User talk:Fetchcomms: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:30, 26 December 2012

HOME	TALK	USER
SAND	MISC	GUEST

to-do

City Colleges of Chicago

Hi! About this edit

The KMinottCCC user is likely an employee of CCC. I left a note on his/her talk page WhisperToMe (talk) 13:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that, and thanks for the welcome :) /ƒETCH COMMS / 01:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Online Ambassador, Spring 2012

Hi, Fetchcomms! As you may know, the Wikipedia Education Program has instilled a new set of standards that courses must meet to officially join the program for the semester. As you can see, one of the requirements is that at least one ambassador or professor is a Wikipedian, as this should give students more access to helpful information about contributing to Wikipedia and creating good content. You are listed on the Online Ambassador page; are you still interested in remaining active this semester? Some of these classes will have to remove themselves from the program should they fail to meet these standards, but we would like to ensure that new students are receiving proper support during the editing process. Please let me know if you are still interested in mentoring these students this semester and/or visit the Online Ambassador talk page to select a course that still needs an Online Ambassador. Thank you! JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jami, I'm just too busy to help out this semester but please keep my in the loop as I will hopefully have more time in the summer/fall. Regards, /ƒETCH COMMS / 02:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS Account Request

I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. /ƒETCH COMMS / 02:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fetchcomms, thank you for your interest in the tool. I've approved your account, please feel free to login and test the system.

As part of this beta test, we'd like everyone to test every aspect of the tool. This includes acting as blocked users - we'd like each of you to file at least two appeals and respond to them as though you are blocked. Please try to act like a blocked user new to Wikipedia, unfamiliar with common terms and probably a bit frustrated at the situation.

When reviewing appeals, please act as though you are reviewing real blocks. You should be able to comment on any appeal, regardless of who has reserved it; reservations only ensure that reviewers don't send conflicting emails.

If you encounter any bugs (things not appearing to work right, and especially error messages), please file a bug report on JIRA. You will need to register an account there. New features can be suggested there as well, but please add the "after-beta" label to these so we can easily prioritize between bugs that must be fixed and features that can be added later.

Thank you again for volunteering to beta-test. The Helpful One 02:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MSU Interview

Dear Fetchcommons,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thanks for jumping in quickly to support my RfA, which was successful and nearly unanimous. Be among the first to see my L-plate! – Fayenatic L (talk) 13:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool

Hey I love your squirrel picture! Did you take that yourself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.56.82.19 (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the image description page credits the work to Ray eye. /ƒETCH COMMS / 03:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Banner

Per a new, definitive consensus, please remove your practical joke banner from your miscellany subpage. Thank you, Magister Scienta ^talk 02:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, thank you. Which do you consider the better amendment?

You have $1 (I have $2).

or

You have no life (get one).

I think the former is less likely to be understood by readers, but the latter is a tad cynical.

/ƒETCH COMMS / 03:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you fancy, just please don't insult a fellow editor. Have a nice day, Magister Scienta ^talk 14:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I shall use them both! /ƒETCH COMMS / 06:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fight "the man". Killiondude (talk) 08:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NCAT Pavement Test Track

Can you look at the NCAT Pavement Test Track article? I regret even having touched this article in 2010, having stepped on the copyright problem minefield in the process. If the original version of this article were to appear today as a new page, I would tag it as WP:CSD#G12 with sufficient explanation for the deleting admin. Do you think my current decision to stub this article to a bare minimum of text is appropriate? At the very least, I think it would be appropriate to delete all the old revisions, if not the entire article. Thanks, PleaseStand (talk) 05:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stubbing is fine. Is there any old material you want to keep (e.g., citations so you can rephrase information) from the history? /ƒETCH COMMS / 05:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I now have them on a talk subpage. It should be OK to delete the old revisions now. PleaseStand (talk) 05:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've deleted the old revisions. /ƒETCH COMMS / 05:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2012 February newsletter

Round 1 is already over! The 64 highest scorers have progressed to round 2. Our highest scorer was Grapple X (submissions), again thanks mostly to a swathe of good articles on The X-Files. In second place was Tigerboy1966 (submissions), thanks an impressive list of did you knows about racehorses. Both scored over 400 points. Following behind with over 300 points were Ruby2010 (submissions), Cwmhiraeth (submissions), Miyagawa (submissions) and Casliber (submissions). February also saw the competition's first featured list: List of colleges and universities in North Dakota, from Ruby2010 (submissions). At the other end of the scale, 11 points was enough to secure a place in this round, and some contestants with 10 points made it into the round on a tiebreaker. This is higher than the 8 points that were needed last year, but lower than the 20 points required the year before. The number of points required to progress to round 3 will be significantly higher.

The remaining contestants have been split into 8 pools of 8, named A through H. Round two will finish in two months time on 28 April, when the two highest scorers in each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers, will progress to round 3. The pools were entirely random, so while some pools may end up being more competitive than others, this is by chance rather than design.

The judges would like to point out two quick rules reminders. First, any content promoted during the interim period (that is, on or after 27 February) is eligible for points in round 2. Second, any content worked on significantly this year is eligible for points if promoted in this round. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which would otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MOTDs (This space for rent)

You may have noticed over the past few days that the MOTD that you link to on your user page has simply displayed a red link. This is due to the fact that not enough people are reviewing pending MOTDs here. Please help us keep the MOTD template alive and simply go and review a few of the MOTDs in the list. That way we can have a real MOTD in the future rather than re-using (This space for rent). Any help would be appreciated! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Welcome AfC

Hi, can you say, when/where and how this ^ template was used? It is unused, or? mabdul 19:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all welcome templates should be subst'd, so it won't show up anywhere from WhatLinksHere. That being said, it was intended for welcoming users who have submitted articles to AfC and I strongly encourage its adoption if not already used by others. Perhaps a bot could auto-welcome users who submit articles to AfC with it? /ƒETCH COMMS / 23:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback Please

Hello, Fetchcomms. You have new messages at Yasht101's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Yash t 101 14:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User script listings cleanup project

I'm leaving this message for known script authors, recent contributors to Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts, and those who've shown interest in user scripts.

This scripts listing page is in dire need of cleanup. To facilitate this, I've created a new draft listing at Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts cleanup. You're invited to list scripts you know to be currently working and relevant. Eventually this draft page can replace the current scripts listing.

If you'd like to comment or collaborate on this proposal, see the discussion I started here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject User scripts#Scripts listing cleanup project. Thanks! Equazcion ^(talk) 02:52, 25 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Help us develop better software!

Thanks to all of you for commenting on the NOINDEX RfC :). It's always great to be able to field questions like these to the community; it's genuinely the highlight of my work! The NOINDEX idea sprung from our New Page Triage discussion; we're developing a new patrolling interface for new articles, and we want your input like never before :). So if you haven't already seen it, please go there, take a look at the screenshots and mockups and ideas, and add any comments or suggestions you might have to the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2012 March newsletter

We are over half way through the second round of this year's WikiCup and things are going well! Grapple X (submissions), of Pool B, is our highest overall scorer thanks to his prolific writings on television and film. In second place is Pool H's Cwmhiraeth (submissions), thanks primarily to work on biological articles, especially in marine biology and herpetology. Third place goes to Pool E's Casliber (submissions), who also writes primarily on biology (including ornithology and botany) and has already submitted two featured articles this round. Of the 63 contestants remaining, 15 (just under a quarter) have over 100 points this round. However, 25 are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly. 32 contestants, the top two from each pool and the 16 next-highest scorers, will advance to round 3.

Congratulations to Matthewedwards (submissions), whose impressive File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg became the competition's first featured picture. Also, congratulations to 12george1 (submissions), who claimed good topic points, our first contestant this year to do so, for his work on Wikipedia:Featured topics/1982 Atlantic hurricane season. This leaves featured topics and featured portals as the only sources of points not yet utilised. However, as recent statistics from Miyagawa (submissions) show, no source has yet been utilised this competition to the same extent it has been previously!

It has been observed that the backlogs at good article candidates are building up again. While the points for good article reviews will be remaining constant, any help that can be offered keeping the backlog down would be appreciated. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Fetchcomms. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 23:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, Fetchcomms. 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your HighBeam account is ready!

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
- Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
- If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 20:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Type message title here

Hello Fetchcomms,

I recently stumbled upon a page that seemed to be of quite some interest. It was about Deamons in regards to astrophysics. I was just curious as to why this page was deleted. Did it contain faulty information? I am not in need of information regarding daemons of astrophysics, I was just not sure why it was deemed inapropriate. its nice to see this is in html scrtipt ^{I feel like I'm on top of the world}!

173.161.144.1 (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Using my psychic powers, I have determined the page to which you referring as ... BEEP BEEP BEEP CRITICAL ERROR PROGRAM AUTOMATICALLY TERMINATED.

Whoops, my bad. Seems like those psychic powers don't work after all. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

:)

I really wish I could hug you right now. You made me smile. MBisanz ^talk 02:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2012 April newsletter

Round 2 of this year's WikiCup is over, and so we are down to our final 32, in what could be called our quarter-finals. The two highest scorers from each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers overall, have entered round 3, while 30 participants have been eliminated. Pool B's Grapple X (submissions) remains our top scorer with over 700 points; he continues to gain high numbers of points for his good articles on The X-Files, but also Millennium and other subjects. He has also gained points for a good topic, a featured list, multiple good article reviews and several did you knows. Pool E's Casliber (submissions) was second, thanks primarily to his biology articles, with Pool H's Muboshgu (submissions) coming in third, with an impressive 46 did you knows, mostly on the subject of baseball. Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both scored over 600 points. Pools E and H proved our most successful, with each seeing 5 members qualify for round 3, while Pools C and D were the least, with each seeing only 3 reach round 3. However, it was Pool G which saw the lowest scoring, with a little under 400 points combined; Pool H, the highest scoring group, saw over triple that score.

65 points was the lowest qualifying score for round 3; significantly higher than the 11 required to enter round 2, and also higher than the 41 required to reach round 3 last year. However, in 2010, 100 points were needed to secure a place in round 3. 16 will progress to round 4. In round 3, 150 points was the 16th highest score, though, statistically, people tend to up their game a little in later rounds. Last year, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 points were needed. Guessing how many points will be required is not easy. We still have not seen any featured portals or topics this year, but, on the subject of less common content types, a small correction needs to be made to the previous newsletter: File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg, our first featured picture, was the work of both Matthewedwards (submissions) and Grandiose (submissions), the latter of whom has also gone on to score with File:Map of the Battle of Guam, 1944.svg. Bonus points also continue to roll in; this round, Ealdgyth (submissions) earned triple points for her good articles on William the Conqueror and the Middle Ages, Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both earned triple points for their work on Western Jackdaw, now a good article, Dana Boomer (submissions) earned triple points for her work on lettuce and work by Stone (submissions) to ready antimony for good article status earned him triple points. Jarry1250 (submissions) managed to expand Vitus Bering far enough for a did you know, which was also worth triple points. All of these highly important topics featured on 50 or more Wikipedias at the start of the year.

An article on the WikiCup in the Wikimedia Blog, "Improving Wikipedia with friendly competition", was posted at the end of April. This may be of interest to those who are signed up to this newsletter, as well as serving as another way to draw attention to our project. Also, we would again like to thank Jarry1250 (submissions) and Stone (submissions), for continued help behind the scenes. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recall procedure

Hi there. I have chosen you as one of the editors who may request my resignation as part of my my recall procedure. Could you have a look, and confirm whether you're happy being on the list? Thanks. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I'm perpetually a bit busy in RL but if you ever want my opinion on an administrative action, an email will merit a quick response. Cheers, /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Natural ni Koishite-Limited.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Natural ni Koishite-Limited.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. — ξ ^xplicit 23:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Life Sciences journal cover.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Life Sciences journal cover.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming Wikimedia events in Missouri and Kansas!

You're invited to 3 exciting events Wikipedians are planning in your region this June—a tour and meetup at the National Archives in Kansas City, and Wiknics in Wichita and St. Louis:

Kansas City: Saturday, June 16, starting at 9 a.m. — National Archives in Kansas City

This full-day event will include a tour of the facility; presentations from National Archives Wikipedian-in-Residence, Dominic McDevitt-Parks, and Exhibit Specialist, Dee Harris; and time in the research room to work on projects. The focus of the projects will be scanning, writing articles, transcribing, or categorizing images on Commons.

Wikipedians from St. Louis and elsewhere in the region are encouraged to make a day-trip of it and come to Kansas City for this special opportunity!

And two local editions of the Great American Wiknic, the "picnic anyone can edit." Come meet (and geek out with, if you want) your local Wikipedians in a laid-back atmosphere:

Wichita: Saturday, June 23, starting at 1 p.m. — Central Riverside Park

Join the 1st annual Wichita Wiknic: The Sunflower State blooms Free Knowledge!

St. Louis: Saturday, June 23, starting at 11 a.m. — Forest Park Visitors' Center

Join the 2nd annual St Louis Wiknic: The Gateway to the West is now The Gateway to the Wiki!

Message delivered by Dominic·t 19:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Revert

I'm not sure how this happened, but I'm sorry about it. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WT:RFA

Thought I should drop you a note that I mentioned you. - jc37 12:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

Hi, Fetchcomms. I am not able to view your signature with my settings. I have been asked to inform you to change your signature. Please see here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The request is inappropriate and has no grounding in policy. Feel free to ignore it. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Certain aspects of Wikipedia are genuinely absurd. The notion of adjusting one's signature for people with non-standard setups is one of them. Killiondude (talk) 02:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh, what about non-standard signatures? I'm not sure why you're suggesting that people shouldn't be able to easily view and interact with the site simply because someone "must" have black in his or her user signature. The default signature doesn't present any accessibility problems. The customizations that specific users have made to their user signatures do cause problems. So... who's to blame here? --MZMcBride (talk) 14:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, the non-standard layout on this very talk page also causes issues (e.g., [1] and [2]). Obviously these issues aren't as bad as not being able to read the text at all, but they still should be taken into consideration, particularly when weighing the cost agains the benefit. Not everyone keeps text at 12-point size (and frankly I think it's absurd that anyone does). Browser zooming is common and multi-column layouts like the one on this page immediately cause problems when mixed with indented text (as opposed to flat text that you might see on a page such as the Main Page). It's not so bad when section-editing, but when I view the entire page, it's a pretty awful experience. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I set body {background:#0645AD} because I think it is easier on my eyes than any other color, should I proceed to file a bug requesting that the default link color be changed in response to my accessibility needs? The sensible thing would be for me to set a {color:#fff} or something like that, I think. Regardless, the customizations that specific users have made to their user stylesheets do cause problems as well, evidently.

I acknowledge that custom signature colors do present a problem for a very, very small percentage of Wikipedia's readers and users. But to solve this problem, it would be more effective simply to disable custom signatures altogether (or implement a policy that forbids using colors other than the default, although this would still not address the issues of users who want, say, a blue background). Then, to ensure that accessibility concerns are minimized, we should have a bot go through every discussion page and change all custom-colored signatures to the default. (And let's get rid of illegible font choices, distracting backgrounds, text-shadows, and whatnot, too.) Alternatively, we could automatically wrap every signature in a white-background span tag as it is being transcluded, though that would just contribute unnecessary code.

I'm not going to change my signature now, but I will look into making my talk page design responsive in the near future. I've been putting that off until someone complained.

/ƒETCH COMMS / 23:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2012 May newsletter

We're halfway through round 3 (or the quarter finals, if you prefer) and things are running smoothly. We're seeing very high scoring; as of the time of writing, the top 16 all have over 90 points. This has already proved to be more competative than this time last year- in 2011, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 was the lowest qualifying score. People have also upped their game slightly from last round, which is to be expected as we approach the end of the competition. Leading Pool A is Cwmhiraeth (submissions), whose points have mostly come from a large number of did you knows on marine biology. Pool B's leader, Grapple X (submissions), is for the first time not our highest scorer at the time of newsletter publication, but his good articles on The X-Files and Millenium keep him in second place overall. Miyagawa (submissions) leads Pool C, our quietest pool, with content in a variety of areas on a variety of topics. Pool D is led by Casliber (submissions), our current overall leader. Nearly half of Casliber's points come from his triple-scored Western Jackdaw, which is now a featured article.

This round has seen an unusually high number of featured lists, with nearly one in five remaining participants claiming one, and one user, Muboshgu (submissions), claiming two. Miyagawa's featured list, 1936 Summer Olympics medal table, was even awarded double points. By comparison, good article reviews seem to be playing a smaller part, and featured topics portals remain two content-types still unutilised in this competition. Other than that, there isn't much to say! Things are coming along smoothly. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment of Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/Incubator/Tennessee Tax Revolt, Inc.

Hello, I noticed that you have Wikipedia:Article_Incubator/Userbox on your user page and I was hoping, if you get a second at some point, you could assess this article. I have completely rewritten it since this version which was deleted in this AfD. Thanks, --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 05:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From a cursory readover, I notice a few occurrences of possible refbombing. The prose is also choppy, with many single-sentence paragraphs. This indicates to me that the information in such sentences is trivial or minor and probably not worthy of inclusion. For example consider this sentence: "In 2009 TTR spoke at a Nashville Tea Party rally in opposition to the federal bank bailouts in response to the financial crisis and in opposition to the stimulus expenditures". If we documented the location of every speech for each political group's article, we would end up with long lists of information that aren't crucial to an encyclopedia entry. Encyclopedias are meant to comprise overviews/outlines/summaries of topics, not detailed lists of a subject's accomplishments. The inclusion of all these unimportant, timeline-y tidbits in the TTR draft makes it seem like they're included just for the sake of it, or to puff up the references section. I would only mention activities that could be considered significant in the context of Tennessee politics or TTR's history; significance could be determined on the amount of media coverage received by a particular activity. /ƒETCH COMMS / 19:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for those comments and thanks for the note on the logo discussion but I may have misunderstood something here... I haven't finished working on the article, I thought that Incubator assessment was a matter of gauging the sorts of basic criteria in {{Limbo_assessment}} as an independent evaluation of whether or not the article can be moved back to the mainspace. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 00:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that. I think it's fine for 2, 3, and 4, but I don't know about 1. As notability was a significant factor in the AfD, I think the refs and unimportant info should be groomed/pared down as I mentioned above, and then we can assess the depth of coverage in sources as well as the significant achievements of this organization. I don't see a real need to put the assessment criteria template stuff on the talk page if you're still working on the article; I don't think it's particularly useful for giving specific pointers, anyway. /ƒETCH COMMS / 03:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you for the editorial suggestions, but I guess I'm much more of an inclusionist than the author(s) of that refbomb essay. (And, honestly, I do not agree with you that encyclopedic coverage of a topic means a high-level summary or overview; in fact that's the complete opposite of what "encyclopedic" means to me. Besides that, in the interest of avoiding original research and synthesis I prefer to present discrete verifiable facts rather than attempting to summarize or paraphrase, when it's at all workable.)

I continue to be amazed that anyone would regard an organization with this much coverage, involving a hundred Google News hits showing basically all the statewide news sources in Tennessee regularly consulting them on tax issues over nearly a decade and in one case actually naming them a "leading anti-tax group", to be of questionable notability. I'm also amazed that anyone would take seriously editors like the ones in that AfD who, in claiming to have looked into the notability of the topic, would state that there are no credible sources acknowledging its importance.

I am politically on the left myself but this really confirms for me the systemic liberal bias of Wikipedia that JW himself acknowledges, though it does not seem "slight" to me as he describes it there. (But perhaps things have shifted further since that comment was made in 2007, I'd only been around for a year or so at the time.) In any case, thanks for taking a look. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 05:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a matter of inclusionism but rather of what material is relevant for the reader. Of course, this is all relative to the definition of "encyclopedic"—our own article on encyclopedias defines it as "a compendium holding a summary of information from either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge". Certainly, there's some discretion to be used when judging the level of detailed information needed to be considered excessive (e.g., we shouldn't try to include every tidbit gleaned from primary and secondary sources, as noted in WP:TERTIARY). I tend to share sympathize with your preference of presenting discrete verifiable facts, etc., and it usually doesn't matter unless readability is severely impacted, but I recommend against it in this case because of the AfD and potential controversy over recreating this article. From my own observations, I have found that many Wikipedians like to pursue article-fluffing "techniques" or characteristics like refbombing or including a long list of facts, and they could quickly jump on this article and say that the group is still not notable because many of the sources cited only offer passing mentions of the group's activities, regardless of the number of sources. (Although not a perfect comparison, the Campaign for "santorum" neologism debacle has some similarities to this situation.) I don't know whether TTR is notable or not, as I haven't read through all the sources. I do know, however, that many people say it's not notable. And because you want to recreate the article, I'm simply stating that the burden of proof is on you—clearly, defending the article during the AfD did not work out so well—so you'll need to make a bulletproof case for the subject's notability. And by leaving in things like refbombing and whatnot, you're making it easier for the opposition in a DR or future AfD even if they are wrong or blind or whatever. That was the point of my earlier advice. (For the record, I think that because the draft is substantially different than the deleted version, it should get another chance in mainspace.)

In any case, I don't think these types of debates have much to do with liberal vs. conservative. I mean, Santorum wasn't a liberal and consensus was still to pare down the neologism article.

/ƒETCH COMMS / 21:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would actually say that the AfD discussion went pretty well - nearly half of the editors commenting explicitly !voted to keep or merge, those being most of the ones who actually stayed to participate in the discussion, and of those popping in to !vote delete they made statements so obviously fallacious or flawed that they couldn't remain to defend what they'd said and even the one editor in favor of deletion who was actually willing and able to respond substantially to anyone else, the nominator, couldn't or didn't defend the others' claims and actually agreed with me on a couple points criticizing them. The problem is that the closing admin somehow arrived at the conclusion that this all meant there was a consensus for deletion supported by "thorough analysis of available sources" by "editors involved in the discussion" - not even finding a near 50/50 split or at least greater than ⅓ in favor of keeping material on the topic as "no consensus", much less appearing to seriously evaluate the validity of the arguments presented.

I guess I just disagree that the continued existence of an entire separate article about a single negative Santorum-related news story next to things like this entire TTR article being deleted show a pattern of absence of political bias... rather the opposite, IMO.

With the editors in the AfD already willing to ignore so much evidence in pursuit of deleting the article I don't think it really matters how much work anyone puts into it; if someone wants to delete it they'll just ignore it all again. At least if that happens again, this time I've done the due diligence to assess notability by going through the available sources that the other AfD commenters couldn't be arsed to do and I'm familiar enough with them now to point out things like the entire newspaper articles devoted just to interviewing the TTR's spokesman.

So, I'm planning to move this article back into the main namespace. Since you say "it should get another chance in mainspace", can I cite you on that? I really think that's all an Incubator Assessment is supposed to evaluate, not certify that there's a bulletproof case for the subject's notability, if you look at some of the other articles that have been moved from incubators back into mainspace. (Though actually I think that anyone fully reading through the article as it is now and reading the source material for it, if being sincere, would regard notability of this topic as bulletproof, and it took some severe dereliction of due diligence to find otherwise in the first place.) Honestly, I'm just trying to follow the rules about handling incubator articles so that simple procedural objections to my work on it can't be validly made. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 02:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ignorant comments decide a lot of AfDs, which is why I think your case for the article needs to be very strong. I would have taken the AfD to DR, but it's a little late for that now (and fairly useless, as you've got a completely different version already written). But anyway, you're free to cite me on anything I said here, and I'll explicitly say that the draft you have now can be moved into mainspace when you're done with it, regardless of my opinion on how the content is laid out. I really must admit that I have no idea how the incubator stuff works right now as I don't think it was ever a massively successful idea. But as the article is clearly not eligible for speedy deletion, I would say you're safe, incubator procedures or not. /ƒETCH COMMS / 20:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image OTRS has now been received for deleted image

I have now reinstated a deleted image on an article after receiving correct permission on file. Just letting you know to make sure all is ok. File: Red_lips_wall_decal_example.jpg. CreativelySpecialised (talk) 06:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems good. I apologize for not checking back after I left that message on your talk page, and for the inconvenience our system has caused. We take copyright very seriously and try to ensure that all the permission messages we receive are clear and correct so as not to unintentionally infringe on authors' rights. Regards, /ƒETCH COMMS / 16:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MOTD

Hi there, Fetchcomms! Thought you might be interested in Motto of the Day, a collaborative (and totally voluntary) effort by a group of Wikipedians to create original, inspirational mottoes. Have a good motto idea? Share it here, comment on some of the mottoes there or just pass this message onto your friends.

MOTD Needs Your Help Desperately!

Delivered By Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 17:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note this has been given to random users. (A special note to you:I love your edit notice)

I think the MOTD is a waste of time. /ƒETCH COMMS / 18:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Type message title here

I have been a victim of an illegal insurance comp as NY that keeps alienating And oppressing my life. They are contacting my friends and are excluding me from living my life. What help is there for people victims of a conspiracy and torture. This is h as opening psychologically and mentally. Please do save my life. There are many people involved.

216.198.139.84 (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Excuse me, but how is this related to Wikipedia? If you're a victim of corporate abuse, it might be best to contact your local law enforcement agency. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me}

It's almost poetic ... /ƒETCH COMMS / 18:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Alchemyst- The Secrets of the Immortal Nicholas Flamel alternative cover.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:The Alchemyst- The Secrets of the Immortal Nicholas Flamel alternative cover.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2012 June newsletter

Apologies for the lateness of this letter; our usual bot wasn't working. We are now entering round 4, our semi-finals, and have our final 16. A score of 243 was required to reach this round; significantly more than 2011's 76 points, and only a little behind 2010's 250 points. By comparison, last year, 150 points in round 4 secured a place in the final; in 2010, 430 were needed. Commiserations to Pool A's igordebraga (submissions), who scored 242 points, missing out on a place in the round by a whisker. However, congratulations to Pool B's Grapple X (submissions), whose television articles have brought him another round victory. Pool A's Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came second overall, with an impressive list of biological did you knows, good articles and featured articles. Third overall was Pool D's Muboshgu (submissions), with a long list of contibutions, mostly relating to baseball. Of course, with the points resetting every round, the playing field has been levelled. The most successful Pool was Pool D, which saw seven into the final round. Pool B saw four, C saw three and Pool A saw only the two round leaders.

A quick note about other competitions taking place on Wikipedia which may be of interest. There are 13 days remaining in the June-July GAN backlog elimination drive, but it is not too late to take part. August will also see the return of The Core Contest- a one month long competition first run in 2007. While the WikiCup awards points for audited content on any subject, The Core Contest about is raw article improvement, focussing heavily on the most important articles on Wikipedia. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 10:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Fetchcomms. You have new messages at Thine Antique Pen's talk page.
Message added 17:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Found an efficient way to link the nominations through topicons. Thanks! ⇒T A P 17:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Fetchcomms. You have new messages at [[User talk:User: Penguin 236|User talk:User: Penguin 236]].
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)

Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:

Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi^{t | c} 17:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2012 July newsletter

We're approaching the beginning of 2012's final round. Pool A sees Cwmhiraeth (submissions) as the leader, with 300 points being awarded for the featured article Bivalvia, and Pool B sees Grapple X (submissions) in the lead, with 10 good articles, and over 35 articles eligible for good topic points. Pool A sees Muboshgu (submissions) in second place with a number of articles relating to baseball, while Pool B's Ruby2010 (submissions) follows Grapple X, with a variety of contributions including the high-scoring, high-importance featured article on the 2010 film Pride & Prejudice. Ruby2010, like Grapple X, also claimed a number of good topic points; despite this, not a single point has been claimed for featured topics in the contest so far. The same is true for featured portals.

Currently, the eighth-place competitor (and so the lowest scorer who would reach the final round right now) has scored 332, more than double the 150 needed to reach the final round last year. In 2010, however, 430 was the lowest qualifying score. In this competition, we have generally seen scores closer to those in 2010 than those in 2011. Let's see what kind of benchmark we can set for future competitions! As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 22:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AFC Backlog

Articles for Creation urgently needs YOUR help!

Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 2639 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our Help Desk.

Do you have what it takes?

Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not?
Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions?
Are you autoconfirmed?
Can you review submissions based on their individual merits?

If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions.

PS: we have a great AFC helper script at User:Timotheus Canens/afchelper4.js which helps in reviewing in just few edits easily!

We would greatly appreciate your help. Currently, only a small handful of users are reviewing articles. Any help, even if it's just 2 or 3 reviews, it would be extremely beneficial.
On behalf of the Articles for Creation project,
TheSpecialUser ^TSU

Geo Swan issue at ANI

Another discussion has sprung up at WP:ANI to Topic ban Geo Swan about a year after this RfC that you participated in where you are recommended as a mentor to Geo Swan. You should probably comment at ANI and explain whether the recommended actions for the past RfC were followed and where you stand on the topic since. --Joshuaism (talk) 13:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

your assistance please

I suggested, several times, that articles on Guantanamo captives that do not measure up to today's more stringent standards, should be redirected to the articles on the article on captives of that nationality.

I have said, several times, most recently here, that I would go through those individuals, look to see if there were sufficient high quality references to bring those articles up to the wikipedia's current standard, try to fix drafts of them, outside of article space, but only restore them to article space if senior trusted contributors agreed they measured up to our current standards.

Would you agree to be one of those trusted senior contributors?

If my very persistent challengers can lay off, I think I might call on that team once or twice a week.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 15:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2012 August newsletter

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

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

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

On the subject of next year, a discussion has been opened here. Come and have your say about the competition, and how you'd like it to run in the future. This brainstorming will go on for some time before more focused discussions/polls are opened. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited to Wikipedia Takes St. Louis!

Dust off your Polaroid camera and pack your best lenses. The first-ever Wikipedia Takes St. Louis photo hunt kicks off Sat, Sept. 15, at 12:30 in downtown St. Louis. Tour the streets of the Rome of the West with other Wikipedians and even learn a little St. Louis history. This event is a fun and collaborative way to enhance St. Louis articles with visual content. Novice photographers welcome! Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 21:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Request for Administrative Review

Fetchcomms, you were the closing administrator on an RfD dated 31 Oct 2010 as listed here involving Global Defense Initiative which was voted by consensus to keep with a weak consensus to merge the article into a related Command and Conquer article. It came to my attention through a recent search for the article that modified and turned into a redirect page to List_of_Command_&_Conquer_factions#Global_Defense_Initiative.

I am requesting that you look into if the article can be reverted, as the primary reason for the article being RfD'd was because it did not meet WP:V and WP:N. I respectfully wish to challenge the decision, however WP:REVDEL instructions indicate that I must bring the issue before the closing administrator, which is you.

I understand that this is a rather old issue, and if the article was able to withstand an RfD with a consensus to keep and that it met WP:V and WP:N based on the fact that fictional organizations and factions have limited means of verifiability, and the fact that the series is being re-released, which will garner public interest, alongside a new MMO browser game that has over 1 million users and it's own wikipedia (to which I am an extensive contributor) all of which prominently feature the faction should be enough to meet the guidelines of WP:N, and to a lesser extent WP:V.

I'd like to revert the redirect back into an article and i'd like the opportunity to re-write and re-work the article to bring it to wikipedia standards. If I need to take this to RevDel, I have no problem with that, I'm just following instructions, primarily seeing as I haven't dealt with RevDel ever before.

I'd also humbly request that you reply on my talk page.

Sincere Regards, LTC b2412 Troops Talk RFC Inbox 12:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hi there

Hey Fletcher! Just wanted to say hi, that you're awesome, and that I hope you're doing well. If you're diving back into Wikipedia any time soon and want to do the Online Ambassador thing with any classes, let me know (or just do it).--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 14:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Creation urgently needs your help!

Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 2639 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our Help Desk.

Do you have what it takes?

Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not?
Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions?
Can you review submissions based on their individual merits?

If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions.

PS: we have a great AFC helper script at WP:AFCH!

News

Good article nominee

04 Aug 2012 – Parental brain (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Carina1205 (t · c); see discussion

AFCH script improvements

1.16 to 1.17
- Batman still works!

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

Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 08:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2012 September newsletter

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

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

The planning for next year's WikiCup is ongoing. Some straw polls have been opened concerning the scoring, and you can now sign up for next year's competition. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 19:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An idea to improve the ArbCom body

A very good start would involve your candidacy for the upcoming election. I can understand why you might not wish to run, but I can also hope that you will. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 06:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

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

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

EdwardsBot (talk) 00:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2012 October newsletter

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

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

The featured article award goes to Grapple X (submissions), for four featured articles in the final round.
The good article award also goes to Grapple X (submissions), for 19 good articles in the second round.
The list award goes to Muboshgu (submissions), for three featured lists in the final round.
The topic award goes to Grapple X (submissions), for three good topics (with around 40 articles) in round 4.
The did you know award goes to Cwmhiraeth (submissions), for well over 100 DYKs in the final round.
The news award goes to ThaddeusB (submissions), for 10 in the news items in round 3.
The picture award goes to Grandiose (submissions), for two featured pictures in round 2.
The reviewer award goes to both Ruby2010 (submissions) (14 reviews in round 1) and Grandiose (submissions) (14 reviews in round 3).
Finally, for achieving an incredible bonus point total in the final round, and for bringing the top-importance article frog to featured status, a biostar has been awarded to Cwmhiraeth (submissions).

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

Next year's WikiCup will begin in January. Currently, discussions and polls are open, and all contributions are welcome. You can also sign up for next year's competition. There will be no further newsletters this year, although brief notes may be sent out in December to remind everyone about the upcoming competition. It's been a pleasure to work with you all, and we hope to see you all in January! J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for creation needs YOUR help!

Articles for creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 2639 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our help desk.

Do you have what it takes?

Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not?
Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions?
Can you review submissions based on their individual merits?

If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions. Plus, reviewing is easy when you use our new semi-automated reviewing script!
Thanks in advance, Nathan2055^{talk - contribs}

Sent on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation at 22:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC). If you do not wish to receive anymore messages from this WikiProject, please remove your username from this page.

Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle

Decemmber 8 - Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited

Date Saturday, December 8, 2012
Time 10 a.m. – 3 p.m.
Location Seattle Public Library Meeting Room 1 on Level 4, Central Library, 1000 4th Avenue, Seattle WA, 98104
Event An editathon on Seattle-related Wikipedia articles with Wikipedia tutorials and Librarian assistance on hand.
Hashtag #wikiloveslib or #glamwiki.
Registration http://wll-seattle.eventbrite.com or use on-wiki regsistration.

Yours, Maximilianklein (talk) 04:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diiie

Hey Fetch, I've started working on expanding Just Give Me a Cool Drink of Water 'fore I Die [3]. You probably know that I've been working on Angelou articles for the past several years, so I thought that I'd tackle this article now, mostly for selfish reasons: it's my goal to create an Angelou FT [4] so that I can have a chance in the 2013 Wikicup, which I've entered. I wanted to ask you, as the main editor of this article up to now, if it would be all right if I changed the citation format. You use Harvard ref, which to be honest, I hate. I find it difficult to manage, confusing, and annoying. Continuing with my honesty, I've come to hate inline references as well. (Here's an example of what's becoming my preference: On the Pulse of Morning.) If you're committed to retaining your format, I can adapt, but I'm old, so I'd rather not. Or we can go in the middle and change to inline refs, as in the first tables in WP:CT. Let me know what you'd like, and we can talk. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that you haven't edited since August! Whoa! I'm gonna go ahead and make the changes as suggested above; if you come back and disagree with me, let me know at that time. Before that, if you're still lurking, best to you and happy holidays. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this is a little Christmas gift. If you're taking an interest in improving the article, go ahead and change the citation format to what makes it easier on you, and thanks so much for leaving a note here. I'm just super happy that the article is going to be more than what I left it as, because I exhausted all the resources I had access to and felt a little sad that I couldn't flesh it out more. I had a dream once of an FT for Angelou's poetry volumes, but that never happened because real life got busy. Maybe I'll find time someday; my to-do list is mighty long but I'm always hopeful. So glad you want to make this article better, because it was stagnant for a couple of years and I began to wonder if that would ever change. Regards, /ƒETCH COMMS / 05:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Articles for creation newsletter

Delivered 01:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC) by EdwardsBot. If you do not wish to receive this newsletter, please remove your name from the spamlist.

Holiday cheer

		Holiday Cheer
		Michael Q. Schmidt ^{my talk page} is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings.

Happy Holidays

Hi Fetchcomms - warm wishes for a wonderful season and a happy new year!

Mono 04:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[purge-1] Information may not be current due to caching. Click here to purge this page's server cache.

[1]

@@ Line 575: / Line 575: @@
 Hey Fetch, I've started working on expanding [[Just Give Me a Cool Drink of Water 'fore I Die]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Figureskatingfan/sandbox].  You probably know that I've been working on Angelou articles for the past several years, so I thought that I'd tackle this article now, mostly for selfish reasons: it's my goal to create an Angelou FT [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Figureskatingfan/Operation_Maya_Angelou] so that I can have a chance in the 2013 Wikicup, which I've entered.  I wanted to ask you, as the main editor of this article up to now, if it would be all right if I changed the citation format.  You use Harvard ref, which to be honest, I hate.  I find it difficult to manage, confusing, and annoying.  Continuing with my honesty, I've come to hate inline references as well.  (Here's an example of what's becoming my preference: [[On the Pulse of Morning]].)  If you're committed to retaining your format, I can adapt, but I'm old, so I'd rather not.  Or we can go in the middle and change to inline refs, as in the first tables in [[WP:CT]].  Let me know what you'd like, and we can talk.  Thanks. [[User:Figureskatingfan|Christine (Figureskatingfan)]] ([[User talk:Figureskatingfan|talk]]) 18:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 :I just noticed that you haven't edited since August!  Whoa!  I'm gonna go ahead and make the changes as suggested above; if you come back and disagree with me, let me know at that time.  Before that, if you're still lurking, best to you and happy holidays. [[User:Figureskatingfan|Christine (Figureskatingfan)]] ([[User talk:Figureskatingfan|talk]]) 21:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
+::Wow, this is a little Christmas gift. If you're taking an interest in improving the article, go ahead and change the citation format to what makes it easier on you, and thanks so much for leaving a note here. I'm just super happy that the article is going to be more than what I left it as, because I exhausted all the resources I had access to and felt a little sad that I couldn't flesh it out more. I had a dream once of an FT for Angelou's poetry volumes, but that never happened because real life got busy. Maybe I'll find time someday; my to-do list is mighty long but I'm always hopeful. So glad you want to make this article better, because it was stagnant for a couple of years and I began to wonder if that would ever change. Regards, <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/[[User:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">ƒETCH</span>]][[User talk:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">COMMS</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">/</span>]]'''</span> 05:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 == [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation|WikiProject Articles for creation newsletter]] ==