User talk:KumiokoCleanStart/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions about User:KumiokoCleanStart. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

How-to?

How can you request for an account to be deleted? Gabesta449 ^edits ^♦ ^chat 21:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Please post on my talk page, Thanks. Gabesta449 ^edits ^♦ ^chat 21:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't

Don't go. My final plea. Please reconsider. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry I admit I am going to miss editing but I just see too many things wrong and too much drama. Its no longer enjoyable and thinkgs are only getting worse. Good luck though and keep up the good work. --Kumioko (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I too ask you to reconsider. Wiki can get like RL workplaces often do, but those things pass with time. "never say never" - if you want a long break then please consider coming back soon :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Please return soon and just enjoy writing an article or something :) /ƒETCH COMMS / 16:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree. Work done here is never wholly wasted (well rarely) since it is all available in histories. Also there's other ways of getting things done than doing them, which I often tend to forget. Look at the influence for good the builders of tools have for example. Rich Farmbrough, 22:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC).

Thanks guys...I scrambled my password to remove any temptation to edit. --71.163.243.16 (talk) 01:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Self-block request

Kumioko, Sorry to hear you're not happy here anymore; I've gone through bouts of that myself. If a block would make you feel better, or you want it to help with self control, I'll do it for you; I don't know what the big deal is about self-requested blocks. But please consider a few things:

If you're like most people, you'll want to come back in time (it's addictive). Thinks that seem unbearable now become annoying but bearable in a month or so, I've found at least. It will be easier and slightly less awkward-feeling if you don't have to ask to be unblocked first.
If you've got a decent password, the odds of your account being compromised is about 0.000001%, so if that's the only concern, don't worry about it.

If it was me, I'd just walk away for an indeterminate time, until you felt like coming back. But if you definitely want to be blocked, please email me using Wikipedia mail-user function confirming that, and I'll do the necessary. That way, if you change your mind, you can email me again and I'll know it's you requesting the unblock. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

If I may

Please take a break and relax awhile.

Then come back and say "It's time to realize that I can't do everything I want on Wikipedia, but there is a lot I can accomplish. " There are a lot of assholes on Wikipedia, and there are lots of assholes in the world. I think you are mature enough to learn to live with that. I haven't followed all your exploits, and don't even know what the real problem is here, but you should know that there are a lot of folks who were impressed, at a minimum, with your enthusiasm. All the best. Smallbones (talk) 01:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually starting to agree and I think I may have been a bit overly dramatic in my departure. I'm also starting to think I was kidding myself that I would be able to just up and stop editing, Wikipedia is rather addicting. Plus it would be a shame to let those win that would otherwise drag the project down. --Kumioko (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, you always can add some anniversaries from time to time! ;-) -- RichardF (talk) 17:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify's March Mini Drive

WikiProject Wikify's March Mini!

Hello, I thought you would be interested in the March Mini, a coordinated effort by WikiProject Wikify members to eliminate the 2008 backlog of articles tagged with {{wikify}} and/or {{dead end}}. Come join in the fun! There are only three prizes to be won, including a special barnstar created just for this drive!

Regards,

WikiProject Wikify

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 04:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC).

If I May

Kumioko,

Your stated reason for your departure was the emphasis of drama rather than content. I have a suggestion. Go through your watchlist and remove all those pages where drama is likely to occur such as: user talk pages, project talk pages, and so on. Ignore any posts to your talk page that seem to be attempts to draw you into drama.

Take some time with the articles you have created and see what can be done to improve them. Take some time with the list of articles you want to create and see if you can start any of them. Try something new like looking at the articles that are under some under-staffed projects and see if they would benefit from your skills.

Just a couple of ideas. Happy editing! JimCubb (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably a good idea. Unfortunately there are such huge amounts of drama these days everywhere I turn its difficult not to be involved in it. It appears on the articles, the projects, templates, user talk pages, everywhere. I would much rather write articles and edit however I can't do that without someone like CBM complaining that I am doing too many edits, filling watch lists, doing them too fast, breaking some policy or rule, cluttering the histories with diff noise, making changes that don't render changes to the page, doing edits that are contentious, editing against consensus because 1 editor out of thousands doesn't agree with them, trying to force WPUS on other projects, etc and the list goes on. So there is little point in editing anymore. I used to do over 1000 edits per day in a variety of areas including assessments (someone complained about that), WikiProject US (people complained about that), the WikiProject US newsletter (some complained about the newsletter and how it was sent) and a pile of others. I have done about 80 edits so far this month and few were other than comments.

In the end all it took was 1 user with admin rights who rarely edits aside from commenting on discussion to stop others from actually improving the pedia that didn't like what I was doing (which was a conflict of interest by the way and had nothing to do with consensus or my editing) he revoked my AWB rights and launched me into an ANI. All I can do is make an occassional comment now and thats fine. Because its more important that I be stopped from editing editing because 1 editor makes a ridiculous argument about how 1 editor disagreeing is a lack of consensus than it is to edit and built an encyclopedia.

Just as an additional bit: Since I have left knowone has touched the WPUS Newsletter (nothing was sent out for March and nothing is being worked on for April), there has been almost no activity on any of the WPUS pages, knowone welcomes new users to the project, knowone seems to be tagging many articles with WPUS or assessing and adding importances; I suspect its only a matter of time before the project dies out again; there has been very little activity on the US collaboration, activity on cleanup of US related Talk pages has decreased, activity on cleanup of US related articles has dropped, etc. All thanks to CBM, Racepacket and a few others who manageed to embroil me in nonstop discussions for the last 6 months about various "issues" and "problems" most of which had no validity other than they didn't personally like it. And basically ruin my attitude that Wikipedia is actually a benefit. They continue to manipulate and wikilawyer the rules and policies to fit their needs rather than the needs of the project and knowone seems to see it or care about it. They are the Hero's of Wikipedia! --Kumioko (talk) 19:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The word is not "knowone". It is "no one" unless that is a personal quirk.
Your minor rant is precisely what I mean. You have written articles. You have improved articles. Making comments on user talk pages or project talk pages does next to nothing to improve and article and is certain to bring on drama, especially if you provide the initial drama such as you did in various places as an IP. CBM clearly does not want your advise or counsel. Your tone on his talk page did not help matters at all.

Could it possibly be that except for you WPUS is an inactive project and should be considered for deletion as you and others so cavalierly have done with other projects with minimal activity and participation? Of course not! JimCubb (talk) 20:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I had a big explanation but my computer restarted and I lost it. Basically it doesn't matter because CBM is WikiChuckNorris and WikiChuckNorris is always right. Editing is down and Drama is up and in time knowone will edit anymore. --Kumioko (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok. So for the longer version again. Yes your right it was a bit of a rant but it really pisses me off. As though you hadn't noticed right. Yes I have written and improved articles thousands of them. But I have stopped now because I have gotten complaints on nearly every type of edit I have done and according to CBM's arguments if someone complains I must stop. I restarted WPUS and people complained so I can't do that anymore, I added the WPUS banner and made assessments but people complained and I can't do that, I tried cleaning up talk page templates (can't do that), etc. No matter what edit I make someone will complain so there is no point in editing.

Your also right that CBM doesn't want advice from me or anyone else. But thats because CBM thinks that his edits and opinions are above reproach. Maybe that's because he is a programmer of a couple of WP's more important bots or because he's an admin or both. My problem though is that he acts and seems to believe that he controls the pedia. Just him and Jimmy and whatever his word is becomes law. That is not the case.

In regards to WPUS your also right that if the project goes inactive again it should be deleted. And since I left it probably will. Not trying to be arrogant but the fact is that the project has many enemies and its doubtful anyone will want to step into the line of fire as I did. I am far from a deletionist and most of the projects I have deleted or suggested as such either never got off the ground to begin with or they have no or few articles and have been dormant for very long periods of time. Aside from that IMO if a project goes inactive just delete it. No biggie we can always have an admin restore it later if need be or just recreate it. --Kumioko (talk) 02:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

This may come as a shock to you but almost all the drama is in the comments on talk pages. Going to another editor's talk page to snipe at a third editor is not avoiding drama. It is creating it.

Look at all the drama you created above when you supposedly abandoned your account by scrambling your password but were back up and editing in 5 days. Look at the drama you tried to create on User talk:CBM when you claimed that the translation of non-English-alphabet characters could be solved by standardizing the project banner templates.

Think about it. JimCubb (talk) 21:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah your probably right. I fully intended to stop editing and eventually will...I'm barley editing now. WP is addicting and difficult to stop all at once it seems. For what its worth I didn't create the drama. That was done by CBM and his absolutionist stance on WP's rules. I just helped keep it going. --Kumioko (talk) 01:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

And if I may

Kumioko, Wikipedia is practically set up for battling. It's like playing hockey -- even the nicest people will take the gloves off sooner or later. So, another way of dealing with it is this -- realize it will happen and enjoy it when it happens but don't take it too seriously, and don't get too attached to having your way. Sometimes we'll get our way; sometimes we won't; but it also helps, sometimes, to appreciate that the overall back-and-forth helps make the encyclopedia better. I've found that sometimes the best articles result when there's lots of battling, because what happens is that the best things usually stay.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe but I think many of the reasons why Wikipedia is becoming more and more of a war zone is the quest to make it more reliable. It does seem like that quest will end up destroying it eventually by overemphasizing policy and overburdening with rules. Some rules need to be enforced but others should be more flexible and allow for deviations. --Kumioko (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree somewhat; I think Wikipedia has always been a battleground of sorts, particularly for some subjects (religion, philosophy, politics etc), so it's hard to assess whether the battling is increasing, diminishing, or staying the same (my guess is staying the same). I was frustrated about a year ago and quit; then I contributed to Citizendium intensively for about six months, but guess what -- there's battling there too -- like in all online encyclopedias, including RationalWiki and others. What I found is that, despite all its faults, Wikipedia has the best readership and excellent web presence, meaning, that your contributions here are important, and have an impact worldwide, since what gets written here influences people who count on WP for accuracy and impartiality.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Bebe Zeva

This article is up for deletion in case you wanted to weigh in on the subject; I'm kind of on the fence but tilt towards keeping her, but if you wish to add your opinion, it's been about a week now with her article on the chopping block. Also wondering what projects you want us to focus on for the WP US.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and added a comment as keep. I'm not really working actively anymore so I recommend opening a discussion on the WPUS talk page. I would suggest though that there are a couple of possibilities.

The newsletter is a good way of communicating whats going on. New Featured content, Changes to the Project and WP, etc. I saw a number of people join the project and quite a bit of discussion after I did the last one.
There are a lot of unneeded and unnecessary WikiProject that could be consolidated if you look at the Embassy page. Some could be merged into WPUS, some of the cities should probably be merged into the states as task forces. Im only talking about the inactive ones of course.
Another area would be to look at the list of Popular pages and improve some of the popularly viewed articles. Several are pretty low and I beleive there are a number of them that could be substantially improved rather easily. This would also likely generate interest in the project as people start seeing these articles improve.
Theres a lot of Unsourced BLP's.
There are also several New US related articles that need to be tagged here. --Kumioko (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Who was the tool that made the argument

About filling up editors watchlists? Most backwards-ass ridiculous argument ever raised, at least in my opinion. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree and believe it or not 2 or 3 different editors made it. --Kumioko (talk) 19:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess they forgot we're here to write an encyclopedia for readers and not for ourselves ;) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep, pretty much. --Kumioko (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Question

Hello Kumioko - great to see you back!!!' Question have you noticed anyone removing Find a Grave links whole sale? If so i think we should talk to this people and explain whats going on - thus stopping and whole sale deletion.Moxy (talk) 02:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm still not planning to do much but frankly I think I over reacted a bit in anger and underestimated the strength I needed to keep myself from editing. I feel like a Wiki-methhead in need of a fix..lol. I have seen a couple. One in particular has been leaving comments on the talk page. --Kumioko (talk) 02:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I know how you fell - i took a break from editing for 3 months in 2009 (but in the end could not stay away)- I hope you stick around the Project Council we realy need people like you around - I am a big fan of how well you argue your points. AS for the guy removing the links i will leave him a note (soon) voicing my concerns that NO links should be removed wholesale without the community at larges say so. Moxy (talk) 02:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm also so happy to see you editing! :) I'm doing what I can to help keep WP:US going, like making sure WP:USCOTW gets mentioned in the signpost and hope to have some time / be able to pick up some ref materials to use for this month's article. Also, lots to do w/ WP:GLAM/SI, the NARA collaborations and LOC. I hope you stick around, but don't get too mired in wikidrama. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 02:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC) (PS - can I re-add you to our meetup invite list?)

LOL Thanks...I tried my best to stop editing but WP is addicting but I probably won't edit nearly as much as before. Thanks for all the help. Sure you can add me back if you want too. BTW I hope the place I added the table was ok.--Kumioko (talk) 02:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Glad to see you are back again. Hopefully it will be just as much fun without AWB, lol. If you ever need anything run on AWB feel free to ask (though I won't be doing those massive sweeps like you were doing), Sadads (talk) 20:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Cite web and cite news

Hi. Further to your earlier post on the thread I started at WP:citing sources [1] it would be useful if you could look at my latest comment as I want to try and take forward improved wording for the template. Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 22:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Tony Santiago

Editing of an article is expressly permitted during an AfD, and I can't think offhand of an article that more desperately needs editing than that one. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I admit that a rewrite is in order and I agree that some of the information you chopped out was uneeded but there were a few items that got cut that I am not sure I agree with. --Kumioko (talk) 20:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Those obviously can be dealt with on the talk page. The article is still problematic and in my view needs to be stubbified, if it is to survive. I've actually retained quite a bit that needs to go. Since editing this article, and especially cutting it, makes this a better article and thus less likely to be deleted, I don't see how you can possibly object. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the Project USA interaction. I should have reached out to you a long time ago, mea culp maxima! But I do appreciate that you interacted with our little cross of Americana and herpetology article. So cool to find good people to work with. Um...and we got the star! Ha!

TCO (talk) 00:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The correct Latin is 'Mea maxima culpa'. ( Catholic school ;-) — DocOfSoc • Talk • 02:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, KumiokoCleanStart. You have new messages at Neutralhomer's talk page.
Message added 06:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

...and again. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 13:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Slow down request

Could you slow down on your nominations of redirects for deletions? If you haven't already seen WP:REDIRECT#DELETE then that lists out the reasons to delete redirects. Also, when determining if a redirect is a plausible search term please try looking its page hits. Pages like EEUU you can see for example here have received on average 20ish hits a day.AerobicFox (talk) 23:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm done submitting redirects for deletion for a while. Its mostly a waste of time anyway since its fairly obvious that even the most ridiculous typos and implausible redirects are kept since redirects are cheap. I still believe that many of the redirects I submitted are useless and confusing. Just because I could type Uniataehnmfg StanhgyctSABSM OF AMEFNFUEBFA doesn't mean I should create a redirect for it. I also think that havign redirects fro 10 different languages, most with more than one, to United States in the english Wikipedia is stupid. If someone doesn't know to Say United States vice EEUU then they probably aren't going to be able to read the article anyway. What I am doing now is adding the WPUS banner with a class = redirect so these can be visible somewhere. --Kumioko (talk) 00:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Care to help on C-SPAN?

Hi Kumioko, I don't believe our paths have crossed before, but I noticed that you made some constructive (if minor) edits to the C-SPAN article in January and sometimes contribute to articles about the District. If you have some time and inclination, I would like to invite you to review a substantial proposed rewrite of that article, which I have researched and written over the past several weeks.

The reason I have not done so already is simple enough: I actually work with C-SPAN, so the expertise I bring comes with the potential for a conflict of interest. That said, I believe the proposed draft (available here in my user space) may be good enough to pass GA review as it is, but for now there it remains. I have posted an following edit request to the C-SPAN Talk page without any help apparently forthcoming, so I'd be in your debt if you would offer suggestions or get involved. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure Ill take a look at it a little later. --Kumioko (talk) 20:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Requesting self-revert

I'm hoping you will see your way fit to self-revert this. The previous version was better. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks I did that when I intended to retire and quite editing but I found I lacked the willpower to stop completely. I'll swing by and fix that. --Kumioko (talk) 01:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Very good. Glad you're still with us.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Welcome Back! :-D Namaste — DocOfSoc • Talk • 02:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject module

I thank you and curse you for the WikiProject module. Oh the joy of having not to type so much is great. Not to mention having to figure what project some of the obscure aliases belong to. I curse you because I'll probably be even more addicted. Bgwhite (talk) 06:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

LOL thanks I think...If you have any suggestions for improvements pleasre let me know. --Kumioko (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I think I found a "bug". Most of the time (but not always) your module would bring the first parameter up onto the same line as the Project... So, it would look like:

{{WPBiography   -> {{WikiProject Biography|living=yes
|living=yes     ->

But the rest of the parameters are not brought up on the same line. I can understand if you want to bring up all the parameters on the same line to make the talk page file smaller. But, could the module bring up all parameters or none of the parameters instead of just one? Bgwhite (talk) 01:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Your right that is a bit of a bug and I have been working on that but I can't figure out how to fix it. Unfortunately I no longer have access to AWB to test out the code so I honestly have no way to fix that particular problem. You might try asking Magioladitis he may know how to fix that. --Kumioko (talk) 01:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah shucks, I guess I have to remember regular expressions from my awk and perl days. Shame on you for making me think for a change. :)

...Alien|AlienProject)\s*([\|}{<\n])", "{{WikiProject Alien$2", RegexOptions.IgnoreCase);

Shouldn't this:  "{{WikiProject Alien$2", RegexOptions.IgnoreCase);
Be this: "{{WikiProject Alien\n$2", RegexOptions.IgnoreCase);

Because: \s* = removes any white space including tabs and new lines.

Therefore: with \s* removing any new line, you have to re-introduce it back. Of course if there is no new line to begin with, you make the resulting output look funny. So... you have to add in an if statement or start adding an additional line(s) for each WikiProject. Ahh messy

I'm brainstorming here... at the very end, before "return ArticleText;", how about a line that strips every new line in ArticleText and adds a new line at the end. There would have to be an if statement because some ArticleTexts would include evaluations. For example, if class=B or not.... military history project has a lot of these like "<-- 2. It uses good English and is free from major grammatical, syntax and spelling errors -->|B-Class-2=yes".

The question you left on my talk page.... Yes please. Bgwhite (talk) 06:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah its sort of a double edged sword. Because there is no standard for the templates and some users get very pissy if you change it from one to the other (some prefer it on one line some prefer it on multiple lines), plus some templates are very large with lots of stuff in them (like Canada or MILHIST or other with B class checklists) it becomes very hard. I tried the idea of if then statements but for many of the same reasons above I couldn't make it work. Plus it made the code very very slow. I think you idea of changing some of the parameters and coding might be a good one. I confess that I am not the best at programming or at regex so its very likely there is a better way (and probably more efficient as well) of doing this. I will send you the other coding when I get home tonight. --Kumioko (talk) 13:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Found a couple of hiccups on WikiProject Module

D&D -> WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons
WP Saints -> WikiProject Saints
SOCWikiProject -> WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy -> WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy

How in the (#&?)@# does SOC mean Oriental Orthodoxy? Does Wikipedia have standards, a standards body or can anybody create any old alias? Bgwhite (talk) 05:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again, as with everything on WP its a work in progress. Are you trying to say that these redirects are missing or just that they are wrong? No there is no standards unfortunately and most attempts to standardize are summerily dismissed but every once in a while we can sneak one in. --Kumioko (talk) 12:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The redirects are missing. I don't think Dungeons & Dragons is anywhere on your list. Unfortunately, it will always be a work in progress with new projects and aliases coming online all the time. Did you forget about sending me some more code goodness? Bgwhite (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that I sorta decided since I can't really test ir or make any fixes it would be better not to give that one out. The other ones a little more sensitive than this one and has logic to do things like move sections around (see also goes before references and External links, External links goes after referencs, etc. I can add code for those other three you mention above though. --Kumioko (talk) 21:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no way of testing the change but I added those three projects you mentioned above as well as a line to fix some issues with bad formatting on accessdates for some templates. --Kumioko (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Battleship

Since a regular barnstar won't suffice, a battleship has been named in your honor for your excellent contributions to U.S. related articles. The keys are in the ignition. Happy cruising!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks never saw that one before. Thats cool. --Kumioko (talk) 12:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course you can ask your fellow U.S. Wikipedians to take cruises with you on the Atlantic from time to time on it. And you can do all kinds of things to it; perhaps build a swimming pool on it? Or go out in the middle of the ocean and skeet-shoot seagulls with the main battle guns.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Photo requests

Hey Kumioko! I have a quick question - do you do photo requests in NOVA and/or DC? WhisperToMe (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I can try it depends on what you needed a picture of. --Kumioko (talk) 16:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Alright - Here are some pics to try:

Washington DC
- NTSB headquarters: 490 L'Enfant Plaza East, SW Washington, DC 20594
- District of Columbia Public Schools headquarters: 1200 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20002
- District of Columbia Public Library main library - Martin Luther King Jr. (MLK) Central Library - 901 G St. N.W. Washington, DC 20001 202-727-0321
- Georgetown Library - 3260 R St. N.W. Washington, DC 20007
- Rose L. Hardy Middle School - 1819 35th Street, NW Washington, DC 20007
- Woodrow Wilson High School - 4340 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20016 (apparently a new campus will open in 2011)
- Hyde-Addison Elementary School - 3219 O St. NW Washington, DC 20007
- District of Columbia Department of Corrections HQ - 1923 Vermont Avenue, NW, Room 203 N Washington, DC 20001
- DC Central Detention Facility (DC Jail) - 1901 D Street, SE
- Correctional Treatment Facility - Next to DC Jail - off of 19th and D Streets, SE
- Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services HQ and the DC Youth Services Center (YSC) - 1000 Mt. Olivet Road NE Washington, DC 20002
NOVA
- Fairfax County Public Schools headquarters: 8115 Gatehouse Road Falls Church, Virginia 22042
- Tysons-Pimmit Regional Library - 7584 Leesburg Pike Falls Church, VA 22043-2099
- City of Fairfax Library - 10360 North Street Fairfax, VA 22030-2514
- Falls Church City Public Schools headquarters: 800 W. Broad St., Ste 203 Falls Church, Virginia 22046

See how these work out - If you then want to try taking more, I can post more photo requests WhisperToMe (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow thats Quite a list. Ill see what I can do for you though. --Kumioko (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure! Please take your time :) - Let me know when you get some of these images :) WhisperToMe (talk) 22:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I think most of those are doable the only one Im not sure about is NTSB. They might take exception to a guy standing on the street snapping photos of the building. --Kumioko (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... AFAIK if a building is situated prominently in the public view, even if it's a federal government building, it should be legal and doable. Some guy got a photo of the USPS HQ which is also on L'Enfant. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem Ill give it a go. Worst they'll do is tell me to go away. I'll try and get that in the next couple days. Are there any others in that area you need? --Kumioko (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure! I'll add some more I can think of in DC. Lemme add the DCDC admin building, two of the jails and the administration building of the DC juvenile system (the actual long term DC juvenile facility is in Maryland). WhisperToMe (talk) 23:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok Ill see what I can do. --Kumioko (talk) 23:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

C-SPAN update

Many updates today, based on your recommendations and the previously reviewing editor's as well. I think this draft is now demonstrably better than the one in the existing article, although I'm not quite sure how far it needs to get before it's moved into the mainspace. I'll keep working on it in the meantime, and I invite you to offer any subsequent thoughts you may have. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 21:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, KumiokoCleanStart. You have new messages at Ks0stm's talk page.
Message added 03:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Again. Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 04:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, KumiokoCleanStart. You have new messages at The ed17's talk page.
Message added 03:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A cookie for you!

Missvain has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. For coming back!!! :) Missvain (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

To spread more WikiLove, install the WikiLove user script.

Aww thanks...I just couldn't stay away. I'm just too addicted. --Kumioko (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Merge

Probably a good idea as it seemed members had different interests. I only work on current politicians and issues, so I wasn't involved with any of the historical projects. There might be some interest in a current/historical split in the U.S. project in general. Thanks for asking. :-) Flatterworld (talk) 00:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. As I suggested the project would remain intact other than sharing a WikiProject Banner template. --Kumioko (talk) 00:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject United States Government

As an active member of the WikiProject United States Government, I would respectfully oppose any effort to eliminate or merge it with WikiProject United States, but would encourage efforts to increase WikiProject activity through the recruitment of new and inactive members similar to a recent effort undertaken by WikiProject Missouri, which I am also an active member of. --TommyBoy (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I certainly understand and I don't intend to do anything unless its a majority decision. This isn't an effort to eliminate the project though its an effort to keep it going. The only significant change would be to include the US government project in the group at the top of the WPUS main page and to include it in the WPUS template. The Government group represents a significant chunk of the US related articles (far more than the thousand currently tagged by WPUSG even by modest standards) and collaborating between the 2 projects would greatly benefit both. Active participation from members would still be key to any successes. --Kumioko (talk) 01:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Anything that 'gins some conversation about the entries interests me. I'm definitely not into "nitpicking", but a little back-and-forth about substantive matters is always a good thing. Since I belong to both groups. I consider the point moot. Failure2002 Failure2002 (talk) 16:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I am definately trying to get maximum input before moving forward so I appreciate any ideas or concerns you might have. --Kumioko (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what idea you are trying to float. Are you saying that one project should go away or just that the two projects should work together? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awg1010 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Infoboxes standardisation

Since you work on standardisation too, you may be interested on Template_talk:Infobox_comics_creator#yob_.26_yod_params. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

You can help us build Template talk:Infobox person/birth death params perhaps? -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

What would you like me to do? --Kumioko (talk) 13:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Add some good reason for standardisating for start. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Asking for help again

Hi there, Kumioko. You were of help earlier in the week, when you offered some feedback on the new draft I have prepared to expand (and ideally improve) the article about C-SPAN. I have completed the changes to the article you suggested initially, including removing citations from the intro and relocating material from "Overview" to other sections. All that remains to be done is find images and, since that may be a bit of a research project, I'd like to leave that until after the page is updated.

However, since you last weighed in the other editor (Racepacket) stopped responding. I subsequently discovered that he appears to be dealing with some on-site issues of his own. So I get the impression he won't be back soon, if at all. Racepacket and I had seen differently on the subject of the "Allegations of bias" section; your suggestion about it was closer to mine than his, but he was uncomfortable about me suggesting its merge. Unfortunately, once I relented, he stopped replying.

Would you mind stepping in and either approving the draft to move into the main space or, if you believe it has issues which prevent you from doing so, provide a clear set of steps toward gaining your consensus? Thanks in advance, WWB Too (talk) 15:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

RE: United States project

Hey

I think you're right to call the government section 'inactive', so I'm more than happy to support a more..."umbrella" approach, if you like. doktorb _words^deeds 21:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. --Kumioko (talk) 01:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Energy law

Thank you for the C-rating. I am trying to get it up to a GA. Bearian (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Your welcome. Thats a monster topic. The United States section alone is a bear. Good luck. --Kumioko (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: US Government Project

You're right, there hasn't been too much activity. If you think subsuming it under the US Project is a good idea, I can think of no objection. In.Lumine.Tuo.Videbimus.Lumen (talk) 14:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 16:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I need my AWB access back

I waited patiently for you to restore my AWB access but I need it back. I am stacking up a pretty long list of things that need doing and its getting longer. Since you are the one who removed it I think its only appropriate that it be you to put it back. --Kumioko (talk) 20:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The following diff from the original discussion has my thoughts about restoring your AWB access [2]. I stand by my comment there: if any admin feels you have agreed to follow the AWB rules going forward, they are welcome to restore your access without asking me. I do not need to "give permission" or anything like that, and the removal was intended to be temporary. On the other hand, I don't feel comfortable doing it myself at this point. I am sorry to say I am not convinced you would use it appropriately. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

And I frankly don't need to apologize for what amounted to a childish and petty action because you preferred to take unilateral action rather than discuss it. Frankly, I don't think that some of your comments have been particularly appropriate or useful either and I believe that your interpretations of policy depend on how it affects you and is not consistent nor is it always in the pedias best interest but appearing to be proving a point.

With that aside we both have interests in the same areas so there is a need for both of us to behave and get along. If, as you say the intent was only to be temporary then there should not be a problem with restoration. I am not going to go begging around for someone to fix it however if its not restored you are making work for others in the nature of bot requests and the like. Unless you are volunteeering to do this work in lieu, which I find unlikely. ::Here is a short list:

There are a couple thousand articles that need to be tagged for WPUS
there are a couple hundred newsletters that will need to go out next week when I get done with the WPUS newsletter
there are several US related projects that have been deleted that have red links on the talk pages because knowone is removing the links before they delete the WikiProject template
There are several US related projects that have been merged such as Seattle into Washington, American television into United States and a couple more pending.
there are about 15 more if you want them

So if your desire is to make work for others then fine leave it revoked and I will submit them as bot requests with the suggestion they be left to you. Otherwise stop this childish nonsense and restore my access so that I can continue doing work to improve the pedia. --Kumioko (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I have your talk page on my watchlist, so there is no need to remind me when you have responded. I apologize again, but I am not comfortable restoring your AWB access at this time, although I will not object if someone else restores it.

The newsletter deliveries and "couple thousand articles that need to be tagged" should be done by a bot anyway, so making a bot request seems like a good idea. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok thanks for volunteering. I have to run some errands but Ill get some of those submitted later tonight when I get back. --Kumioko (talk) 22:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

BTW the tagging isn't as easy as it sounds because of the way the categories are setup there are some non WPUS related articles mixed in that I need to factor out but it shouldn't take more than a couple hours for someone to figure out which ones and how many there are. I was honestly dreading doing it myself so in a way you did me a favor. --Kumioko (talk) 22:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I can give you your AWB access back. Only one-two things: If a project reacts in redirect bypassing then remove from your list and don't use AWB to solely bypass redirects. Are you OK with that? -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Question on Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard

Hi. Someone told me you could be the right guy to help me with a question I've raised on the notability noticeboard. Would you consider giving us some input? Thanks in advance, --Damiens.rf 20:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Doing the listas and living parameter, I've noticed at least 100 articles in which the only notability factor is receiving the silver star. Unfortunately, should I start making a list and getting it ready for AfD? Bgwhite (talk) 06:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

That's up to you. The problem with notability is thats its subjective so they might be notable for something else too. Not sure. Typically though a silver star alone doesn't meet the notability criteria. --Kumioko (talk) 11:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll break them into two sections. First group will only have the silver star as the entire article. Oh, and any marines... they are not bright enough to do any thinking on their own to get a medal. Bgwhite (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

American Art Therapy Association

Now that the AfD has closed as a "keep", could you put a little work in on expanding it from the sources you mentioned? --Orange Mike | Talk 13:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll try too. I have a lot of things on my plate at the moment and since I no longer have access to some of the tools I need it takes me much longer to do them. --Kumioko (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost interview

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Council for an upcoming edition of The Signpost. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, you can find the interview questions here. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. If you have any questions, you can leave a note on my talk page. Have a great day. – SMasters (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Bot

My bot can do nearly everything what is posible here Petrb (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Concerning your task it's waiting to pass now Petrb (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, you may be interested in this source

As I understand it you do a lot of work people who received a medal of honor. I just stumbled upon [3] and [4], which seems like a goldmine of information (including public domain portraits!) for pre 1900 medal of honor recipents. Yoenit (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I have been spending so much time in discussion and getting WikiProject United States going lately I hardly have time to edit them anymore. --Kumioko (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I kinda have the same problem. I should really stop getting bogged down in discussions and focus on doing the things I enjoy on wikipedia. Easier said than done unfortunately. Yoenit (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is and since I no longer have access to AWB now it takes me 10X longer to do some of the things I used to be able to do rather quickly. --Kumioko (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Aviation in Maryland

Your edit here was the latest. I've been bizarrely unable to get this talkpage to load for editing in IE7 (yeah, I know...). Would you mind checking that it's not broken in some way that affects you? All I wanted to do was change the headers from class=Start to class=List. Thanks.LeadSongDog come howl! 20:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I still can't load it for edit, but I guess someone will sort out whatever the bug is. Odd it doesn't affect all talkpages, though. Thank you for the edit. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

That is rather odd. Its usually all or none. --Kumioko (talk) 20:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

text for newsletter

How's this:

The monthly collaboration is now in its third month since reactivation. The first article Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was improved significantly in February, as was George Washington (the second one) in March. Although the latter article was not nominated for GA, enough work was done for contributors to identify remaining content areas needing improving before an attempt is made, which is great progress. Thus anyone keen on reading up on Washington's role in the American Revolution and the presidency is most welcome to review and contribute. Magicpiano (talk · contribs) is planning on buffing material for the American Revolution segment by focussing on the daughter article, George Washington in the American Revolution first. Anyway, Chesapeake Bay is the new collaboration picked for April and anyone is welcome to work on it.

For choosing new candidate articles for May and beyond, editors should think about articles which have a range of issues that a variety of editors can help with, from content (primary school to university level research) to copyediting. Having a look over current and past ideas (which can be seen here and here (even older ones). So folks have a think about which articles are in most in need of fixing, or alternately, have a clear pathway to GA or FA status. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I would add as a separate paragraph, "There have been many improvements lately in our project's page WP:WikiProject United States. If you have not visited it for some time, please drop by and take a look." Racepacket (talk) 22:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure, good idea. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Jan-Mar 2011

		Military history reviewers' award
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your help with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews for the period Jan-Mar 2011, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste `{{WPMILHIST Review alerts}}` to your user space

Primetime Emmy US template?

I have been working on a lot of award articles and templates (Golden Globe Award, Screen Actors Guild Award, etc). I have noticed on some Primetime Emmy Award lists, you have added the US template. It is not clear to me why this template is relevant. I have added a lot of relevant templates, but have not included it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

For those its mostly because WikiProject American television is using the template for WPUS and is one of the WikiProject that WPUS is helping to support. --Kumioko (talk) 10:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

AWB talk page fixes.

Other things you can do while making those important talk page edits:

WP:SHIPS no longer uses the importance ratings so you could remove |importance=X from every article that has the ship project banner.
All ship project banners should have the short B-class checklist added to them (except GA or higher rated) regardless of current class assessment: |B1=|B2=|B3=|B4=|B5=
I'm aware that WP:MILHIST has many articles in their scope that don't have the milhist project banner; same goes for WP:BIO.

You should consult milhist and bio before acting but as for the ships corrections, I'm not going to bother with consensus from the project because these are general maintenance items on a talk page that have no effect on the article itself. Don't do these changes unless you're doing others at the same time. There's no need for a special run. If you're able to do this please give me 25 examples before going further. Thanks. Brad (talk) 13:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Writing some code to remove the importance rating from ships would be easy. There are likely other projects that this pertains too as well including MILHIST. As for the 2nd one this is true of several projects including aviation and MILHIST. The third bullet applies to many projects. I am concentrating on WPUS and related projects now and have a listing of about 30, 000 articles that need to be tagged just for WPUS. Many of which don't have any banners at all. There are caveats to all of these issues though that I am not sure I want to get into. I think the first might be ok but I think Yobot would probably be better suited for it as it makes its run through.

Please let me know if you have any more ideas. --Kumioko (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Meh.. none of what I listed is all that important. Just thought you might be able to add it into your routine. If not that's ok too. Brad (talk) 17:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

April Newsletter for WikiProject United States

Newsletter delivery

Just a quick comment as I don't have an issue with the general activity of delivering a newsletter. Portal talk:United States though is for discussions on improving the portal. Adding the newsletter there isn't exactly keeping with that idea. This isn't a criticism, just a suggestion that your delivery list might need an adjustment. Imzadi 1979 → 16:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I actually wasn't 100% sure about that myself and was thinking I might just leave a link. The only reason I left it there was because it was specifically mentioned in the newsletter. Thats a good point though. --Kumioko (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

AWB talk page fixes (again)

Concerning this edit. I suggest you avoid touching break line tags and header titles. There was already a discussion for the latter and there isn't consensus on that as far as I remember. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was ok as long as it wasn't a sole edit but I guess I can stop those 2. Just FYI though, I know that WP automatically fixes the HTML coding like breaks line tags but when WP data is pulled into some websites with invalid HTML coding it breaks the data on that site causing it to display as a mess. I had a list of a few but I can't find it at the moment. --Kumioko (talk) 23:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know exactly on the break lines thing. There was some discussion somewhere. You certainly should avoid the header fixing. Too much drama on it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks I will go ahead and remove those 2 edits. I still think its helpful if were there anyway to fix things like this but its really not worth fighting over those edits with a couple of editors who like them for some reason. --Kumioko (talk) 00:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Jewish Medal of Honor recipients/archive1

Nergaal (talk) 06:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Thank you for your comments about the Omaha template. It may be my incorrect reading of what you wrote, but it looks like you are implying that Omaha, Nebraska is in California. Just thought I would let you know. Thanks again. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Smart watchlist

I have created a first cut at a smart watchlist. Please see User talk:UncleDouggie/smart watchlist.js. I'm curious what the performance will be like for a power watchlist user such as yourself. —UncleDouggie (talk) 08:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ill check it when I get home tonight. --Kumioko (talk) 13:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I tried to use the script but I don't see anything different. I tried on IE and on Firefox but neither results in a change. Its possible that its due to the number of articles but it could also be a conflict with one or more of the other scripts I have installed. Not sure. Your welcome to take a look at my JS page if you want if it would help.. --Kumioko (talk) 14:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Asian American article Undue template discussion

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Asian American#Undue tag. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

FYI

This discussion relates to an article of which you have been a primary contributor, and may therefore interest you.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Task

Done Petrb (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Great thank you very much. --Kumioko (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Kumioko

I have noticed on Google that there are many archives that have been posted with conversations between Qui Tam Relator and CactusWriter at a site named CactusWriter Archive9, how can this be? Can you help me to remove these posting they seem like vandalism on someones behalf at Wikipedia. Please let me know what can be done about this Kumioko. Here is the URL link. Thank you Kumioko > http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:CactusWriter/Archive9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qui Tam Relator (talk • contribs) 23:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Its not a site its just a page within Wikipedia. It appears you had a conversation with the other user some time ago and that discussion was archived. I'm not sure what you want me to do but I'll help if I can. --Kumioko (talk) 23:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Block vs stop

Hello, KumiokoCleanStart. You have new messages at HJ Mitchell's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—David Levy 21:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for feedback on PTSD article

Kumioko, Thanks for the feedback on the Benefits for United States veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder page. I hope that you are able to come back and check in on it again from time to time with any feedback that you think will help make it a stronger article.

Bruindre (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem I just added a couple more suggestions under the talk page. I also did a couple of minor edits to the article. Good Luck. --Kumioko (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Shakespeare Theatre Company

Good Morning

I noticed you made a number of edits to the Shakespeare Theatre Company article. Among those edits was de-wikification of the "Notable Events" section. Shakespeare Theatre Company#Notable Events

May I ask what your rationale for this was?

ed

Ecragg (talk) 13:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem, If you check this page you will see under section headings where it says that Headings should not normally contain links or apostrophies (for bolding). There are some other places that also state that other special characters should also be avoided. There are some rare occassions where a link can be useful in the section headings but this doesn't appear to be one of those times and when that is done its better to use template:anchor that just simple linking.

I hope this helps but please let me know if you have any more questions. --Kumioko (talk) 13:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

ibid tag

Hi. I see that you've been doing some cleanup work on various articles. Great. However, you've twice added an {{ibid}} tag to the Treaty of Paris (1898) article, which doesn't have a problem needing fixing in this regard. Some references in that article use Op. cit. (not Loc. cit.), but there is no ambiguity with those and none would be created by the insertion of additional references intermixed with the existing Op. cit. references. Please note that the docs for the ibid tag do not mention Op. cit. as a problem worthy of tagging. Also please see WP:IBID. I'm about to revert your reinsertion of the removed tag. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

That is a standard general fix that AWB does and I honestly don't know what the logic is that generates that. I will leave a message on the AWB talk page and see if I can find out why that is happening. Please let me know if you notice anything else. --Kumioko (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Op. cit. should be avoided too. The reason is that wikipedia articles aren't stable and everyone can edit them. The best solution is to replace Op. cit. with the reference again or add references names. e try to avoid dependences between citations. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 20:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I can replace the Op. cit. with the original text but I am afraid someone will revert it. Op. cit. is sensitive to two things: The original citation may be removed or moved after the Op. cit. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

According to the MOS, op. cit. isn't outlawed Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree (even I am not sure when exactly the wording changed) but it should be avoided for the reasons I wrote above. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Magioladitis, I don't understand how the reasons you wrote above constitute a rationale for avoiding Op. cit. Please explain.

My own understanding is that there is no problem whatever with Op. cit. usage, providing a full citation exists in the article for the work at issue, and providing that sufficient information is given in each Op. cit. citation for that particular full citation to be identified. The problem with ibid. and loc. cit. is that edits to the article inserting new Ref'd footnotes can confuse the context in the references list on which those constructs depend, and that problem does not come into play with a properly constructed Op. cit. citation. Perhaps it would be useful to explain the problem as you perceive it in the context of the Treaty of Paris (1898), as Op. cit. usage there led to this discussion here.

If this discussion goes on much further, it probably ought to be moved to Template talk:Ibid or (perhaps better) to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (footnotes). I think that this has been discussed previously on both of those talk pages. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I only say that "Op. cit." is sensitive to major changes in the page. Wikipedia is not paper. Feel free to copy the discussion in the MoS or open a new discussion. I would like to help. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Using the Treaty of Paris (1898) article over which this discussion began as an example, can you please explain how you believe that "Op. cit." is sensitive to major changes in the page? As far as I can see, there is no such sensitivity. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

AWB edits

Hi! I noticed that you edited two articles on my watchlist recently that didn't seem terribly productive and thought I should point them out: First, it appears you've been drawn into an edit war against SoxBot, presumably based on some different method of determining what 'uncategorized' is. Second, it looks like this edit only added one new-line and changed "date" -> "year", neither of which had any visible effect on the article. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. Believe it or not for the first one its soxbot that's in the wrong. The Article pilot category doesn't count as a category and I will notify the bot owner later today. For the other that is a standard edit of AWB and is done to fix incorrect Citation parameter formatting. Please let me know if you see anything else. --Kumioko (talk) 11:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

WPUS newsletters

I didn't remove any banners; I removed Category:United States, which is an articlespace category that doesn't belong on internal project pages like wikiproject newsletters. It only belongs on articlespace content, like actual articles. Bearcat (talk) 23:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Glenn Curtiss

Kumioko - I see you are an expert on the Medal of Honor. On one article I watch, Glenn Curtiss, there was some discussion about his being awarded the medal. While I don't believe he was ever awarded the medal if you do a google search "glenn curtiss medal honor" you find instances that said he did. With the sources available to you, could you say how this rumor might have gotten started? Thanks for your time. GroveGuy (talk) 04:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

You are correct he never received the Medal of Honor. There are a couple of ways this could have gotten started. Often in the old days people would confuse the Medal of Honor with the Congressional Gold Medal (some still do) In recent times the Medal of Honor is pretty well known but it didn't always used to be that way. There were also a lot of folks who received it and then had it revoked when the Army did a review of the cases and found that many, for several reasons, were not warranted. On example is Mary Walker, the only female who many years later had it restored. The rumor could also be just from doing google searches. Since he was an aviation pioneer and appears on several pages along with several others that did receive the Medal like Eddie Rickenbacker (who did receieve it in 1930 as has been suggested of Curtiss) I think this is very likely. I hope this helps. --Kumioko (talk) 11:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Cite Errors

Hello KumiokoCleanStart, thank you for your contributions (231,279+!) yada yada etc. ...
I notice you are moving the "References" section in articles to their 'right' position/order, but are you previewing the results? In a few cases you are causing a 'Cite Error', ie

"Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{Reflist}} template or a <references /> tag; see the help page."

See this edit at Upper Canada Rebellion and look at the very bottom of the page. It seems to be because other editors were using <ref></ref> tags in the "Further reading" section. If this is after the {{Reflist}} template, it causes the error. Just FYI! I have fixed this error here, by turning the 'References' into 'plain' external links. Regards, 220.101 talk^\Contribs 21:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Intersting thanks for pointing that out I'll keep an eye out for that in the future. I will also go back and fix the ones I broke. Please let me know if you see anything else. --Kumioko (talk) 01:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me.cooldenny (talk) 01:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kumioko. I appreciate for completing the survey two weeks ago. I would like to return your favor with a reward of an online gift card with no condition. Please leave your email address in the final version of survey of my project. In addition, you can get chance to win $50 worth of gift card. It takes only 10 minutes to complete the final version because it contains only 35 questions. If you have another Wikipedia friends, please introduce this survey to them. Thank you so much cooldenny (talk) 13:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Freestanding templates

These templates are present on user talk pages or the histories thereof, so they're not useless. Moreover, the template with which you tagged it is meant for other situations than this; the only legitimate way to have them deleted is to go to WP:TFD and start a regular discussion. Nyttend (talk) 02:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Already started resubmitting them. --Kumioko (talk) 02:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject United States Government

Greetings...Last month you added commentary to my talk page regarding my thoughts on "merging" WikiProject United States Government into WikiProject United States. I apologize for the delay in responding. I read your comments at the time, intending to answer, and then admittedly forgot to do so. As WikiProject United States Government is mostly inactive, it does seem like pulling it in with WikiProject United States would simplify things if for no other reason than cutting down a bit on the number of projects "out there." I certainly support merging these if that is the consensus. --SWMNPoliSciProject (talk) 21:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem, thank you very much for the comments. The general consensus seems to be that adding that WikiProject to the ones supported by WikiProject United States would be good. There was one editor who stated otherwise though. I will gather all the details this weekend and repost the results. --Kumioko (talk) 20:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

New AWB snapshot available

Rev 7680 http://toolserver.org/~awb/snapshots/ -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks I got it a couple hours ago. --Kumioko (talk) 20:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Redundant citation specifications

In George von Lengerke Meyer, I notice you removed the redundant specifications for two tagged references. This is actually a strategy to improve robustness. This way it is possible for one of the reference specifications to be removed in an edit without breaking things. The way the article appears is unaffected. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 12:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks and I understand that sometimes thats a good thing to do. Thats actually an AWB general edit and not one of the custom ones I do. --Kumioko (talk) 13:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011

Your Military History Newsletter

Project News: From the editors
Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content
Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients
Editorial: Dank helps you see what article writers want from reviewers

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 04:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Template:WPUSA

Hi-I think the img size is fixed now, and I added 2 relevant portal links too. --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

User rights

You'll note that I've given you back autopatrolled. This is for my benefit, not yours: you're flooding my backlogs with talkpages and this will make things easier for me. It will have no effect on you. DS (talk) 23:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok thanks for letting me know. --Kumioko (talk) 23:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Projects

I don't quite understand your thrust at managing Projects. But I don't need to. I hope.

My thought was to require each Project to be a "member" (bannered) of yet a higher level "Project." These would all roll up someplace in the sky! :) The point being that there would be help/monitor for all projects. When Projects "emerged," they would come under somebody's scrutiny.

Maybe your activity will take care of all this, but it seems to depend on one person. The SuperProject/UberProject would have its own members who would carry on. Student7 (talk) 12:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure what your trying to say here but my goal is and always has been to try and get more people working together on US related articles. But, we have over 200 US related projects, many with overlapping scopes (which is ok), many with no or very little activity (only about 20 are truly active). Even then thousands of US related articles aren't associated to a projects. My goal is to try and build up and cleanup US related articles through coordinating with these other projects, perhaps using WPUS as the base that all US projects can discuss issues on. Especialy when they affect more than just a certain topic (President Obama for example has about 15 projects affected, many of which are US related).

Additionally I have helped to restart the US portal and collaboration and started a newsletter. None of these are specific to members of WikiProject United States but it is WPUS that is the frontrunner in getting these going and keeping them updatred at the moment.

Combining efforts is not meant to insult or belittle the other projects. It's meant to reduce the amount of time it takes to maintain the project (1 newsletter, 1 collaboration, multiple bots running to do maintenance, many members with many interests all working towards a common goal, etc.). I hope this helps. --Kumioko (talk) 14:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Articles under the scope of multiple state WikiProjects

I'll leave it to you to decide (since you seem to be the one who does most tagging of articles in WP United States)...should articles like April 25–28, 2011 tornado outbreak that are under the scope of multiple US State WikiProjects be under the United States project as well? If so, then I'm thinking most large, multi-state tornado outbreaks could be included in the US project...you can find such articles linked at List of North American tornadoes and tornado outbreaks#United States. Some examples of what could perhaps be considered are Andover, Kansas Tornado Outbreak, Super Tuesday tornado outbreak, and June 2008 tornado outbreak sequence (and perhaps even events such as 1999 Oklahoma tornado outbreak). What do you think? Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 18:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thats a good question. I would agree that if it affected multiple states then it would be suitable for United States. Others may disagree though. I would agree that April 25–28, 2011 tornado outbreak would be suitable. I'm not sure about the others. As long as the state projects are active I would say that the article is fine for most of them. The question you bring up in general though is a good one in respect to how should WPUS deal with articles in the scope of multiple states. --Kumioko (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

fyi, re User talk:Perseus8235

Looks like your AWB session is mis-sending those wikiproject newsletters. Not only is perseus listed on the 'do not deliver' section on that newsletter page, but he is an indefblocked sockmaster so the newsletters aren't likely to be doing him any good. :) Thanks! Syrthiss (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Good catch thanks Ill remove him from the project. --Kumioko (talk) 16:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Userpages

Most of the pages you linked look like they can be safely sent to MFD. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

No speedy deletion criterion that I know of. It's mostly WP:OUTCOMES. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, KumiokoCleanStart. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Government.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Awg1010 (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Template talk:USPlacePop/Florida/doc

Hi- When adding the {{WPUSA}} banner to template/project/category/file namespaces, you don't need to list the class & importance parameters, since it automatically takes it from the namespace attribute. Also, the template talk pgs in [Cat:NA-Class US articles] need to have the |class=NA removed and |importance=NA removed, because they should be auto-sorted into the Template-Class cat and NA-importance cat (this is automatic), not the NA-Class one. Usually, it's best to keep the NA-Class cat empty. Not much that would go in there, except maybe User pgs. --Funandtrvl (talk) 01:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I don't understand why the NA class stuff needs to be in the template class cat. I did know about the auto categorization and I do the class and importance mostly just for standardization. That way as I cycle through the list I can use one piece of code rather than try and guess multiple variations of class and importance. I was orginally just putting the WPUS banner for the Files, cats and templates but I was finding it hard to distinguish between the variations of class, importance and other parameters and it was hard to identify which ones were redirects. Is there some reason why it shouldn't be added? --Kumioko (talk) 01:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, per [Template:Grading scheme], the NA-Class is for: Any non-article page that fits no other classification. (template, cat, file, etc. already have their respective cats and should be categorized as such). "The NA page contains no article content, and is probably not useful to any casual reader. Note: Look out for mis-classified articles. Currently many NA-class articles need to be re-classified." --Just a suggestion, the non-article talk pages really don't need to have a class or importance parameter, other than the WPUSA template. The variations of class and importance would much more relate to article namespace pgs only. The non-article pgs only need to be tagged with the main template, no further effort on your part is needed!! Hope this helps! --Funandtrvl (talk) 01:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It does thanks, wouldn't files like /Sandbox, /doc and the like be an NA? I will go through the NA's and reclass the ones I can figure out.--Kumioko (talk) 01:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

No, it's better to be filed under the namespace, that way both the template and its respective /doc and /sandbox pgs etc., will show up in the cat right below each other. (besides, the default for the wp template talk pgs is its namespace, so if someone else is just putting the wpusa template w/o class/imp, it'll go into the default cat) --Funandtrvl (talk) 02:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

So are you telling me that when I say |class==template that it puts it into a different category than when I leave the bare WPUS template and let it auto categorize? --Kumioko (talk) 02:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. The problem is that when one uses the |class=NA parameter on the template talk pages, they don't go into the default category of Template-Class articles, but instead into NA-Class articles. My concern is that those template talk pages are somewhat orphaned when they end up in the NA category of a project (like the USA one) that already uses all of the full, extended, quality categories. One will still find talk pgs of templates in the NA category of some WikiProjects, but that is because they have chosen not to sort the temps/cat/file etc. into separate categories, and they use the minimized "standard" quality scale. (see: Template:WPBannerMeta/doc#Assessment for the different levels of sorting.) When the separate categories do exist, however, within a WikiProject, then those categories should be used instead of the NA category. Also, when plating the non-article talk pgs with just the WPUSA template, without the class/imp parameters, it uses up less kBs. I know that this is desirable, even though it is just a little less amount of kBs, but it adds up some savings, at the least. Hope this explains it! --Funandtrvl (talk) 00:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 00:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Awarded Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you for your tireless efforts and your integrity. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 04:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --Kumioko (talk) 12:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Irish Medal of Honor Receipients

Yes, I think it will be a rather large undertaking. I think the number will be closer ot 300 as per this article [5] . I'll surely take any advice offered, and don't mind any help from anyone who wants to pitch in. I'm mainly going to go with the 258 guys who were born in Ireland, and some (if not) all of the other 50+ that have Irish surnames. I think I can also safely add any others that weren't born in Ireland and don't have a clear recognizable Irish surname, but have some other documentation showing Irish ethinicity. Sf46 (talk) 20:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The Wikifier: March 2011

The Wikifier Your Wikification Newsletter – Volume I, Issue II, March 2011 From the editor • General news Membership • February drive results
To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Hello Wikifiers!

Sorry this Newsletter is late, It should have gone out a month ago. I've been very busy in real life and didn't have time to get over to the newsletter. In this edition of the Newsletter, we have an editorial written by our new executive coordinator; Guoguo12. Guoguo12 has succeeded Mono due to an indefinite wikibreak. We also have the results of the February and March Mini drives.

Happy Wikifying,

Sumsum2010, the assistant coordinator of WikiProject Wikify

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 01:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC).

Kenneth Walker

Just a note to let you know that I have Medal of Honor winner Kenneth Walker up for FAC. Let's hope he doesn't get shot down this time. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree and for what its worth I think the article looks great. I just spent a big portion of the last week making sure that the Jewish recipients list didn't get demoted and I still got a little work to do. --Kumioko (talk) 00:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Redirects

Hey, I saw this on my watchlist. Are you tagging redirects on purpose? Not that I have a problem with it, but it seems rather useless to me, and wanted to be sure it wasn't an AWB going awry. bahamut0013^words _deeds 18:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep that was me. Just to clarify I am mostly just tagging redirects that start with certain things (as explained in more detail below) such as United States, US, U.S., American, and a couple of others. Also, although many believe there is no need to tag redirects I have found that there are several reasons why doing so is helpful.

Article alerts will notify the project if it is submitted for deletion. Without them being tagged someone has to watch the for deletion boards constantly.
I search Wikipedia for articles starting with United States, US, U.S., etc looking for new articles that need to be assessed and without tagging them it takes a long time to factor down to the ones I really want. Once they are tagged I can just exclude them.
It makes it easier to determine which redirects need other things (are they in the correct format, do they have stuff they shouldn't have, do they point to other namespaces, does it need one of the redirect templates Category:All redirect templates, etc.
It makes it easier to identify the ones that we don't need
It makes it easier to identify the ones that are misdirected
It also helps potentially identify other articles.

Aside from these once there tagged they just sit there and aren't really hurting anything. Tagging them just makes them easier to identify.--Kumioko (talk) 21:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. I just don't trust that scary AWB hoodoo majik very much. :P bahamut0013^words _deeds 11:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011

Your Military History Newsletter

Project News: From the editors
Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content
Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients
Editorial: Buggie111 discusses neutral point of view

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Spelling

Please take this remark as coming from the respect and friendship that I have for you. Did you ever consider using a web browser that includes a spell checker, such as Firefox? Your spelling undercuts your credibility. I can understand an infrequent typo from our fast typists, but you have consistently used the misspelling "knowone" for a long time. I wish you success in a long Wikipedia career, and have no hard feelings from our disagreement last winter. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 08:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to an instance in particular? --Kumioko (talk) 10:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Reworking ELNO on Official Links

Hi,

As an editor who was involved with the recent ELNO discussion, "Spam links becoming standard practice,"[6] I am inviting you to comment on the proposal to rework the definition of "Official Link".[7]

Regards, ELNO Checking (talk) 17:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

June 2011 Wikification Drive

Hi there! I thought you might be interested in WikiProject Wikify's June Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. We'll be trying to reduce the backlog size by about 900 articles and we need your help! Hard-working participants in the drive will receive awards for their contributions! If you have a spare moment, please join and wikify an article or tell your friends. Thanks!

Note: The drive starts June 1, but you can still sign up!

Sumsum2010·T·C 04:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Found a new problem?

AWB with your module has done this a couple of times in WPMILHIST.

Example talk page is Talk:Guillaume de Chartres. I have not edited the page yet. Bgwhite (talk) 20:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, does it always happen with the memorials? I found a small little glitch in that piece of code and I think I fixed it now. --Kumioko (talk) 00:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick work. I truly hadn't notice memorials before. What is the future of code? I hope it is destined to be included into AWB. btw, new stable version of AWB came out a couple days ago. Bgwhite (talk) 06:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I think someday some of it might be included but well see. I'm not exactly sure what the future of it is other than just tweaking it for new things as they are found. I got the new version of AWB too. I have been hoping for that logoff button for a while now so I don't have to close the whole app all the time. --Kumioko (talk) 12:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Louis J. Sebille GA

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I thank you for your contribution to one of wikipedia's latest WP:GA's

This user helped promote Louis J. Sebille to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Thats awesome thanks for letting me know. --Kumioko (talk) 18:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Governor lists

I see you having fun with governors by combining WikiProject Governor into WikiProject U.S. I don't know about this. It seems like a trivial edit that just fills up people's watchlists and I'm going to report this to higher ups to make you stop. :) If you are still talking to me, I do have a minor quibble. The addition is throwing off the order in which the banners appear. The articles I've touched have had their banners sorted alphabetically. Your changes are pushing the U.S. to the top. Is there way to keep the ordering? Bgwhite (talk) 19:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Lol, thanks for the note. I'm a little over half way through the list of articles so I should finish up in a day or two and move on to the next task (and there are plenty of them believe me). As far as adding the WPUS banner that's a bit of a yes no answer. I currently just remove the governors one and add the new one to the top if the WPBio living is not = yes. If it does equal yes the bio banner is moved to the top. I can modify the logic to simply replace the WPGovernors banner and replace it with the WPUS/WPUSGovernors banner without much extra effort if you prefer. As for the sorting of banners alphabetically I like the idea with a couple of exceptions. If the WPBio banner living or activepol fields are yes then the WPBIO should be on top. Other than that the Alphabetical thing seems like a good idea and I would support that but I can see a lot of projects be upset about that. Many editors feel that the priority should be active projects on top. --Kumioko (talk) 20:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok I updated the code. Here is what I did if you want it.

ArticleText = Regex.Replace(ArticleText, @"{{\s*(WikiProject[ _]+United[ _]+States[ _]+governors)\s*(.*?)\}\}", "{{WikiProject United States|class=Start|importance=low|USgovernors=yes|USgovernors-importance=low}}", RegexOptions.IgnoreCase);--Kumioko (talk) 20:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean to sort all the pages you touch alphabetically. Some "weird" people have sorted the banners alphabetically and others by importance. So, it would be nice to maintain the order of banners for us weird people... So, just replace WPUS/WPUSGovernors banner in the WPGovernors banner slot. Bgwhite (talk) 21:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem. --Kumioko (talk) 21:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I just don't see the point in adding all the Missouri governors to WPUS. Wiki Project Missouri already has a pretty good handle on things. It strikes me as, if anything, a bit of self-promotion on your part since you seem to be the main one running WPUS. I recall some people being a bit miffed a year or so ago abt. the huge amount of invites (some called it spamming) you sent out for the group too. Sector001 (talk) 04:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Up front disclaimer. I consider Kumioko a mentor, so I'm biased, But... This is about all governors and not just Missouri's. Articles are tagged with multiple projects because the subject is of interest to multiple projects. I've worked with Washington, Idaho and Utah governors as well as other List of Governors. All were tagged with three projects, WikiProject <state>, WikiProject Biography and WikiProject United States Governors (WPUSG). All state governors should have at least these three tags. Each state has a claim over their governors. Some do it very well (Kentucky has every governor at GA or FA status) and and others, well, are non-existent. WPUSG is a semi-dead WikiProject. But, there are a few of us around who like working with governors of different states. Kumioko asked to merge, two of the four editors I know of who work on governors said yes (I abstained). Therefore, Kumioko had consensus within what is left of WPUSG to make this change. He should do this change for every governor and if a governor doesn't have the tag, he should add it. Bgwhite (talk) 05:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, well maybe its just a personality clash then. The guy just strikes me as more than a little full of himself (a real pet peeve of mine). I bailed out of WPUS, so hopefully I won't have to cross paths again except when he's tinkering with the Mo. politicians I patrol for vandalism. Sector001 (talk) 06:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

First Sector I'm sorry for the bad impression and I hope that changes at some point. I understand what you are saying about the governors project articles but those articles are being added because they belong to the United States governors project. Someone suggested adding this project to WPUS along with a couple of others and after some discussions we went forward with it.

One of the primary reasons I restarted the WPUS project was to act as a fall back point if a project was struggling or went completely defunct. If a project is capable of supporting itself that's great. Many cannot and some have been completely abandoned. For the ones that get added if they get built up to a point in the future that its more beneficial for them to break off then that's ok too. I think most of the project members understand and agree with that. I have also supported many of the other projects mergers such as Seattle and Eastern Washington into Washington, the State US road projects into US roads, etc so its not just about WPUS. Wikipedia isn't about the project its about the articles and content. True, some projects have been added and more will be added in the future. This is also true of many of the other US related projects. Is it self promotion, sure, but that's not a bad thing because we are doing it to help the articles and the other projects.

In regards to the projects being added. I have tried to discuss any project additions on the talk page of WPUS, the other project being added, I mention it in the newsletter (though I don't always specify the exact project) and I contact the members of the project being added as a supported project. Any comments are encouraged and are considered. So far discussions have led to a few projects being supported while some projects like politicians, US regions, US States, US state capitols, etc were not. At least not yet. There are 5 or 6 more that have been suggested and they are each being addressed individually in the same manner. Additionally, bots are being employed to automate tasks, articles are being built and collaborated on and we are making a big improvement in the cross project collaboration and even reorganizing some of the projects (some of this can be seen in the notes on the embassy page). Once this reorganization is done and the portal is featured I intend to start doing some drives to build up each of the projects and the content in them. Hopefully with collaboration from other related projects. Maybe like a Topic or Project of the Month under the collaboration umbrella. Not quite sure yet, if you have ideas I would love to hear them.

Regarding the invites and drama from a while ago their just par for the course and was a reason why the project went under a couple years ago. True it was a little frustrating for a while but things got cleared up and are on track. No need to send out invites anymore that was a one shot deal to get the project a shot of adrenaline to get it going. As for some editors taking offense that is not completely avoidable. No matter what we do here we are eventually going to aggravate someone, although we are trying to avoid that whenever possible. Your right there are several states that are very active like California, New york and others. Missouri might be an active one I'm not as familiar with that projects activities. Some projects are not as active.--Kumioko (talk) 06:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/Recognized content(botupdate)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/Recognized content(botupdate), a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/Recognized content(botupdate) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/Recognized content(botupdate) during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Kumioko (talk) 02:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Question about featured topics

Yes, the FT process is still active. To add articles to an existing topic, read up on that section at Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Nomination procedure. As for the MoH and Govs list, once the articles are all good or featured then I look forward to seeing them there. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick reply. I will start working on some of those. If its a requirement to have them all to that level it may be a very long time before it happens unless I can think of a way to group them. --Kumioko (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Smithsonian Institution related animals

Category:Smithsonian Institution related animals, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. — This, that, and the other (talk) 05:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction in content between Filipino American & Indian American articles

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Filipino American#June 2011. This is the second event regarding similar content. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011

Your Military History Newsletter

Project News: From the editors – Contest results, A-class medal recipients
Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content
Editorial: Hawkeye's thoughts on the article writing process

To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

bad spelling on wikiprojects

If I remember correctly, you once had a database dump done of non-existent wikprojects on talk pages. You might want to get another dump. With the manually additions I've done lately, I've made spelling mistakes. I've found myself doing WIkiProject way too many times recently. Bgwhite (talk) 05:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Will do. I thought about that the other day and got side tracked. I'll see if I can get someonen to pull that. --Kumioko (talk) 12:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Michael Hahn

Hi, you did some work using AWB on Michael Hahn a couple of days ago. The article is throwing a reflist error since that. I know why it is doing so (the succession box includes a citation) but am unsure of the correct way to deal with this per WP:MOS page layout guidelines regarding order of sections. Any ideas? - Sitush (talk) 15:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that and thanks for letting me know. I fixed it. Normally we shouldn't use inline citations in the succession boxes because they are just meant to summerize so the informaton would already be in the article. Aside from that, in this case, it was better just to remove the reflist and replace it with the reference as a general reference. Please let me know if you see anything else. --Kumioko (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

No probs. I know what to do now. - Sitush (talk) 16:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Either I'm following right behind your edits, or you're right behind mine! Just wanted to intro myself and complement you on the great job you're doing over at WPUS. Lionel (talk) 03:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh thanks. Which ones are you working on? --Kumioko (talk) 13:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

WP US Governors

Hello, I think you might have mistaken a portion of my comment for Mark's comment on the talk page of that project. Just wanted to let you know as it may affect how your wrote your reply to him. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ill go back and take a look. --Kumioko (talk) 15:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

People from Texas

Even in the cases where it is important to maintain a distinction between "from Texas" and "employed in Texas", it's still not really necessary to use the basic Category:People from Texas — whenever possible, the "from" should be funneled down to a specific county or city instead, and ideally the state-level category should be as close as possible to being empty of individual articles. (It's admittedly quite rare, due to incompleteness of our information, to get the basic U.S. state or Canadian province category entirely diffused down to city/county subcats — but we should still try to get as close as we can.)

For what it's worth, AWB isn't particularly good at batching jobs where you need to do something different to each article — for example, it doesn't offer a way to check whether an appropriate city or county-level category actually exists, or even what the appropriate county is if it isn't specifically named in the article text. So changing "People from Texas" to "People from Specific City or County, Texas" isn't really an option with that particular tool, which is why I don't use it to recat articles which aren't already double-categorized — but it also isn't really necessary for the state-level category to remain on an article as a placeholder in the meantime, especially since people frequently still add "People from Specific City or County, Texas" alongside "People from Texas", instead of as a replacement the way they really should. And at any rate, the appropriate city or county category can be added to an article at any time. Bearcat (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

That certainly makes sense and your right that AWB isn't great at that. --Kumioko (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

WP United States in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject United States for a Signpost article to be published on the Fourth of July. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions and responses may be trimmed if the final article becomes too long. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

That would be great thanks. I can think of a couple that might be interested and I will let them know as well. --Kumioko (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

We're recruiting art lovers!

Archives of American Art Wikimedia Partnership - We need you!

Hi! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the Smithsonian Archives of American Art and I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about art to participate in furthering art coverage on Wikipedia. I am planning contests and projects that will allow you access, no matter where you live, to the world's largest collection of archives related to American art. Please sign up to participate here, and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: {{Infobox park}} and {{cite database}}

I more or less forgot about {{cite database}}. At the time I was trying to make the point that the name of a database should not be italicized in a citation the way the title of a book should be. I'll nominated it for speedy deletion soon unless you can make it useful.

Changing parameter names is simple using AWB's Advanced Settings. The first rule should be an "In template call" rule which restricts sub-rules to markup in the template you want to update. Then create a "Template Parameter" sub-rule for each parameter name you want to change. The final rule I use is a "Find and Replace" rule to cleanup white space. That's a very brief description so if you need more info just ask on my talk page. I've found it is surprisingly easy to make mistakes using AWB unless I am very careful. –droll [chat] 20:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Bot requests

I have started a discussion regarding the automatic assessment of articles at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 42#Reactivation of automatic assessment. As you suggested it as well, you may be interested in commenting. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

United States Bill of Rights

Thanks for prodding me about this. I have the names of some people might be useful specialists to work with on this. Depending on the level of involvement they want, I am hoping there will be an editor willing to act as a mentor for them. The first thing I will do is just to ask them to assess the article for weaknesses and offer suggestions for improvements and sources to use. An assessment is at the low-end of community involvement, since they could conceivably never touch Wikipedia and I could post it for them, but we'll see how it goes. Let me know if you have any specific queries for them.

The second thing is that I notice some of the illustrative documents in the article are quite poor. We might have some useful Bill of Rights-related documents to provide. For example, I uploaded the "Message of President George Washington transmitting the vote of the legislature of New Hampshire on the Bill of Rights" (though I am getting errors on the last page; still trying to figure that out). We are in the process of identifying other such documents, and if any of you guys want to work on transcribing documents like these on Wikisource in conjunction with the article work, that would be fabulous. (I can set you up with an experienced Wikisourceror if you need help starting out.) Dominic·t 19:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much and I can understand they are busy. Any help they can offer no matter how modest would be greatly appreciated. The only things I can think of are better images at the moment, but your suggestions would be great. I have already added some notes to the articles talk page and I will begin making edits to restructure, expand and clarify the article in the coming days. As for images I would say if you have a higher quality image of the Bill of Rights that would be great but since the one we have seems to be high res I'm not sure if there is a better one out there. The ones you scanned in are great. I am going to see if I can categorize all the Commons links related to the Bill of Rights and link it to the article.

As a side suggestion you may want to consider creating a template or something to note collaborations with the NARA to put on the article talk page. Or maybe something as a parameter of the WikiProject banner maybe. --Kumioko (talk) 19:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Portal:Supreme Court of the United States

Portal:Supreme Court of the United States

Thanks for the formatting help to the talk page! :) If you are interested, really the best place to help out with this portal at the moment is finding more GA and FA quality entries for the various subsections. Let me know if you feel pitching in. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem, glad to help. In fact I recommend we setup JL-Bot to do it automatically based on the articles tagged for the 2 projects related to it. If this is something you want to do let me know. --Kumioko (talk) 18:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Hrm, an interesting idea, but I already found a lot of suitable entries, so no worries! -- Cirt (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok no problem, --Kumioko (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps article

Obviously I have no clue what I'm doing, but I work for the new SMMC and we want to improve the content on this page ... can you help us? ````

Your advice on conducting WWII research on my father

My father was a WWII veteran and served as a Medic with the 77th Infantry Division (United States). He died in 2000 and rarely spoke of his service time. I was always curious and I believe I know a few facts. He landed with the 77th during the Battle of Guam and was wounded by a sniper on this 2nd or 3rd day on the island. He spent time recovering in various Army hospitals in Hawaii, San Fransisco, and Virginia. At the time of his discharge he was a driver within the Office of Strategic Services. Would you be able to direct me to sources I could explore? Gohens84 (talk) 03:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I can give you a few:

First I would start with the National Archives Military Personnel Records Center in St. Louis. A lot of the Army records from WWII and prior were lost in a fire in the 70's but you might get it.
You could also try the Library of Congress Veteran History Project or Genealogical Research
There are a lot of others too though. --Kumioko (talk) 13:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I will weigh in also.

Your best bet would probably be to find a veterans group associated with the 77th Infantry. Many veterans groups publish news letters, help in research, etc, and could probably lend you a hand in either pointing you in the right direction or sharing some materials. I went ahead and found one such group.

Also this government site has all the WWII campaigns broken down and links to online resources to help aide in research. Feel free to ask for help from someone knowledgeable if you've exhausted most of your leads and good luck.AerobicFox (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks AerobicFox. --Kumioko (talk) 23:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Soviet articles

I removed your Wikipedia USA tag from Talk:U.S.S.R. national rugby union team, because I don't think it's appropriate for a few reasons! --MacRusgail (talk) 14:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Your right. I accidentally tagged a couple yesterday but I thought I removed them all. Good catch. --Kumioko (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject tagging

You made a whole bunch of edits like this one that added wikiproject templates to redirects. But the redirect is still there. So anyone visiting that page will be redirected and so never see the banner, which makes it rather confusing. If you want to tag an article redirect as belonging to a particular wikiproject (which is pointless, but people still do it) then you should remove the talk page redirect so that people can actually see the tag you put there. Thanks Gurch (talk) 18:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Its fine if knowone sees the banner for the purposes of redirects but the method to the madness is 2 fold. One it associates the redirect to the project so that if it is submitted for discussion or deletion Article Alert bot will notify the project and we can comment if necessary without having to actively monitor all the for comment/deletion boards daily. The second reason is because I have been montoring the pages that start with US, U.S., United States, American and if those are preceded by List of, Index of or Timeline of. If anyone creates an article with one of those then I tag it. The problem was there were a lot of redirects so I spent a lot of time filtering them out. This way they sit in the Redirect-Class category for the project and I can easily filter them in a few seconds rather than mine through looking for the ones that aren't redirects. I hope this helps but please let me know if you have any more questions. --Kumioko (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Jewish MOH recipients list

Left a response at the FLRC after seeing your latest comments there. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

U.S. Presidents

It's inactive to the best of my knowledge. It's all yours. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 13:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

History of the United States House of Representatives

I have heard from someone in the Office of the House Historian who is interested in working with Wikipedians on the History of the United States House of Representatives article or similar topics at some point in the future. If you know of any specific folks I should talk to about something like that, that would be grateful. Otherwise, I'll post a general note somewhere (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States? You might know of somewhere better.) Dominic·t 15:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I would be glad to help out with that if I can but I would say specifically the folks at the following projects:

As an additional note, there are a whole lot of WP articles that need images on House members (active members as well as historic). If the House historian would be willing or able to provide some of those that would be outstanding. --Kumioko (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I haven't yet publicized the page yet, so it is empty, but those House members might be useful material to request on Wikipedia:GLAM/NARA/Requests. Dominic·t 17:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Will do, What I'll do is do a run through the related articles and see which ones have images and which do not. Of course some have images of other things than the individual (buildings named for them, people associated with them, etc) but that will be a start list of the ones we know we need. I have a couple more things I might try and request too that have come up recently. --Kumioko (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Template;WikiProject United States

The latter; all it would take is one vandal and 25k pages would be messed up. if changes are absolutely needed I can make them. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

US National Archives collaboration

United States National Archives WikiProject

Would you like to help improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to the National Archives and its incredible collection? This summer, the National Archives—which houses some of America's most important historical documents—is hosting me as its Wikipedian in Residence, and I have created WP:NARA to launch these efforts.

There are all sorts of tasks available for any type of editor, whether you're a writer, organizer, gnome, coder, or image guru. The National Archives is making its resources available to Wikipedia, so help us forge this important relationship! Please sign up and introduce yourself. Dominic·t 15:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Bot for the Welsh Wicipedia

Did you delete my Bot request (Bot for the Welsh Wicipedia) [[http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ABot_requests&action=historysubmit&diff=435713491&oldid=434135566 here, bottom of edits? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 05:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Nope wasn't me. I added a comment but I didn't delete anything. It looks like it was autoarchived. --Kumioko (talk) 13:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Colonel Able Steight

Colonel Able Streight, Civil War, I have some information that differs some from what you report. Also new to editing and unsure of appropriate protocol, therefore I ask for your patience. source: History of the 51st Indiana by William Hartpence, Able Straight Commissioned Colonel September 4, 1861. Regiment was organized October11th and mustered on December 14th. Personal interest, I am descended from two of the young men in the regiment, William Waller Scearce and George Washington Scearce. Please advise on how to proceed todetermine the value of this information and how to contribute if it‘s valuable.

Well First Welcome to Wikipedia. The answer I think depends on the source of the information. I would recommend starting a discussion on the articles talk page or maybe on the American Civil War Military History page. I am not really an ACW expert but there are a lot of folks that participate in that project that could easily answer your question. I would say in general though as long as the History is a published source then you should be fine. If the History is just a loose collection of documents and notes then its probably Original Research. --Kumioko (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Featured Media as an extended assessment

Any luck getting the Featured Media class added to the extended assessments? I've prepared WP:Universities to take advantage of FM but our banner is protected, so I can't switch from extended assessments to a subpage with custom assessments. Seeing as many projects have created FM categories that remain empty, my guess is that other projects have run into similar issues. -Mabeenot (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thats a good point on the template protection issue. I have the same problem with the template for WPUS but I just do the work in the sandbox of the template and then ask one of the admins to implement it. If you need help with this for your project I can help you with that if you want so you can start using the category. Personally I'm glad that my suggestion for adding a featured media category got such a warm reception. "Good" ideas on WP are frequently subjective. lol. --Kumioko (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

AN discussion

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Bot-like addition of WikiProject United States tags. Thank you.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

American animation

Hi Kumioko, I just want to stop by that I've converted WikiProject American Animation into a work group of WP:ANIMATION. What do you thank? I've also added some Recognized content and Article alerts for the work group. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 05:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it looks good. It seems like a good move. --Kumioko (talk) 13:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes, since I got the WP:ANIMATION revamped back in September and November myself while you're revamping the United States WikiProject. Also note, I've added new work groups including Adult Swim, Ben 10, Aqua Teen Hunger Force, Warner Bros. Animation, Nicktoons and Cartoon Network work group myself. I've been working the WikiProject Animation banner a lot myself and added new parameters and 6-point checklist similar to WP:ANIME before MSGJ protected it. I know you're not interested to work on animation-related articles, I hope you can join WP:ANIMATION someday. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 23:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say Im not interested I just have a lot on the plate at the moment. So many things to do so little time (especially when I have to contend with constant discussions about my AWB speed :-). There are a lot of articles that fall into that category which I would say are very interesting and important from an American culture standpoint although that could be arguable (Flintstones, Yogi bear, Simpsons, Superman, etc.) as well as many of the artists (Walt Disney, Frank Frazetta, Stan Lee, Todd McFraland, Jeff Jones, Ken Kelly, etc). --Kumioko (talk) 23:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

wikiproject goof

{{WikiProject Ireland |nested= |class=Start|importance=Low|attention= |peer-review= |old-peer-review= |image-needed=yes |needs-infobox=yes}}

Ended up as:

{{WikiProject Ireland$2class=Start|importance=Lowpeer-reviewold-peer-review= |image-needed=yes |needs-infobox=yes}}

The talk page in question is Talk:Richard Layte
Another page is Talk:Gorges Lowther (1713–1792). It has one goof, but not the nested one.

I have seen the "importance=Lowpeer-reviewold-peer-review=" goof before you updated the code the last go around. I haven't been paying attention if it was the code that messed up or it was there before. Someone has done weird things with the WikiProject Ireland parameters on alot of other articles. It was the $2 output that caught my attention this time. Bgwhite (talk) 07:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok thanks for letting me know Ill see if I can fix that. I think I know what it is. --Kumioko (talk) 13:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Found another one. Only one "}" at the end.

{{WPMILHIST|class=B|British=yes|Maritime=no|WWI=no|WWII=no}} -> {{WPMILHIST|class=B|British=yesnoWWI=nono}

Bgwhite (talk) 08:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject Franco-Americans

Hi Kumioko,

I have replied to you in my talk page. -- Mathieugp (talk) 11:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

OK. :-) -- Mathieugp (talk) 03:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Article assessment

Hey, I was wondering if you could please do a reassessment of April 25–28, 2011 tornado outbreak...I'm highly certain that it has progressed beyond the start-class that all the projects have it as, but I'm not sure as to how far. I know for a fact it shouldn't be GA or above yet because the finalized info (Storm Data) from the NCDC has yet to be released (it should be sometime this next month or two), but I also can tell by looking at it it's above start class...it's just I don't know whether to give it C-class or B-class. Thanks in advance, Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 17:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I left some comments on the articles talk page about some suggestions I think will get it to B or better. The article is looking very good though IMO. --Kumioko (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Mmk, thanks! Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 17:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomination as a United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month candidate

The Hope Diamond has been nominated to be a future United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month. All editors interested in improving this article are encouraged to participate. You can vote for this or other articles article of the Month here. --Kumioko (talk) 19:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify Discussion Invitation

Hi there! You are receiving this message because you are a participant of WikiProject Wikify. After the retirements of our first two executive coordinators, Mono and Guoguo12, WikiProject Wikify is undergoing a period of transition. We are currently holding a discussion to create a plan for the future, find volunteers to help fill our many administrative positions, collect any feedback about what has happened in the last six months, propose some new guidelines, and see if there are any creative ideas to increase participation. We appreciate your input!

Sumsum2010·T·C 23:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Archives of American Art Update!

Hi! I just wanted to deliver a little news about the Archives of American Art partnership project! We have released our amazing barnstar to the world, learn how you can earn one here! We will be having a Backstage Pass tour later this month which will be announced this week, and an upcoming contest in which major contributors can win some amazing goodies from the Archives and Smithsonian, allowing for international involvement! Thanks again for your interest and I look forward to your continued participation in this ongoing project to better coverage on American art history on Wikipedia! SarahStierch (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

TB

Hello, KumiokoCleanStart. You have new messages at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks.
Message added 05:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sven Manguard Wha? 05:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for helpfulness

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thank you very kindly for your patience and gentleness in dealing with my difficulties and gruffness over the WPUS banner issue. Your are truly a helpful person.Sarnold17 (talk) 23:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank yo u very much. Kumioko (talk) 02:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Note

This is off topic, though it may address one of your concerns about admins in general.

I'd be interested in your thoughts on WP:RRA. - jc37 20:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks but I'm not going to be editing much anymore and I don't have any faith that a change of that magnitude would ever be accepted. Good Luck. Kumioko (talk) 20:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)