User talk:Kumioko: Difference between revisions

; Archives
	Jun 2007–Nov 2007; Dec 2007–Feb 2008; Mar 2008–Dec 2008; Jan 2009–Jun 2009; Jul 2009–Dec 2009; Dec 2009–Jun 2010; Jul 2010–Feb 2011; ; ;

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 18:42, 17 May 2011

User:Kumioko/TOC

Service Award

This editor is a
**Veteran Editor IV**
and is entitled to display
this
**Gold Editor Star**.

Here's your current service award. If you're really leaving, I guess it's not much use to you now. You might try to flash it to get a free Grand Slam Breakfast at Denny's. You never know.

I don't know anything about you, but I saw your note on Jimbo's talk page. It's not a good thing when a veteran editor feels ill-used like this, and I'm sorry that that happened to you. I wish I could do something, and I hope you change your mind. If not, best wishes, and thank you very much for your many contributions. Herostratus (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Kumioko (talk) 01:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to see you go.

I know not why you are leaving, but I am sorry to see you go. On pretty much a daily basis, I have noted your edits on articles in which we participated. I do not recall ever finding a flaw in your work. Your departure means I have one fewer good influence.

I wish you happiness and success in your future.

Georgejdorner (talk) 00:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words. --Kumioko (talk) 01:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kumioko don't go!! Maybe you just need a Wiki-cation? Don't let other editors bother you. You've done a fantastic job. --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm just tired of the editors who do nothing but find things to complain about. For months I have been pulled into constant discussions about every edit or action I seem to take by those who are more worried about filling watchlists, Wasting server resources, hurting feelings or some other equally ridiculous complaint. I edit WP because I enjoy it and because I think the work we do here is useful, needed and wanted. But I also believe that WP will go on without me and the 1000+ edits a day I do or the numerous other tasks I performed. The arrogant side of me thinks that WP is weaker for it but it will go on. Good luck and thanks again for the kind words. --Kumioko (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you and I agree. I've slowed my involvement too. However, I'm starting to re-engage a bit. I urge you to step back for as long as you want. The wiki will be okay without you. Poorer, but okay. I hope this is not the last time I see your datestamp, dude. If it is, know that you have made a difference here. You and I are way different users, but I hope we're alike in that we value the work we put into Wikipedia. Your value remains in spacespace even when you're not here to defend it. For my part I'm most proud of the tiny contributions which are still in place years after I made them. They must have been good choices to survive untouched, I think to myself. You have made thousands of good choices. I will miss your good choices, look forward to seeing your datestamp and hope to do so when you're ready. BusterD (talk) 23:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You took on a monster job. One that no one had ever tried to address before. It was needed. Sorry to see you go. Yes, the carpers will always be there. (BTW, we are having our hands full with one on MOS policy discussion, so they are a determined lot! And then there are trolls. Hard to determine the difference sometimes!). Student7 (talk) 13:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We really need the work you have been doing on Civil War Medal of Honor recipients. I hope you come back to continue that work someday. Randy Fletcher (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I'm sorry but I probably won't be doing much although I may do some here and there. Nearly every edit I do these days provokes a complaint from someone and since having many of my tool accesses removed I am not particularly useful and have basically lost my drive. editing these days just involves too much red tape. Keep up the good work though. --Kumioko (talk) 01:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How-to?

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

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

Don't

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

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

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

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

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

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

Self-block request

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

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

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

If I may

Please take a break and relax awhile.

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

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

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

WikiProject Wikify's March Mini Drive

WikiProject Wikify's March Mini!

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

Regards,

WikiProject Wikify

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

If I May

Kumioko,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And if I may

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

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

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

Bebe Zeva

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

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

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

Who was the tool that made the argument

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

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

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

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

Question

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite web and cite news

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

Tony Santiago

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

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

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

Thank you

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

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

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

Talkback

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

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

Slow down request

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

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

Care to help on C-SPAN?

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

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

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

Requesting self-revert

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

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

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

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

WikiProject module

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Found a couple of hiccups on WikiProject Module

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

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

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

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

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

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

Battleship

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

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

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

Photo requests

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

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

Alright - Here are some pics to try:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

C-SPAN update

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

Talkback

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

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

Talkback

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

A cookie for you!

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

To spread more WikiLove, install the WikiLove user script.

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

Merge

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

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

WikiProject United States Government

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

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

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

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

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

Infoboxes standardisation

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

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

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

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

Asking for help again

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

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

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

RE: United States project

Hey

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

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

Talk:Energy law

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

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

Re: US Government Project

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

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

I need my AWB access back

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question on Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard

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

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

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

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

American Art Therapy Association

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

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

The Signpost interview

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

Bot

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

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

Hey, you may be interested in this source

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

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

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

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

Talk:Aviation in Maryland

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

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

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

text for newsletter

How's this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Primetime Emmy US template?

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

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

AWB talk page fixes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

April Newsletter for WikiProject United States

Newsletter delivery

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

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

AWB talk page fixes (again)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments

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

Smart watchlist

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

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

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

Asian American article Undue template discussion

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

FYI

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

Task

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

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

Hello Kumioko

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

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

Block vs stop

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

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

Thank you for feedback on PTSD article

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

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

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

Your recent edit to Shakespeare Theatre Company

Good Morning

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

May I ask what your rationale for this was?

ed

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

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

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

ibid tag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AWB edits

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

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

WPUS newsletters

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

Glenn Curtiss

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

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

Cite Errors

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

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

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

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

Invitation to take part in a study

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

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

Freestanding templates

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

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

WikiProject United States Government

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

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

New AWB snapshot available

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

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

Redundant citation specifications

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

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

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011

Your Military History Newsletter

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

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

Template:WPUSA

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

User rights

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

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

Projects

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

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

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

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

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

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

Articles under the scope of multiple state WikiProjects

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

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

May 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

fyi, re User talk:Perseus8235

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

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

Userpages

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

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

Talkback

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

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

Template talk:USPlacePop/Florida/doc

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Awarded Barnstar

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

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

Irish Medal of Honor Receipients

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

The Wikifier: March 2011

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

Hello Wikifiers!

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

Happy Wikifying,

Sumsum2010, the assistant coordinator of WikiProject Wikify

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

Kenneth Walker

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

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

Redirects

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

@@ Line 708: / Line 708: @@
 Just a note to let you know that I have Medal of Honor winner [[Kenneth Walker]] up for [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kenneth Walker/archive1‎|FAC]]. Let's hope he doesn't get shot down this time. [[User:Hawkeye7|Hawkeye7]] ([[User talk:Hawkeye7|talk]]) 00:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 :Thanks, I agree and for what its worth I think the article looks great. I just spent a big portion of the last week making sure that the Jewish recipients list didn't get demoted and I still got a little work to do. --[[User:Kumioko|Kumioko]] ([[User talk:Kumioko#top|talk]]) 00:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
+== Redirects ==
+Hey, I saw [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AUnited_States_Marine_Crucible&action=historysubmit&diff=429586205&oldid=291382299 this] on my watchlist. Are you tagging redirects on purpose? Not that I have a problem with it, but it seems rather useless to me, and wanted to be sure it wasn't an AWB going awry. '''[[User:Bahamut0013|<span style="background:#2F4F4F;color:#FFF;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> bahamut0013</span>]]'''<span style="background:#DCDCDC"><small>[[User talk:Bahamut0013|<sup style="color:#000;margin-left:-1px">words</sup>]][[Special:Contributions/Bahamut0013|<sub style="color:#000;margin-left:-16px">deeds</sub>]]</small></span> 18:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)