User talk:Shirik

Home	Talk (Archives)	Send Email	Contributions	Recognized content	Gallery	Awards	Secure communications

GOCE drive newsletter

The Guild of Copy Editors – May 2011 Backlog Elimination Drive The Guild of Copy Editors invite you to participate in the May 2011 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive began on May 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on May 31 at 23:59 (UTC). The goals of this backlog elimination drive are to eliminate as many articles as possible from the 2009 backlog and to reduce the overall backlog by 15%. ! NEW ! In an effort to encourage the final elimination of all 2009 articles, we will be tracking them on the leaderboard for this drive. Awards and barnstars A range of barnstars will be awarded to active participants. Some are exclusive to GOCE drives. More information on awards can be found on the main drive page. We look forward to meeting you on the drive! Your GOCE coordinators: SMasters, Diannaa, Tea with toast, Chaosdruid, and Torchiest

You are receiving a copy of this newsletter as you are a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, or have participated in one of our drives. If you do not wish to receive future newsletters, please add you name here. Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 08:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy Delete

Thanks for the advice. Dan arndt (talk) 08:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

NOVA Roller Derby Deletes

Good morning! I have applied for an undelete for the page, and I will do so for the image once/if that's approved. There are countless leagues who also have Wiki pages and while the page did not have a large amount of content it was similar enough to others that I believe it a good start. I am not sure if you had a chance to look before it was deleted - I know it was tagged, but the user who kept tagging it had tagged in my user space other issues, but never mentioned any feedback. I'd love to hear if you have any, as I think having a page with parity for other leagues would be appropriate. Thank you! Imperialgrrl (talk) 12:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind Shirik but I've moved this article back to her userspace. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, thanks. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 20:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

I just opened this case of sockpuppetry but its not showing up on the SI thread. Why? Did I do something wrong? Pass a Method talk 11:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I see that the case is closed, but FYI, the addition to the location you referenced is handled by a bot, so it can take a little time to show up. I didn't see anything out of the ordinary to make me suspect that the bot was missing it for some reason, and it looks like it was handled as appropriate. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 23:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

TorNodeBot

Hi Shirik. Thought you might like to know I've seen the occasional Tor node editing recently.. I don't know if you want to dust off your bot and see what it finds? No hurry or anything, not sure if it's a long term thing. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Will take a look when I get home tonight from work. Thanks for the heads up. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Hm, it's picking up a few loose ends here and there, but mostly it's just detecting that the TorBlock extension is working as intended. Do you have any examples I can take a look at? I'll leave the bot hunting just to see, but it doesn't look like it's picking up anything of interest. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 03:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for looking. I'll keep an eye on it. Some examples, all now blocked, would be:

• 62.113.219.6 (talk · contribs)
• 62.113.219.5 (talk · contribs)
• 80.237.226.73 (talk · contribs)
• 80.237.226.74 (talk · contribs)
• 80.237.226.75 (talk · contribs)
• 199.48.147.40 (talk · contribs)
• 74.120.15.150 (talk · contribs)
• 77.247.181.163 (talk · contribs)

-- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Please take the Wikipedia Ambassador Program survey

Hi Ambassador,

We are at a pivotal point in the development of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program. Your feedback will help shape the program and role of Ambassadors in the future. Please take this 10 minute survey to help inform and improve the Wikipedia Ambassadors.

WMF will de-identify results and make them available to you. According to KwikSurveys' privacy policy: "Data and email addresses will not be sold, rented, leased or disclosed to 3rd parties." This link takes you to the online survey: http://kwiksurveys.com?u=WPAmbassador_talk

Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments, Thank You!

Amy Roth (Research Analyst, Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 20:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Indefinite block for Omer123hussain

How is it possibly even remotely appropriate to give someone an indefinite block for a first time offence. WP:MEAT is a perfectly reasonable policy, and its enough to justify some sort of block, but how is an indefinite term for a first time offence justified? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Some justification of how it meets the blocking policies duration criteria is going to be required here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Please continue this discussion at WP:ANI. It is pointless to bring it to my talk page, where it will receive fewer views. That being said, I reaffirm Tim's decision until that point at which you can provide any evidence of a dissenting administrator. I believe his interpretation of policies is valid, and concur with his actions. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 01:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I posted here to make sure you saw it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Old cases

I would just like the redirects which have my old username deleted as they've brought some unwanted attention. It's alright to keep the cases, just the redirects with my old username to be removed. --Victory93 (talk) 07:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are referring to "unwanted attention", but those old links need to remain existing. For example, your block log shows a link in it which would be broken if the old name were to go away. I'm not understanding why you are seeking out this move without redirect. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 07:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

This user is also editing old talkpage archives to remove the old name. I suspect 'unwanted attention' in this case is code for 'people can see how much I fucked around.' I don't think I can move back over redirect; is the snarl of moved SPI pages worked out now? → ROUX ₪ 18:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

We were actually just talking about what to do in this situation in the SPI IRC channel. We've resolved to leaving the old case pages up as redirects, bringing the archive back to the original comments, and fully protecting things to make sure it stays that way. I think we're all set. Thanks. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. What a weird mess. → ROUX ₪ 18:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

John Sharp, Mark Burns and Lynne Frederick pictures.

Hi,

I saw the notifications and need to ask you for help in rectifying the situation. Could you please advise as to how I need to go about it? Thank you in advance.

Archiveeditor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archiveeditor (talk • contribs) 17:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

What you've done here is appropriate. You need to add the "Non-Free Media Fair Use Rationale" to the other pictures as well. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Question

I have one last question about the SPI I filed et al. before I put this ugly chapter of my time here behind me; should the Chartered Wombat sock not be tagged with {{sock|Jake Fuersturm‎|blocked}}? Erikeltic ^(Talk) 14:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

If you choose to, feel free. I opted not to. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 06:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Anthony Weiner and 3RR

Shirik, I would appreciate an admin's opinion on 3RR. Medeis posted this message on my Talk page. Honestly, I didn't think I was even edit-warring, let alone coming close to violating 3RR. It's true I made many edits, but most of them were just fixes to the article, like correcting the age of one of the women and moving a cite to after the sentence it supported. It's true I reverted a wikilink for penis based on WP:OVERLINK and I did remove some contentious language about the Delaware entry on the timeline (that's what Medeis is actually upset about), but I didn't think I was doing anything that violated 3RR, let alone the five reversions Medeis claims I made. I know 3RR can be tricky, so I thought I'd ask you for your opinion before I go forward contributing to the article. (You don't need to leave a Talkback on my Talk page - I'll watch here.) Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I would ignore it, but don't take that word as gospel. You are just working on MOS issues; the dispute is about content. If it were an ongoing war about MOS issues then you would need to stop (you were doing a lot of reverts). But it's not. To be safe, though, it may just be easier to continue contributing without the "undo" button. People on that page are very on-edge and it is likely they just saw all the undos and got mad without even looking. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I count only two actual undos I did: one for the wikilink and one for the age. The rest were edits. However, the policy is not clear on this issue (in my view). For example, if click on undo, that clearly counts as a revert (even if it's innocuous as here). However, if I edit the material in such a way as to effectively undo an edit, I assume that also counts as a reversion. Yet, if you carry that logic to its extreme, any edit I do that undoes "another editor's work", which is pretty much all we do around here (we "undo" others' work when we change existing material), would count, but that, of course, can't be right. Anyway, I'm probably over-analyzing this. I'll try to be more careful because, as you say, editors are more combative in these kinds of articles. I appreciate your input, and I understand your comments are not definitive if I should ever be formally accused of violating the rule.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Disney, 100 years of magic

Thanks for your message. Can I just say that I find it really frustrating when admins decline a CSD and then just pass on and do nothing with the article. It's clear that that article should not be included. You were on the page; why couldn't you have nominated it for WP:PROD or WP:AFD? It feels like the admins insist on passing judgements while they leave the tagging to the rest of us. I thought that we were all users... Don't get me wrong. I'm sure you a good editor, and I'm not questioning you personally. It's just a common pattern that I've seen time and time again, and it really frustrates me. — Fly by Night (talk) 01:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I honestly do not feel the article should be deleted at all. (For that reason, do not PROD the article either. Take it to AFD if you feel like it really should be deleted.) Yes, it needs to be expanded. No, I do not know anything more about the topic. But I do not consider it "unencyclopedic nonsense" as you so claim. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 01:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Granted: labelling it as unencyclopaedic nonsense may have been a bit harsh. But that's what happens after reviewing many pages (of what is often unencyclopaedic nonsense). The basic content of the article is that Disney had a birthday party and lots of mascots went into the crowd to see the kids. Since notability cannot be inherited, and there seems to be no difference between that and a US college football game, I don't see why it should be included. I assume from your tone that you didn't receive my comment as it was meant. I hope I didn't offend you. I was simply trying to articulate an observed truth. Anyway, take care. — Fly by Night (talk) 01:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Liberty Games Article

Thanks for that. I am new to wikipedia. However I believe the article to be purely promotional. All it says it's that they are a leading retailer with no citations. They just list a load of things they sell as well as 2 products they supposedly are Official UK Distributors of which is factually incorrect. Novotable company has ceased trading http://www.novotable.com/ and the offside football table is not and exclusive product. http://www.trifledesign.co.uk/ It's sold in lots of different places, John Lewis about 10 other websites included so I don't see why this article has anything noteworthy or gives the reader anything apart from promoting the company and it's products. The articles was also created by the companies Technical Director. http://linkd.in/kHwimm Conflict of interests and pure promotional material. Itsmee (talk) 10:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

GOCE elections

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Elections are currently underway for our Guild coordinators. The voting period will run for 14 days and ends on June 30, 23:59 UTC. All GOCE members in good standing, as well as past participants of any of the Guild's Backlog elimination drives, are eligible to vote. The candidate with the highest number of votes will become the Lead Coordinator, therefore, your vote really matters! There is also a referendum to appoint a Coordinator Emeritus. Cast your vote today.

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 08:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Edits

Hello, I am sorry. I did not try to offend anyone with my edits. I am new to Wiki. I am trying to edit Gutierrez' biography to reflect his early life, work, and accomplishments. I documented and cited the information. I added his early life, comments and information about his early debut, similar to other biographies I read on WIKI. The current edition needs revision. I would like to work together with you and the editors to make the biography the best possible. Can we work together on revisions? Please let me know how to best proceed to work on a biography. I would reallt appreciate your help. Thank you.--Maryphillips1952 (talk) 01:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem! I know that Wikipedia can be a little daunting for new editors. But so long as you're willing to work with people, and not against them, we're all happy to help. But do try to make sure you're logged in; that will help it be less confusing for everyone in the future. I see that you've already started discussing on the article's talk page. That's the first step towards resolution of the dispute you're in. If you have any other questions please feel free to ask, or type {{helpme}} on your own talk page and, like magic, an editor will be summoned to help you out. Happy editing. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 01:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello,

I really would appreciate your help. You are the only one that has responded. I am not sure if you know the other editors on the page and can help me put together the best possible biography together. Sorry to bother you. Thank you. Best, Mary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maryphillips1952 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Mary, everyone on Wikipedia is a volunteer, which means not everyone is online and working at all times. I wasn't online last night when you left the message for me, for example. I've addressed your questions on Talk:Horacio Gutiérrez. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Error report

Master, I detected an error in the tor network while processing a request. The response was 552 Unknown circuit "24305". Please see the logs for more information. I will not report this error again during this invocation. --TorNodeBot (talk) 04:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Error report

Master, I detected an error in the tor network while processing a request. The response was 552 Unknown circuit "2576". Please see the logs for more information. I will not report this error again during this invocation. --TorNodeBot (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Error report

Master, I detected an error in the tor network while processing a request. The response was 552 Unknown circuit "14794". Please see the logs for more information. My knowledge of the tor network state is now inconsistent, so I am halting further activity until you intervene.. --TorNodeBot (talk) 05:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive invitation

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors The latest GOCE backlog elimination drive is under way! It began on 1 July and so far 18 people have signed up to help us reduce the number of articles in need of copyediting. This drive will give a 50% bonus for articles edited from the GOCE requests page. Although we have cleared the backlog of 2009 articles there are still 3,935 articles needing copyediting and any help, no matter how small, would be appreciated. We are appealing to all GOCE members, and any other editors who wish to participate, to come and help us reduce the number of articles needing copyediting, as well as the backlog of requests. If you have not signed up yet, why not take a look at the current signatories and help us by adding your name and copyediting a few articles. Barnstars will be given to anyone who edits more than 4,000 words, with special awards for the top 5 in the categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". >>> Sign-up now <<<

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 09:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Till this I would like to add:

User:Night of the Big Wind mentioned that you made edits in messages written by others. You mentioned WP:VAND as a source to say that your revert was not vandalism. I tend to disagree. Why? Well read what it says on WP:VAND:

“ Talk page vandalism

Illegitimately deleting or editing other users' comments. However, it is acceptable to blank comments constituting vandalism, internal spam, or harassment or a personal attack. It is also acceptable to identify an unsigned comment. Users are also permitted to remove comments from their own user talk pages. A policy of prohibiting users from removing warnings from their own talk pages was considered and rejected on the grounds that it would create more issues than it would solve.

”

Therefor I would like to stress out, that you should refrain yourself of making these kind of edits, as it shows a lack of respect.--Kind regards, Ro de Jong (Talk to me!) 08:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Facts: User:Night_of_the_Big_Wind repeatedly accused me of vandalism[1][2][3] because I have legitimate deleted a comment signed by a sockpuppeteer evading his block (this time he was using the sockpuppet Jabbsworth). That is not "editing someone else messages". And it is not vandalism to delete a comment signed by a sockpuppeteer evading a block, and this is the 6 time this sockpuppeteer do the same. More over, it is legitimate to delete a comment and any action made by a sockpuppeteer evading a block which is considered aserious breach of WP trust. I had to put it here as User:Night_of_the_Big_Wind sent to the "ClaudioBin" any comment I put in his talk_page explaining this]. It is so easy and common to demmand respect for yourself while behave otherwise with the others. Whatever, I just wanted to document the real facts. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 16:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Replied on NotBW's talk page --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 16:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

1. Cause NotBW is bringing again into account the cold case (more than 1 year ago) of my previous account that I had to close because I lost my password but that admins found I didn't use to evade a block nor to feign or to fake another identity. Here is another place where I recently had to exahustevely explain the thing again as it was mentioned again by NotBW. Actually it was to Eddylandzaat, which was the previous account of NotBW, whom I explicity recognized that some comments made with my old accoiunt were mine. So, it is proverbial how he insists in harass me with that cold case.

2. Seeing NotBW behaviour I also have to anticipate that: perhaps NotBW will claim again that here and here I have edited his comments. But actually, it was a mistake caused by him. Originally those comment were posted and signed by the sockpupeteer Jabbsworth, so I deleted them. Then NotBW edited/refactored the comments from the sockpuppeteer (Jabbsworth) and resigned them with his own (NotBW) signature. Thus, NotBW edited/refactored someone else comments (which he cries to be a serious and nasty doing) but he also helped in this way to circumvent the block of the sockpuppeteer and to evade my legitimate deletion of them. But, once I have realized that NotBW edited/refactored and resigned the comment of the sockpuppeteer I merely deleted those comments he did not refactored but those which remained signed by the sockpuppeteer, the original illegitimate author.

3. At any rate, as it can be read in the talk_page of JackKevorkian's article, I have exhibit reasons to reject those changes, reasons against its content/matter and not merely against its form and origin. So I feel compelled to believe that he is just taking the side of the sockpuppeter because he shares the same position pro-euthanasia of the sockpuppeteer and they do not doubt to use any mean to force their position.

-- ClaudioSantos¿? 17:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Claudio. You have made clear that you don't want edits that conflict with your opinion. But under no circumstances you can edit or delete contributions from other editors from talkpages. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 03:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Banned user Jackjit editing again using his revolving 118 IP again

Using his revolving 118 IP again (118.93.244.193). Thanks for helping. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jackjit/Archive) --RedEyedCajun (talk) 11:27, 16 July 2011

Sockpuppeteer unblocked

As you are a clerk and as recently you did hear about me because of reverting this sockpupeteer, then I think I should inform to you the following information: I have to complaint. The account Jabbsworth is the 6 sockpuppet used by the known sockpuppeteer Ratel to evade his block and to edit disruptively and warring[4][5]. I have been affected a lot of times because of this sockpuppeteer. I do not understand how Jabbsworth was recently unblocked by David Fuchs just few day after he was blocked by Elockid due the same reason: sockpuppetry to evade a block and edit disruptively and warring. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 00:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The above comment probably falls within the prohibitions of wp:CANVASSING, is therefore disruptive because it seeks to overturn an Arbcom decision, and the recipient would be wise to ignore it, or report it. I could also add that user ClaudioSantos has a long history of sockpuppetry and disruptive editing (trying to insert the word "murder" into all pages discussing euthanasia, for instance, and editing from a religious POV). At one stage he completely destroyed the Talk page at Talk:Action T4 by defacing it. He also had some of your socks, eg PepitoPerez2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), permablocked. By "complaining" here, he is perpetuating the cycle. I say to him: please study the collegial atmosphere we try to achieve at WP. It allows constructive editing. Jabbsworth (talk) 01:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not canvassing to ask for help to an admin who was involved in the thing the last time. For a change, ::: It seems User:Jabbsworth is again starting his doings so promptly. Not only referring to me with comments like "religious POV" like the above one, but He just collpased some parts of a talk page. Is this not disruptive and warring again? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

And what should I think about this> [6] where he is proposing to imposse a topic ban against me? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The take-home message for Shirik on this issue is that 2 users are now collaborating on compiling a dispute case against you for relentless POV pushing on euthanasia-related articles. We shall seek a topic ban. An example of the unacceptable things you have done is to insist on a "Criminal" infobox on the page of pathologist Dr Jack Kevorkian. That was rejected by consensus. I could find many more examples, but hopefully this will suffice. I suggest you stop canvassing numerous people (Shirik, please see his contribution history for evidence today) and please take this conversation to your talk page, where I have asked you kindly to remove your personal attacks from article talk space. Jabbsworth (talk) 01:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not referring about none article, and I am not editing any article, if you edits that Kevorkian is a saint, it really does not matter to me nothing. Here the thing deals about your behaivour User:Ratel. It is legitimate to ask for help to an admin as you have also a long record of attacks, warring and serious disruption affecting more than this unique user. Then it is legitimate to ask for an action to prevent you to repeat the same doings that lead to your blocks. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 02:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Idea for improving Template:Rangevandal

Hello Shirik. I saw your recent change where you make the 'user page' into a link to Special:Contributions. This seems intended to display all the contributions from the range, for those who have the gadget. Have you used http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/rangecontribs/ ? I personally think this is a superior way of checking contributions from a range, since they are sorted by date. Especially when a short range block is contemplated, this can give a better idea of collateral damage. What would you think of a change to Rangevandal to invoke the rangecontribs tool instead of Special:Contributions? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I made that change over a year ago. Anyway, I have no objections to using x's tool instead. I do believe it is superior as well. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Banned user Jackjit active yet again with new IP

Jackjit has apparently changed to a new Internet Service Provider after his most recent block on his revolving/dynamic 118 IP and is now using the fixed/static IP 118.93.220.21 and is again making the exact same kind of vandalism and edits to Conservative/Republican type of articles using this new static IP. Unfortunately, people have reverted some of his edits as vandalism but have NOT placed any warnings on his Talk page. This new fixed IP should be easy to block, no? Please help again.--RedEyedCajun (talk) 14:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Ambassador Program: assessment drive

Even though it's been quiet on-wiki, the Wikipedia Ambassador Program has been busy over the last few months getting ready for the next term. We're heading toward over 80 classes in the US, across all disciplines. You'll see courses start popping up here, and this time we want to match one or more Online Ambassadors to each class based on interest or expertise in the subject matter. If you see a class that you're interested, please contact the professor and/or me; the sooner the Ambassadors and professors get in communication, the better things go. Look for more in the coming weeks about next term.

In the meantime, with a little help I've identified all the articles students did significant work on in the last term. Many of the articles have never been assessed, or have ratings that are out of date from before the students improved them. Please help assess them! Pick a class, or just a few articles, and give them a rating (and add a relevant WikiProject banner if there isn't one), and then update the list of articles.

Once we have updated assessments for all these articles, we can get a better idea of how quality varied from course to course, and which approaches to running Wikipedia assignments and managing courses are most effective.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

"Oh hell no"

Hello, Shirik. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

 IShadowed  ✰  21:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter

Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their September 2011 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy editing backlog. The drive will begin on September 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on September 30 at 23:59 (UTC). We will be tracking the number of 2010 articles in the backlog, as we want to copy edit as many of those as possible. Please consider copy editing an article that was tagged in 2010. Barnstars will be given to anyone who edits more than 4,000 words, with special awards for the top 5 in the categories "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". See you at the drive! – Your drive coordinators: Diannaa, Chaosdruid, The Utahraptor, Slon02, and SMasters. >>> Sign up now <<<

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 17:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Bot run please

Hi Shirik. Tor is currently completely unblocked, and starting to fill with pov-pushers and socks. If you have a moment.. :) 81.170.234.99 (talk) 21:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)