currently leads, with 358 points. At this stage in 2012, the leader ( Grapple X (submissions)) had 342 points, while in 2011, the leader had 228 points. We also have a large number of scorers when compared with this stage in previous years. 12george1 (submissions) was the first competitor to score this year, as he was last year, with a detailed good article review. Some other firsts:

• 12george1 (submissions) was also the first to score for an article, with the good article Hurricane Gordon (2000). Again, this is a repeat of last year!
• Buggie111 (submissions) was the first to score for a did you know, with Marquis Flowers.
• Spencer (submissions) was the first to score for an in the news, with 2013 Houphouët-Boigny stampede.
• Status (submissions) was the first to score for a featured list, with list of Billboard Social 50 number-one artists.
• Adam Cuerden (submissions) was the first to score for a featured picture, with File:Thure de Thulstrup - L. Prang and Co. - Battle of Gettysburg - Restoration by Adam Cuerden.jpg.

Featured articles, portals and topics, as well as good topics, are yet to feature in the competition.

This year, the bonus points system has been reworked, with bonus points on offer for old articles prepared for did you know, and "multiplier" points reworked to become more linear. For details, please see Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. There have been some teething problems as the bot has worked its way around the new system, but issues should mostly be ironed out- please report any problems to the WikiCup talk page. Here are some participants worthy of note with regards to the bonus points:

• Ed! (submissions) was the first to score bonus points, with Portland-class cruiser, a good article.
• Hawkeye7 (submissions) has the highest overall bonus points, as well as the highest scoring article, thanks to his work on Enrico Fermi, now a good article. The biography of such a significant figure to the history of science warrants nearly five times the normal score.
• HueSatLum (submissions) claimed bonus points for René Vautier and Nicolas de Fer, articles that did not exist on the English Wikipedia at the start of the year; a first for the WikiCup. The articles were eligible for bonus points because of fact they were both covered on a number of other Wikipedias.

Also, a quick mention of The C of E (submissions), who may well have already written the oddest article of the WikiCup this year: did you know that the Fucking mayor objected to Fucking Hell on the grounds that there was no Fucking brewery? The gauntlet has been thrown down; can anyone beat it?

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) 00:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Please take a look at this article

I reviewed your vast experience and wanted to contact you about helping to resolve a dispute. I'm being teamed up against by a group of self-avowed libertarians. I don't care that they are libertarians (or if you are) except for the fact they are using their ideology to skew the Koch Industries article. When I post positive things about Koch, they don't blink an eye, but if I dare put up anything critical, it gets deleted and frowned upon without balance. I'm trying to round up some disinterested third party input so I'm not getting steamrolled by biased editors. My goal is to make the article more informative and encyclopedic and that's it. Here's the current critical part of the Talk Page. Thank you. Cowicide (talk) 20:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikiproject Articles for creation Needs You!

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from March 1st, 2013 – March 31st, 2013.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

Delivered by User:EdwardsBot on behalf of Wikiproject Articles for Creation at 13:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Precious again

permission to express your feelings
Thank you for kindly giving me permission to express our shared feelings in a situation. I wish we had done more together. Look! - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 42nd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style. I miss the photographer, again, and put "Letting go of the past" on top of my talk, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 February newsletter

Round 1 is now over. The top 64 scorers have progressed to round 2, where they have been randomly split into eight pools of eight. At the end of April, the top two from each pool, as well as the 16 highest scorers from those remaining, will progress to round 3. Commiserations to those eliminated; if you're interested in still being involved in the WikiCup, able and willing reviewers will always be needed, and if you're interested in getting involved with other collaborative projects, take a look at the WikiWomen's Month discussed below.

Round 1 saw 21 competitors with over 100 points, which is fantastic; that suggests that this year's competition is going to be highly competative. Our lower scores indicate this, too: A score of 19 was required to reach round 2, which was significantly higher than the 11 points required in 2012 and 8 points required in 2011. The score needed to reach round 3 will be higher, and may depend on pool groupings. In 2011, 41 points secured a round 3 place, while in 2012, 65 was needed. Our top three scorers in round 1 were:

1. Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), primarily for an array of warship GAs.
2. Miyagawa (submissions), primarily for an array of did you knows and good articles, some of which were awarded bonus points.
3. Casliber (submissions), due in no small part to Canis Minor, a featured article awarded a total of 340 points. A joint submission with Keilana (submissions), this is the highest scoring single article yet submitted in this year's competition.

Other contributors of note include:

• Sven Manguard (submissions), whose Portal:Massachusetts is the first featured portal this year. The featured portal process is one of the less well-known featured processes, and featured portals have traditionally had little impact on WikiCup scores.
• Sasata (submissions), whose Mycena aurantiomarginata was the first featured article this year.
• Muboshgu (submissions) and Wizardman (submissions), who both claimed points for articles in the Major League Baseball tie-breakers topic, the first topic points in the competition.
• Toa Nidhiki05 (submissions), who claimed for the first full good topic with the Casting Crowns studio albums topic.

Featured topics have still played no part in this year's competition, but once again, a curious contribution has been offered by The C of E (submissions): did you know that there is a Shit Brook in Shropshire? With April Fools' Day during the next round, there will probably be a good chance of more unusual articles...

March sees the WikiWomen's History Month, a series of collaborative efforts to aid the women's history WikiProject to coincide with Women's History Month and International Women's Day. A number of WikiCup participants have already started to take part. The project has a to-do list of articles needing work on the topic of women's history. Those interested in helping out with the project can find articles in need of attention there, or, alternatively, add articles to the list. Those interested in collaborating on articles on women's history are also welcome to use the WikiCup talk page to find others willing to lend a helping hand. Another collaboration currently running is an an effort from WikiCup participants to coordinate a number of Easter-themed did you know articles. Contributions are welcome!

A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. 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) 11:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter

We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate Miyagawa (submissions) (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's Casliber (submissions) (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr ( Hawkeye7 (submissions)), on the European hare ( Cwmhiraeth (submissions)), on the constellation Circinus ( Keilana (submissions) and Casliber (submissions)) and on the Third Epistle of John ( Cerebellum (submissions)). All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. 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) 22:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Promotional card from late 1800s of the Engle Clock.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

• File:Promotional card from late 1800s of the Engle Clock.jpg

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 04:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 April newsletter

We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with Sven Manguard (submissions) claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and Cwmhiraeth (submissions) claiming for a did you know of sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place Casliber (submissions) and second place Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.

The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.

A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. 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) 15:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Surirya page-move broke links

The article was at Suriya (actor) for a long time and has over 400 inbound links at that target. Is there a reason you did not leave a redirect when you moved? Not doing so turned those 400+ links red. DMacks (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the heads up. I began going thru the links that redirected there and had entirely left out the cleanup of the incoming links before logging off. Thanks again for the note. Suppose time away is good for somethings but not everything :) --Calmer Waters 17:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

An occasional wikibreak is almost always a net gain. Thanks for finishing the cleanup, and welcome back! DMacks (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Mirjam Jaeger

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Mirjam Jaeger requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Gbawden (talk) 12:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library now offering accounts from Cochrane Collaboration (sign up!)

The Wikipedia Library gets Wikipedia editors free access to reliable sources that are behind paywalls. Because you are signed on as a medical editor, I thought you'd want to know about our most recent donation from Cochrane Collaboration.

• Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization that conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.
• Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account.
• If you are still active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)

Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject AFC needs your help... again

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from July 1st, 2013 – July 31st, 2013.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script is released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code cleanup, and more page cleanups. If you want to see a full list of changes, go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script/Development page. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks.

Delivered at 12:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC) by EdwardsBot (talk), on behalf of WikiProject AFC

WikiCup 2013 June newsletter

We are down to our final 16: the 2013 semi-finals are upon us. A score of 321 was required to survive round 3, further cementing this as the most competitive WikiCup yet; round 3 was survived in 2012 with 243 points, in 2011 with 76 points and in 2010 with 250 points. The change may in part be to do with the fact that more articles are now awarded bonus points, in addition to more competitive play. Reaching the final has, in the past, required 573 points (2012, a 135% increase on the score needed to reach round 4), 150 points (2011, a 97% increase) and 417 points (2010, a 72% increase). This round has seen over a third of participants claiming points for featured articles (with seven users claiming for multiple featured articles) and most users have also gained bonus points. However, the majority of points continue to come from good articles, followed by did you know articles. In this round, every content type was utilised by at least one user, proving that the WikiCup brings together content contributors from all corners of the project.

Round 3 saw a number of contributions of note. Figureskatingfan (submissions) claimed the first featured topic points in this year's competition for her excellent work on topics related to Maya Angelou, the noted American author and poet. We have also continued to see high-importance articles improved as part of the competition: Ealdgyth (submissions) was awarded a thoroughly well-earned 560 points for her featured article Middle Ages and 102 points for her good article Battle of Hastings. Good articles James Chadwick and Stanislaw Ulam netted Hawkeye7 (submissions) 102 and 72 points respectively, while 72 points were awarded to Piotrus (submissions) for each of Władysław Sikorski and Emilia Plater, both recently promoted to good article status. Collaborative efforts between WikiCup participants have continued, with, for example, Casliber (submissions) and Sasata (submissions) being awarded 180 points each for their featured article on Boletus luridus.

A rules reminder: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on the 29/30 June, which may be claimed in this round. 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. We are currently seeing concern about the amount of time people have to wait for reviews, especially at GAC- if you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! 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) 09:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Amusement Park Quarter 3, 2013 Newsletter

	WikiProject Amusement Parks Newsletter Quarter 3, 2013	463	124	5.13	50	30%	» Full edition
		Unassessed Articles	Coordinates Needed	WikiWork Load	Project Members	B&M articles are GA or FA

22:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 July newsletter

We're halfway through this year's penultimate round, and the competition is moving along well. Pool A's Sasata (submissions) currently leads overall, while Pool B's Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) is second. Both leaders are WikiCup veterans, and both have already scored over 600 points this month. If the round were to end today, Miyagawa (submissions), with 274 points, would be the lowest-scoring participant to make it through. This indicates that participants will need a score comparable to last year's (573, the highest ever) to qualify for the final. The high scores this year are a testament both to the quality of participants and to the increased focus on significant content (eligible for bonus points) in this year's competition. So far this round, both Sasata and Cwmhiraeth (submissions) have made up over half of their score through bonus points, with, for example, high importance FA koala earning Sasata a total of 440 points (from a multiplier of 4.4) and high-importance GA sea earning Cwmhiraeth a total of 216 points (from a multiplier of 7.2). Other articles on important topics submitted this round include a featured article on the Norman conquest of England by Ealdgyth (submissions), and good articles on Nobel laureate in literature Henryk Sienkiewicz, Nobel laureate in physics Hans Bethe, and the noted Japanese aircraft carrier Hiryū. These articles are by Piotrus (submissions), Hawkeye7 (submissions) and Sturmvogel_66 respectively.

Other than that, there is not much to report! 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. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! 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) 23:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Dimension10/Nonsense

I noticed that you deleted User:Dimension10/Nonsense.

That's fine, but could I please request that the content of that page be provided to me some how? It was quite long . At least through email or something (abhi99.ps [at] gmail.com)? Thank you . Dimension10 (talk) 02:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I sent it to your wiki email link. Let me know if you did not receive it. Kindly Calmer Waters 10:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Dimension10 (talk) 10:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mark Bell concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mark Bell, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 August newsletter

This year's final is upon us. Our final eight, in order of last round's score, are:

1. Hawkeye7 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer who has contributed on topics of military history and physics, including a number of high-importance topics. Good articles have made up the bulk of his points, but he has also scored a great deal of bonus points. He has the second highest score overall so far, with more than 3000 points accumulated.
2. Casliber (submissions), another WikiCup veteran who reached the finals in 2012, 2011 and 2010. He writes on a variety of topics including botany, mycology and astronomy, and has claimed the highest or joint highest number of featured articles every round so far this year. He has the third highest score overall, with just under 3000 points accumulated.
3. Cwmhiraeth (submissions), 2012 WikiCup champion, who writes mostly on marine biology. She has also contributed to high-importance topics, seeing huge numbers of bonus points for high-importance featured and good articles. Previous rounds have seen her scoring the most bonus points, with scoring spread across did you knows, good articles and featured articles.
4. Sasata (submissions), a WikiCup veteran who finished in second place in 2012, and competed as early as 2009. He writes articles on biology, especially mycology, and has scored highly for a number of collaborations at featured article candidates.
5. Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), the winner of the 2010 competition. His contributions mostly concern Naval history, and he has scored a very large number of points for good articles and good article reviews in every round. He is the highest scorer overall this year, with over 3500 points in total.
6. Ealdgyth (submissions), who is competing in the WikiCup for the second time, though this will be her first time in the final. A regular at FAC, she is mostly interested in British medieval history, and has scored very highly for some top-importance featured articles on the topic.
7. Miyagawa (submissions), a finalist in 2012 and 2011. He writes on a broad variety of topics, with many of this year's points coming from good articles about Star Trek. Good articles make up the bulk of his points, and he had the most good articles back in round 2; he was also the highest scorer for DYK in rounds 1 and 2.
8. Adam Cuerden (submissions) has previously been involved with the WikiCup, but hasn't participated for a number of years. He scores mostly from restoration work leading to featured picture credits, but has also done some article writing and reviewing.

We say goodbye to eight great participants who did not qualify for the final: Piotrus (submissions), Figureskatingfan (submissions), ThaddeusB (submissions), Dana boomer (submissions), Status (submissions), Ed! (submissions), 12george1 (submissions), Calvin999 (submissions). Having made it to this stage is still an excellent achievement, and you can leave with your heads held high. We hope to see you all again next year. Signups are now open for the 2014 WikiCup, which will begin on 1 January. All Wikipedians, whatever their interest or level of experience, are warmly invited to participate in next year's competition.

This last month has seen some incredible contributions; for instance, Cwmhiraeth's Starfish and Ealdgyth's Battle of Hastings—two highly important, highly viewed pages—made it to featured article status. It would be all too easy to focus solely on these stunning achievements at the expense of those participants working in lower-scoring areas, when in fact all WikiCup participants are doing excellent work. A mention of everything done is impossible, but here are a few: Last round saw the completion of several good topics (on the 1958, 1959 and 1962 Atlantic hurricane seasons) to which 12george1 had contributed. Calvin999 saw "S&M" (song), on which he has been working for several years, through to featured article status on its tenth try. Figureskatingfan continued towards her goal of a broad featured/good topic on Maya Angelou, with two featured and four good articles. ThaddeusB contributed significantly to over 20 articles which appeared on the main page's "in the news" section. Adam Cuerden continued to restore a large number of historical images, resulting in over a dozen FP credits this round alone. The WikiCup is not just about top-importance featured articles, and the work of all of these users is worthy of commendation.

Finally, the usual notices: 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. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! 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) 05:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

File:2006 AFL Carlton2006.png

Back in 2010 you deleted some old revisions of this file; can you please review in the light of the fact that the current image is {{PD-ineligibleUSonly|Australia}} and if the same is case for the older revisions then they should also be resorted. LGA _talk^edits 09:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

October 2013 AFC Backlog elimination drive

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from October 1st, 2013 – October 31st, 2013.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1800 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script is released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. --Mdann52talk to me!

This newsletter was delivered on behalf of WPAFC by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 September newsletter

In 30 days, we will know the identity of our 2013 WikiCup champion. Cwmhiraeth (submissions) currently leads; if that lead is held, she will become the first person to have won the WikiCup twice. Sasata (submissions), Hawkeye7 (submissions)—who has never participated in the competition before—and Casliber (submissions) follow. The majority of points in this round have come from a mix of good articles and bonus points. This final round is seeing contributions to a number of highly important topics; recent submissions include Phoenix (constellation) (FA by Casliber), Ernest Lawrence (GA by Hawkeye7), Pinniped, and red fox (both GAs by Sasata).

The did you know (DYK) eligibility criteria have recently changed, meaning that newly passed good articles are accepted as "new" for did you know purposes. However, in the interests of not changing the WikiCup rules mid-competition, please note that only articles eligible for DYK under the old system (that is, newly created articles or 5x expansions) will be eligible for points in this year's WikiCup. We do, however, have time to discuss how this new system will work for next year's competition; a discussion will be opened in due course. On that note, thoughts are welcome on changes you'd like to see for next year. What worked? What didn't work? What would you like to see more of? What would you like to see less of? All Wikipedians, new or old, are also warmly invited to sign up for the 2014 WikiCup.

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. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! 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) 22:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Tokyo Jungle reference.

Did you mean to do this? It looks like you reverted a legit edit fixing the reference. APL (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, was intentional mass rollback on a number of proxies. Please see the tread on ANI [4]. kindly Calmer Waters 19:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

RNS formalism

This is another string theory page that needs semi-protection against an IP-hopping edit warrior. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Phil. also done. Calmer Waters 10:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

AIV decline for AnnaPlacebo

Hi, this was my first report at AIV and I was wondering what I should have done differently. You replied in your declination that a NCBI abstract was in the edit summary. While it was there, it was a cherry-picked study that has been criticized by many other studies and was in violation of WP:UNDO and inserted in place of a RS study. So, I should have explained the situation better and avoided 3RR. Any other suggestions? Thanks for any assistance you can give. --Daffydavid (talk) 20:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Upon looking around Wikipedia I think I was at the wrong notice board anyway, I should have been at WP:ANI. If you could please confirm this or point me in the right direction as requested above should I need to do this at a later date I would greatly appreciate your guidance. Thanks again--Daffydavid (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Case by case really. Rule of thumb for AIV is that the edits in question are obvious vandalism, spam, or disruptive. AGF I could imagine the second and third edit from the editor attempting to correct and adding the citation. Maybe not, IDK but it needed to be investigated further, and that is not something that that particular noticeboard is for. ANI would be better and possibly WT:MED where if the edits are outside the RS or even MEDRS as this one would need to be, could be discussed and acted upon. I would suggest not using rollback on things not covered in ROLLBACK and could be taken as a possible dispute. Better to use undo in this kind of case. Things such as this, OR, synthesis, and fringe things to fall in the content dispute area, unless prior discussion and dispute resolution can be shown by prior consensus. My decline was not in regards to the validity of the edit and source provided. my 2 cents. :) Take care David Calmer Waters 05:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 October newsletter

The WikiCup is over for another year! Our champion, for the second year running, is Cwmhiraeth (submissions). Our final nine were as follows:

1. Cwmhiraeth (submissions)
2. Hawkeye7 (submissions)
3. Sasata (submissions)
4. Sturmvogel_66 (submissions)
5. Casliber (submissions)
6. Adam Cuerden (submissions)
7. Miyagawa (submissions)
8. Piotrus (submissions)
9. Ealdgyth (submissions)

All those who reached the final win prizes, and prizes will also be going to the following participants:

• Casliber (submissions) wins the FA prize, for four featured articles in round 4, worth 400 points.
• Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) wins the GA prize, for 20 good articles in round 3, worth 600 points.
• Another Believer (submissions) wins the FL prize, for four featured lists in round 2, worth 180 points.
• Adam Cuerden (submissions) wins the FP prize, for 23 featured pictures in round 5, worth 805 point.
• Sven Manguard (submissions) wins the FPo prize, for 2 featured portals in round 3, worth 70 points.
• Hawkeye7 (submissions) wins the topic prize, for a 23-article featured topic in round 5, worth 230 points.
• Cwmhiraeth (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 79 did you know articles in round 5, worth 570 points.
• ThaddeusB (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 23 in the news articles in round 4, worth 270 points.
• Ed! (submissions) wins the GAR prize, for 24 good article reviews in round 1, worth 96 points.
• The judges are awarding the Oddball Barnstar to The C of E (submissions), for some curious contributions in earlier rounds.
• Finally, the judges are awarding Cwmhiraeth (submissions) the Geography Barnstar for her work on sea, now a featured article. This top-importance article was the highest-scoring this year; when it was promoted to FA status, Cwmhiraeth could claim 720 points.

Prizes will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!

Congratulations to everyone who has been successful in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and a particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition. While it has been an excellent year, errors have opened up the judges' eyes to the need for a third judge, and it is with pleasure that we announce that experienced WikiCup participant Miyagawa will be acting as a judge from now on. We hope you will all join us in welcoming him to the team.

Next year's competition begins on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; it is open to all Wikipedians, new and old. Brainstorming and discussion remains open for how next year's competition will work, and straw polls will be opened by the judges soon. Those interested in friendly competition may also like to keep an eye on the stub contest, being organised by Casliber. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2014 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! 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) 00:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello, Calmer Waters:

WikiProject AFC is holding a two month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from December 1st, 2013 – January 31st, 2014.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1800 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script has been released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. EdwardsBot (talk) 09:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) at 09:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

oops Victuallers (talk) 12:27, 22 December 2013 (UTC)