This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi. I'm looking for occassional guidance. I've gotten captivated the pages involving T-carrier, the T1 Transmission System, DS-1, etc., all of which are part of the telecommunications infrastructure in this country, and the inaccuracies, inconsistancies, and disorganization. I'd like to help. Would appreciate having someone to bounce ad hoc questions off of. I'n not looking for a teacher, necessarily, I recognize its my responsibility to read the manual before energizing. But it would be nice to have a life line. Also, if you have a recommendation on a "Writting for Wikipedia" book I'll grab it next time I hit Barnes & Noble. (I know there a lot of material on line, but I'm 65; I like books). Thanks, tTballister (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Just to cut the message short and to be more accurate: If you are looking for a full adoption (going through the policies and processes) I would be more than happy to take you on. If however you looking for just someone you can ask questions to, Then you may ask them as I try to be as helpful as possible. John F. Lewis (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, will appreciate that. Tballister (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok, Question 1.
What is the best way to change the names of existing articles? Relative to re-organizing the pages of the T1/DS-1 topic(s) I'd like to:
- Rename the current article "T-carrier" to "T1 Transmission System", becausse almost all content there presently is specific to the T1 member of the T-carrier group,
- Then create a new "T-carrier" page that cites the full heirarcy of systems that were defined, preserving the small section on this in the current T-carrier page.
- Rename the current page "Digital multiplex hierarchy" to "Digital Signal Hierarchy", because its content discusses the formally named "Digital Signal Hierarchy".
The resulting set of article names is:
"T-carrier" - a group of systems that carry information on copper. (article exists but convolutes multiple topics)
"T1 Trasmission System" - just one of the T-carrier systems that were designed and deployed. (Article doesn't exist)
"Digital Signal Hierarchy" - A group of signal formats for the information sent on the copper, and were referred to as levels. (Content exists under "Digial Multiplex Heirarchy")
"Digital Signal 1" - just one of the Digital Signal Levels. (Article exists, but doesn't reference the hierarchy it belongs to).
Not having time to look into the articles indepth: I believe your plans are just reorganizing the naming of the articles. If so as long as the topic matches the title they should be good. For the non existing article just move it. I asked an admin to come and check if the other 3 could pass for a deletion for a move (CSD G6). John F. Lewis (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
You seem to have hit the nail on the head in regard to what you should and want to do.:
Go back to T1 Transmission System after the move and recreate the article listing the group of systems as you said above.
You could move Digital multiplex hierarchy straight to Digital Signal Hierarchy. Alternatively you could create a redirect and leave the article where it is. Do whichever feels more appropriate given your knowledge.
Awesome folks. Thank you! t Tballister (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
RE:Wikipedia Requests for permissions
"You mentioned keeping them vandal free, maybe you are looking for Rollbacker as the reviewer right does not allow any special vandal fighting rights. John F. Lewis (talk) 8:50 pm, 19 January 2013, last Saturday (3 days ago) (UTC+0)"
Yes I see Rollbacker is more suitable for me, can you assign? Regards --palmiped | Talk 15:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I can't, but I'll ping an admin who can. John F. Lewis (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Notificación de traducción: Wikidata:Community portal
Hola John F. Lewis,
Estás recibiendo esta notificación porque te inscribiste como traductor de Wikidata en español, galés y polaco.
Hello, I've just marked a version of the community portal for translation. Hopefully, the version as it is will be sufficient for now. Please help with the translation. Thanks.
Agradecemos enormemente tu ayuda. Traductores como tú hacen que Wikidata funcione
como una verdadera comunidad multilingüe.
¡Gracias!
Los coordinadores de traducción de Wikidata, 07:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
AFT5 newsletter
Hey all; another newsletter.
If you're not already aware, a Request for Comment on the future of the Article Feedback Tool on the English-language Wikipedia is open; any and all comments, regardless of opinion and perspective, are welcome.
Our final round of hand-coding is complete, and the results can be found here; thanks to everyone who took part!
We've made test deployments to the German and French-language projects; if you are aware of any other projects that might like to test out or use the tool, please let me know :).
Developers continue to work on the upgraded version of the feedback page that was discussed during our last office hours session, with a prototype ready for you to play around with in a few weeks.
That's all for now! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I've been making some progress on Snuggle development recently and I could use your feedback. Specifically, I've created a work log that I plan to update every time I get a chance to work on Snuggle. My intention is that you'll be able to watch that page to track my progress so I can get your feedback on features when they are early in development. The most recent entry (also the only entry) discusses new functionality for interacting with newcomers via Snuggle. I posted some mockups in the work log that show how I imagine the new features to work and I could use some feedback before I start writing the code. Thanks! --EpochFail(talk • work) 20:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
BAGBot: Your bot request JohnFLBot
Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/JohnFLBot as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 20:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.
Notificación de traducción: Wikidata:Administrators
Hola John F. Lewis,
Estás recibiendo esta notificación porque te inscribiste como traductor de Wikidata en español, galés y polaco.
La página Wikidata:Administrators está disponible para su traducción. Puedes traducirla aquí:
There's a new version of the page to translate. There's significantly more content in it that needs to be translated. Every translation needs to be updated. Thanks.
Agradecemos enormemente tu ayuda. Traductores como tú hacen que Wikidata funcione
como una verdadera comunidad multilingüe.
¡Gracias!
Los coordinadores de traducción de Wikidata, 21:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
The deletion of the characters section was due to it being unnecessary and more detailed than what is needed. I posted on the talk page for Wizard101 stating my intentions, as well as that I would carry them out if nobody was opposed. Since nobody replied to my comment, I assumed that it was OK, especially since the Wizard101 page has a flag for having minutiae. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakomwolvesbane (talk • contribs) 23:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Saying 'If no one opposes' is not consensus that stands. A discussion has to take place for consensus to be reached. In addition Wikipedia articles are supposed to be detailed and informative. Unless what you deleted was about lets say Minecraft on that article: It is necessary. Plus removal of which with no proper consensus is usually considered vandalism. John F. Lewis (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
OK, I see. I'll wait for responses/discussion, but what if nobody responds within, say, two weeks? Is there a point at which I can take the lack of response to be affirmation, or should I just keep waiting indefinitely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakomwolvesbane (talk • contribs) 00:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately with consensus, if it doesn't come naturally you would have to force it by posting at the appropriate WikiProject or contacting editors to put their view in. John F. Lewis (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Hmmmm OK. Thanks for your help.
Rakomwolvesbane (talk) 01:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Questions from last night
Turns out I fell asleep but I spotted the questions and things you said last night so...
"I made a quick pull to correct a word in a comment... Most pointless pull ever though :)" My spelling can sometimes be terrible in comments, i type them so quickly and generally dont read them.
"It removes the {{stub}} tag: Considered adding the {{stub}} tag?" currently the $tag's in the config are only tags to add to the multiple issues template. as there are literally hundreds or thousands of stub tags we decide not to set them in the config as we can match them all with a regex :) and if we ever get around to adding them we can just use {{stub}} rather than one of the stub types.
"are there any tags Addbot does not apply that you wish it would/could?" yes all of them.
Hello John F. Lewis. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Bounce With Me (B.G. Song), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to records. Thank you. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk 06:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for informing me Malik Shabazz. John F. Lewis (talk) 12:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Article
Johmn why did you move my page back to user, I'm trying to move my page to the main stream Wikipedia. Can you help me try to understand why it was moved back by you to user and not to Wikipedia? Thanks Carl Mazaros 23:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MafiaMobDoll (talk • contribs)
You moved it to the Wikipedia Namespace when it should have been in the article namespace. That pretty much governs my move. John F. Lewis (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
John we are not playing chess, just asked a simple question as to why? If you would have stated in the first place I moved my article to the wrong format, it would have saved us alot of misunderstanding. So what you are telling me is to move my page to article namespace, can I ask why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MafiaMobDoll (talk • contribs) 23:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
It belongs in the main space purely because that is how the encyclopaedia is organised. The Wikipedia namespace is reserved for contributions to project policy or organised discussion among users. John F. Lewis (talk) 23:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Noya (given name), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Israeli (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
My Page
John why did you ask my page to be deleted? I worked very hard on this bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MafiaMobDoll (talk • contribs) 00:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I didn't. I moved your page back to where it is appropriate and nominated the redirect I created. John F. Lewis (talk) 00:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
John why did you as for my page regarding Wendy Hanley-Mazaors to be deleted? I have worked very hard on this bio, along with help from Wikipedia. So Please tell me why you would do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MafiaMobDoll (talk • contribs) 00:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Again: I did not ask for deletion. I am requesting deletion of a redirect I created. I moved your article back to your user space. John F. Lewis (talk) 00:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
John I'm asking why you moved my page back to user, when I'm trying to move the page to main stream Wikipedia? Please help me try to understand why you did this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MafiaMobDoll (talk • contribs) 23:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Please tell me why you re-directed my page? I need an explanation for Wikipedia? Please answer my question? I have contacted Wikipedia and they informed me, they did NOT delete or re-direct my page. So why would you take the time and re-diorect my page, when this bio is truthful, and backed up with hundreds of media information, books, and television. Carl Mazaros 23:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MafiaMobDoll (talk • contribs)
User:MafiaMobDoll, I'm looking at User:MafiaMobDoll/Wendy Mazaros, and I see an advertisement, not at all written in the neutral tone of an encyclopedia article. In fact, it is so promotional in tone that I wonder if you are Ms. Mazaros herself, or a close associate of hers. Before it's ready for encyclopedia space, it'll need to be rewritten in a neutral way. If you are a person with a conflict of interest in this subject, it would be better if you didn't write about it, but focused your attention on articles you can improve on subjects that you aren't directly connected with. Don't worry- if this is truly a notable person, it's inevitable that she'll be written about by a person who is unconnected to her. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
FisherQueen this article was based on fact, and references. How would you suggest it be written in a neutral content. How it was written was mostly by quotes from newspaper articles, media reports, and her book that spans over 35 years. Sorry I must disagree with you... She did not write the article and that is all that matters. Please read again, almost every sentence has a reference... This is neutral and true... I could have added 100 more references to make even more neutral. I like the way I wrote it, short, sweet and to the point. It tells a story of a runaway child who ends up in a Circle of Terror! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MafiaMobDoll (talk • contribs) 00:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Neutrality is not based on references. Neutrality is based on the point of view. These are just some of the things that are not neutral about it: "tender age", "fell into the arms", "Binion threw Wendy", the use of bold/big in "Corporate Promoter for the Dragna Crime Family and LA Crime Family", "and enjoys a wide circle of family and friends", "harrowing life story", "vivid portrait". Also, you say that you used "quotes from...". If you copied the whole article from other sources, then it's a copyright violation and will be deleted soon. gwickwiretalkedits 00:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
FisherQueen thank you for the add on in regards to the first sentence, after reading it, I kinda see what you mean. actually there is not that much about Wendy it is all about who was in her life. The article should just be about Wendy? Should I leave out her husbands, family and or anything contected to her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MafiaMobDoll (talk • contribs) 00:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
qwickwire, yes I used references and quotes, but they are attached as references, through news media outlets, and wikipedia. I did NOT write the quotes, did not need too, they are in the references. Since when was it against the wiki rules to bold certain names and things? Makes the story stand out.
I tried to help, but I had a lot of trouble understanding why this person is notable. The reliable sources you cited didn't discuss her in any meaningful way, while the sources that did talk about her didn't meet the reliable sources guidelines and were mostly about the fact that she has written a book. Wikipedia:FA#History_biographies is a list of some of the best biography articles on Wikipedia; they might help you to see what a really good biography looks like, so you have a sort of model as you work. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
We aren't here to "make the story stand out". Please see WP:BOLD. Also, you cannot copy quotes from sources, even if referenced, and pass it off as your own article. If you don't fix that soon I'll have to request deletion as a big admitted copyvio. gwickwiretalkedits 19:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
John, are you taking new adoptees right now? If so, User:Sneazy is looking for someone who has a course, and most of the others I can think of are full. Yunshui recommended you. Sneazy spelled out what he was looking for in an adopter here, and you seem to fit his criteria. GoPhightins! 11:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
I am indeed taking on new adoptees. I shall reply to the user on their talk page, thanks for pointing this out to me Go Phightins, John F. Lewis (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Good luck. GoPhightins! 20:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Demiurge can be held responsible for whatever he does elsewhere, but you will be held responsible for any edit warring you do on his talk page. Per the link above, he can remove whatever he wishes from his talk page. RyanVesey 23:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
I am stopping now. Clear false reverts on the project; False policy comments; Two occasions of 3RR violation and a refusal to co-operate. I have had enough of Demiurge1000 doing this and so as with it, An Administrator recommend doing this and with refusal, It is up to them to deal with it now. Though, Thank you for your message Ryan. John F. Lewis (talk) 23:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Please don't change a comment you make after someone has replied to it. Instead, strike out whatever you want to strike out, and add any new comment lower in the thread. That way, people will know you no longer intend to say that, but can still understand what people replying to you were replying to There's a guideline that says this somewhere, but hopefully you can see the reason behind it and I won't have to go looking for it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC) p.s. A day or so ago, I copied your comment that Demiurge removed a little further down in the thread. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC) (See, this is how you do it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC))
I believe the behavioural guideline you are looking for is WP:REDACTWormTT(talk) 14:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Actually, on reflection, it looks like John F. Lewis, and Demiurge1000, and Go Phightins, and GiantSnowman, and Gwickwick, all want to disrupt everyone else's life by feuding about stupid things. I can only handle one disruptive editor at a time; if there are going to be five of them, I give up and withdraw my participation. Sooner or later, someone will take it to ANI, and it will be blissfully off my watchlist. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I have put a note in to state it was refactored [1]. Please carry on with normal business. If I see any more edit warring, I will hand out blocks. WormTT(talk) 15:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I would just like to state none of the previous edits I made were to be seen as disruptive but rather genuine edits. Also Floquenbeam, A part if this was taken to .ANI about Demiurge1000 claiming my request for him to explain two edits as vandalism but was closed by Writ Keeper. Though I have no intentions to keep up communications with Demiurge1000 after the events that took place yesterday and for that I apologies to anyone who saw and/or considered it to be a purpose case of disruptive editing. John F. Lewis (talk)
That's medeis, not mendeis. And next time someone who's been adopted makes the exact same unwelcome edit three times, over an edit summary, and over the most obvious possible hidden comments you can imagine, deleting "'''<!--lay off with the edits to my comment-->'''" around every phrase in my edit, while leaving "or" in place between the hidden comments, i'll go to you first. In the meantime, please refrain from further comments in regard to this user on my talk page. μηδείς (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
New Article Feedback version available for testing
Hey all.
As promised, we've built a set of improvements to the Article Feedback Tool, which can be tested through the links here. Please do take the opportunity to play around with it, let me know of any bugs, and see what you think :).
A final reminder that the Request for Comment on whether AFT5 should be turned on on Wikipedia (and how) is soon to close; for those of you who have not submitted an opinion or !voted, it can be found here.
WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive
WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from March 1st, 2013 – March 31st, 2013.
Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!
Round 1 is now over. The top 64 scorers have progressed to round 2, where they have been randomly split into eight pools of eight. At the end of April, the top two from each pool, as well as the 16 highest scorers from those remaining, will progress to round 3. Commiserations to those eliminated; if you're interested in still being involved in the WikiCup, able and willing reviewers will always be needed, and if you're interested in getting involved with other collaborative projects, take a look at the WikiWomen's Month discussed below.
Round 1 saw 21 competitors with over 100 points, which is fantastic; that suggests that this year's competition is going to be highly competative. Our lower scores indicate this, too: A score of 19 was required to reach round 2, which was significantly higher than the 11 points required in 2012 and 8 points required in 2011. The score needed to reach round 3 will be higher, and may depend on pool groupings. In 2011, 41 points secured a round 3 place, while in 2012, 65 was needed. Our top three scorers in round 1 were:
Miyagawa (submissions), primarily for an array of did you knows and good articles, some of which were awarded bonus points.
Casliber (submissions), due in no small part to Canis Minor, a featured article awarded a total of 340 points. A joint submission with Keilana (submissions), this is the highest scoring single article yet submitted in this year's competition.
Other contributors of note include:
Sven Manguard (submissions), whose Portal:Massachusetts is the first featured portal this year. The featured portal process is one of the less well-known featured processes, and featured portals have traditionally had little impact on WikiCup scores.
Featured topics have still played no part in this year's competition, but once again, a curious contribution has been offered by The C of E (submissions): did you know that there is a Shit Brook in Shropshire? With April Fools' Day during the next round, there will probably be a good chance of more unusual articles...
March sees the WikiWomen's History Month, a series of collaborative efforts to aid the women's history WikiProject to coincide with Women's History Month and International Women's Day. A number of WikiCup participants have already started to take part. The project has a to-do list of articles needing work on the topic of women's history. Those interested in helping out with the project can find articles in need of attention there, or, alternatively, add articles to the list. Those interested in collaborating on articles on women's history are also welcome to use the WikiCup talk page to find others willing to lend a helping hand. Another collaboration currently running is an an effort from WikiCup participants to coordinate a number of Easter-themed did you know articles. Contributions are welcome!
A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 00:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Hey John F. Lewis; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for preserving the page. Mfribbs (talk) 16:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I overlooked several notable sources by accident which lead me to believe the CSD was removed on a 'I believe it may' situation. Once I started to see notable sources popping up on the article and in the discussion I had to withdraw in order to stop time being wasting on an article that clearly meets inclusion. John F. Lewis (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
It's alright, thanks for editing some of the article. Mfribbs (talk) 12:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Your speedy deletion template was deleted
John, you recently put a speedy deletion template on the New Sweet Home page, which had been started by User:Kaylee Elizabeth xx. Rather than follow instructions, she deleted the template.
New Sweet Home is claimed on User:Kaylee Elizabeth xx's user page as a Fox show that she, herself, starred in. (It also claims she was born in late 1998, making her 14 now.) The user page is currently also up for deletion: it contains clear falsehoods, like the claim that she's done music for Glee albums.
The user page has also been edited extensively by 82.30.29.154, who may well be Kaylee herself under an IP, and who has been around rather longer. The IP was blocked in January for vandalism, but User talk:82.30.29.154 was scrubbed shortly thereafter, erasing the visible trail of warnings and worse. Lately the talk-page warnings have been getting serious once again. I'm not sure whether it's appropriate to reinstate the speedy deletion template; if so, I'll leave it to you to pursue this. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Thankyou for pointing out the removal and the creator has connections towards the show, plus the fact being a minor also brings some weight. I it is removed again, I would either tale to AfD (useless in this instance) or ill just poke a admin to deal with it. John F. Lewis (talk) 09:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
A7
My apologies. However, I don't think the hoax criteria is applicable; this does seem to be an educational institution of little note. dci | TALK 22:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I did a search before putting it under the criteria and I did not find anything with that specific name and what I did, did not match anything provided within the article, plus due to state of it any criteria would apply in all honesty. It was also previously deleted as a Hoax before I tagged it (again). John F. Lewis (talk) 22:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
This [2] indicates it exists. I find it a bit unfortunate that there isn't some sort of CSD pertaining to schools; indeed, the criteria in question can occasionally be quite frustrating. dci | TALK 22:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
True. Though the article does not saying 'THIS IS A SCHOOL'. It rather screams else as all the information contains 'x'. You can Multi other criteria if you wish though it may apply under Hoax as per the previous deletion so either way, it applies under some criteria somewhere. John F. Lewis (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Although I'm still leaning towards saying this place exists, I understand your rationale behind placing the hoax criteria on the article. Thanks for your willingness to discuss this issue. dci | TALK 22:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Always willing to discuss. I had experience with CSD/AfDs where others refuse to co operate and it is really irritating. I aim to never do such as discussion shows civility. John F. Lewis (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
John, your userpage suggests that you will do GA reviews, and I have a few that are outstanding that I'd like to wrap up including 2012 Liberty Bowl and 2012 Hawaii Bowl if you don't mind. GoPhightins! 23:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I'll take a look at them tomorrow (Since it is already tomorrow here... When ever I get time), Go Phightins. John F. Lewis (talk) 23:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Pages created. If you watchlist them, It will then tell you when I start officially reviewing them. John F. Lewis (talk) 23:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
John F. Lewis, thank you for interest in the account creation process. I have verified your Identification[3] and I have approved your request, welcome to the team. Once a tool root for the ACC interface marks you as identified in the system, you will be able to access the tool here (I will post here once a tool root has done so). Before you do handle a request, please read the account creation guide and our username policythoroughly to familiarize yourself with the process. You should also join us on IRC#wikipedia-en-accountsconnect where a bot informs us when new account requests come in and to get any advice on requests as well as the mailing list. Please note that we have implemented a policy of zero tolerance on mishandled requests, and that failure to assess correctly will result in suspension. I would like to emphasize that it is not a race to complete a request, and each one should be handled diligently and thoroughly. Currently you are allowed to create up to six accounts per day, although you won't be able to create an account with a similar name to that of another user; these requests are marked "Account Creator Needed" by the bot in the IRC and "Flagged user needed" on the interface. However, if you reach the limit frequently, you can request the account creator permission at WP:PERM/ACC. Please keep in mind that the ACC tool is a powerful program, and misuse will result in your access being suspended by a tool administrator. Don't hesitate to get in touch with me if you have any questions. Thank you for participating in the account creation process. Again welcome! -- Cheers,Riley 17:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello, John F. Lewis. 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.
Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), primarily for an array of warship GAs.
Miyagawa (submissions), primarily for an array of did you knows and good articles, some of which were awarded bonus points.
Casliber (submissions), due in no small part to Canis Minor, a featured article awarded a total of 340 points. A joint submission with 
Keilana (submissions), this is the highest scoring single article yet submitted in this year's competition.
Sven Manguard (submissions), whose Portal:Massachusetts is the first featured portal this year. The featured portal process is one of the less well-known featured processes, and featured portals have traditionally had little impact on WikiCup scores.
Sasata (submissions), whose Mycena aurantiomarginata was the first featured article this year.
Muboshgu (submissions) and 
Wizardman (submissions), who both claimed points for articles in the Major League Baseball tie-breakers topic, the first topic points in the competition.
Toa Nidhiki05 (submissions), who claimed for the first full good topic with the Casting Crowns studio albums topic.
The C of E (submissions): did you know that there is a Shit Brook in Shropshire? With April Fools' Day during the next round, there will probably be a good chance of more unusual articles...
