User talk:rst20xx/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Any comments made by me are in bold - rst20xx.

Addition of Nicole to Characters of Halo FT?

Hey, if you look back to the Characters of Halo FT nom, you'll recall that the nom ultimately failed to include Nicole (Dead or Alive) because at that time she was not properly integrated into Characters of Halo or Template:Halo characters. Well, as I know you're aware, she's now integrated, and has been for over a month. I think we should bring a nom to add her to the topic; in fact, I feel that now she is integrated properly, not including her would cause the topic to fail criterion 1.d), as I think she constitutes an obvious gap. Thoughts? rst20xx (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan to me :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, it's here - rst20xx (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

FT

This edit appears to have presented a redlink where a redlink is inappropriate. Please fix it! Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, oops. Fixed it. Sorry, and thanks! rst20xx (talk) 22:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No worries. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:FTC

Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but I thought that only User:Arctic.gnome promoted FTCs? Gary King (talk) 03:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Not at all, look back through the history and you will see that many users have done it. He tends to be the one to do it, filling the role of unofficial curator, but if you look at his editing history you'll see he hasn't been on in 5 days now, and quote WP:FTC: "Nominations will stay here for ten days if there is unanimous consent, or longer if warranted by debate", so those two promotions I carried out were overdue - rst20xx (talk) 14:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Priestley FT?

Hello, Wikipedia:Featured topics/Joseph Priestley shouldn't be where it is, as it was never a featured topic. Are you thinking about building such a featured topic? Anyway, I think we should either delete this page or move it to your userspace. At any rate, the template on the talk page should not be used because its use here is messing up the categories and causing the page to be tagged as a "former featured topic" - rst20xx (talk) 14:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to delete it. I created that before I fully understood what a featured topic was. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 14:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Slipknot discography

Please withdraw it for me. I'd like to renominate it again when it's ready. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 16:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll do it now - rst20xx (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Smallville FT

I appreciate you closing the discussion based on your interpretation that consensus was to promote. I would also like to apologize some for Lucifer's remarks. Though I appreciate their support, I felt (after reading it all) that they came off as a little aggressive toward you in particular, and I don't think that was called for.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! :) I think I did dither about that a bit, but I didn't want to close it in the middle of an ongoing discussion, and hey, I'm new to this whole thing anyway :P rst20xx (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I've been here for more than 2 years (with 30,000 + edits), and I still learn new things all the time. lol.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I meant new to the FT promoting thing (only doing it cos Arctic Gnome is on holiday!), but nevermind! rst20xx (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)'

Oh no, I knew what you meant. lol. I was merely trying to relate that you can be here for many years and always find something that you aren't familiar with entirely.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I wasn't sure. But yes, that is entirely true - rst20xx (talk) 21:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Featured topics, record month

If you would like a slot at WP:FCDW to write up a WP:SIGNPOST about Featured topics (which would discuss the milestone as well as history, highpoints, any other news of mention), please join in at WT:FCDW. You would write it, others would help with the presentation and copyedit. See past Dispatches at {{FCDW}}. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'll think about it. But I think it'd be better to do it for September 8, once the month is over, than August 25. Thanks for the advice though! - rst20xx (talk) 00:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No prob, but ... Again, please weigh in at the workshop if you are going to want a slot. I have to allocate spots in advance, so you can't pop up on Sep 5 and tell me you want Sep 8 (and if you take a slot, we need for you to honor the commitment to write the article. I offered a slot to a group once that dropped the ball and left us scrambling). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, if I decide to go for it, it'll be in the next week or so, and I'll announce it and get something done. Should leave plenty of time - rst20xx (talk) 00:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll go ahead and line up something for the 25th then; keep us posted at the Dispatch if you decide you want a slot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Your thoughts on an FTC

Since you're experienced in FTCs, I'm curious to know what you think about this. If Dangerously In Love were brought to FTC, then it's singles would be the articles. One of the singles is What's It Gonna Be (Beyoncé Knowles song); it is extremely hard to find information on it beyond what is already there (it was only released in Japan, etc. so there isn't much in English, and I don't think there is even much in Japanese). What are your thoughts about bringing this up to standard (i.e. GA at the minimum)? I really doubt it could pass GA at this point, so would it be possible to pass as an audited article – even though it's not a future release or anything? It is an article of somewhat limited subject matter, per WP:FT?. Your thoughts? (Please respond on my talk page as I won't watchlist this. Thanks!) Gary King (talk) 06:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, good question. Well firstly I want to point out that there are no rules in WP:GA? regarding minimum length of GAs, so in theory, so long as it is as well researched as it reasonably can be, then it should be able to pass GA. Further I would point out that all articles currently in topics as audited articles are Lists. The first article to go in as an audited list failed a FLC simply because it was too short (though there is no rule at WP:FL? about length either but there you go). So my opinion on the matter then, is that I would oppose any inclusion of a non-GA, unless that non-GA has been nominated for GA, and failed solely due to inherent shortness. In which case I would probably disagree with whoever did the GA review on that front, but there's nothing you can do about that and hence I think it's a de facto GA (just a bit shorter) and so would be fine for inclusion. Make sense?

On the article front, maybe you could see if you can find a Japanese speaker to do some searching for you, but I agree that that looks like there won't be much out there :/ - rst20xx (talk) 15:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay thanks I hadn't thought of it that way so I will keep all of that in mind. I definitely don't mind taking my time before submitting something at FTC, as evidenced by my withdrawal of the Slipknot topic, but if I take several weeks to work on a topic, submit it, and people oppose for reasons like this, then, well :| Gary King (talk) 17:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, absolutely :/ But if you have you do what I suggested and nominate it for GA regardless of how successful I think it will be, then I think you really have your bases covered. I'm thinking of starting a campaign in favour of removing any minimum length misgivings for featured/good content, because really the ratings should just reflect the quality of the content, not the quantity. And if that's successful, then we can do away with the "limited subject matter" clause at FTC, as well - rst20xx (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

If I built a topic around a film director/producer, and the articles were only the articles that the person directed and not those that he produced, would you think that is acceptable? The person is more well known as a director than a producer, but has done a substantial number of films in both fields. Thoughts? (Please post reply on my talk page, again, thanks!) Gary King (talk) 09:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

If you called it "Films directed by person", I would support, yes. See also the state touring routes topic, which excludes the US, Interstate and unsigned routes, despite its main article doesn't - rst20xx (talk) 13:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

That is an interesting example. These are all rather arbitrary scopes and I imagine if the scope is arbitrary enough that it doesn't make much sense, then opposes will follow. Gary King (talk) 18:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is much correct. It is up to the voters to determine whether a scope is too arbitrary, or is oversplitting a topic, and for that reason I cannot guarantee you won't get some oppose votes, just that in your example I would support - rst20xx (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Good topics#Straw poll

I know this is sort of silly but did you mean for your comment to be in the "Neutral" subsection? If not, I created another subsection for Comments, but if so, no worries. Thanks for all your help pushing forward a polite and constructive dialogue about all this. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 21:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I meant it as a comment. I'm not sure yet I would necessarily support such a seperate project, as I think it would work better integrated into WP:FT as I outlined at the talk page there, but let's see where this conversation we're having goes - rst20xx (talk) 21:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I had an idea; why not make Featured Topics All Featured, and move all the other ones down to Good Topics? That way, if you have all FA stars, its at Featured Topics, if you have some FA's or even all GA's, it's at Good Topics. That way, the delineation between the two topics is easy. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but then there is no extra recognition over "all-good article good topics" for those topics with a mixture of good and featured content. The step from good topic to featured topic you're proposing is fairly large, and I believe that editors would be more motivated if the step was smaller. However, if you look back to my original proposal on the subject, here, you will see that I proposed a three-tier system - good topics, featured topics as somewhere in the middle, and fully featured topics for topics with just featured content, which solves the problem of the giant leap from all-good to all-featured by providing an intermediate target - rst20xx (talk) 20:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

True, but run the numbers; 15 of the 54 current featured topics are all featured, and 9 of them only need one more article to be all featured as well, so there could easily be 20-24 all featured topics within a few months of implementation. Then there are a few topics that are only a few articles away from all featured, so I don't think it would be that big a leap. How is the Good Topic thing going? Is it going to be separate from FT? Does it look like it will pass? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

To me, it looks like it will pass, but possibly as a part of WP:FT - though I'm not sure about the latter bit. As someone who also voted in favour of having it as part of WP:FT, I would appreciate any opinions you would like to express on Wikipedia talk:Good topics. As for the 3-tier thing, the numbers breakdown you provide is interesting, however this still leaves 30 topics which are substantially better than the floor for good topics, but more than one article off being fully featured. Okay, this might come down a bit if the floor for featured criteria goes up, but not to more than 20, and also you need to bear in mind that as the number of featured topics increase, all these categories will expand over time - rst20xx (talk) 21:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Bolding and use of CAPS

In my opinion your use of bolding and CAPS at Wikipedia talk:Good topics is a bit much. Suggest you tone it down a little bit, it will help yield a much more productive, mellow, and constructive dialogue throughout the discussion. Cirt (talk) 01:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I bolded/capsed the request for people to vote on the second proposal as I wanted people to see it, and it annoyed me when someone would go and vote on the first proposal but not the second. I'm not really sure why you're writing this on my talk page in the first place, ironically it seems a bit aggressive of you to me to be trying to give me advice on such a little thing - rst20xx (talk) 01:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You do not think people will notice the long-heading title you gave the second straw poll in the Table of Contents? My apologies if this seems aggressive, how else should I have made this request to you not to use bolding and CAPS - would it have been better if I did so at Wikipedia talk:Good topics and not on your talk page? Cirt (talk) 02:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, not necessarily no, and this is supported by the aforementioned fact that several editors have voted on the first proposal and not the second since I put the second proposal up. Secondly, I am saying that I don't see why you are making this request at all, you must have realised that it would simply cause more conflict, and nothing else. And if you didn't realise it when you first wrote here, you must have realised it by the time you second wrote here - rst20xx (talk) 02:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, again, my apologies, there was no intention to cause more conflict. Quite the contrary - I think that use of bolding and CAPS is what can be misinterpreted and perhaps cause more conflict/drama than not using such text-emphasis. Cirt (talk) 02:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey - and a smile

Cirt (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Just wanted to say I am sorry if things are getting a bit heated over at Wikipedia talk:Good topics and that I highly respect your viewpoints and the way you have presented them in a clear and polite manner.

Hopefully no matter what happens in all this discussion we will move forward with at least some form of either WP:GTOP or a "lower tier" of WP:FT of some sort, which IMO either way is a positive step from the current practices at WP:FT.

I appreciate all the work you have put into this so far - the community is getting a vigorous discussion which IMO is a good thing when change is being discussed. Cirt (talk) 20:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that either way is a step forward, and I would also like to apologise for maybe at times being a bit overly aggressive in my language. However I am not entirely happy with how you created this without giving my original proposal a chance to run its course - I think that was a bit rude. Thanks for the smile though, I guess :) - rst20xx (talk) 20:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

In no way did I mean to come across as rude, and I am sorry you feel that way. Perhaps the 22 editors that Support the proposal show that I am not the only one that feels that it is a good idea?

I could have simply created the page Wikipedia:Good topics without a call for a Straw Poll, or placing it immediately after creation as a {{Proposed}} process - but I did so. I called for a Straw Poll and made it proposed, specifically to assess community consensus. If we kept discussion going at the talk page for the WP:FT process, we would still be discussing when to being dialogue about discussion about when to start the Straw Poll. (Which is not your or my fault, just the way things were going over there.) There is WP:BOLD after all, and I could have been more bold and just gone and started the entire process right away, but instead I sought out community consensus. I do not think that is rude, I think that is deliberately the opposite. If you had said something beforehand about specifically not wanting this to be carried out - but I cannot read your mind.

I am trying to be polite and carry out a constructive dialogue but the constant usage of exclamation points and CAPS is getting to be a bit much. I know it is probably just your style and nothing to do with me, but I think maybe we just need a break from all of this discussing minutiae across 5 different pages.

I hope you are well and I hope this process has a constructive resolution that you are left satisfied with and that has community consensus. I was not the only one calling for this new process and Straw Poll, I was merely the individual that took the initiative to start it. I hope we can interact and work together more positively in the future. Cirt (talk) 03:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Your apology

I appreciate your apology, and I will probably venture back to the Featured Topics page, but not to 30 Rock. Just because other featured topics have allowed it does not mean that I don't disagree with their passing either. I think this idea of allowing the article to stay in limbo, but passing the topic as a whole, is violating the foundation of what 1d and 3c aim for. First, you could not give an independent peer review until at least May, as the article would be in continuous expansion until the season official ends. In which case, if there is going to be a fourth season then you run into violating 1d (obvious gaps). It seems like we're pushing these topics into FT status sooner than they should be, when we know we're going to have to keep holding everything for the future development of the topic. It's not like we're expanding from inside the topic (like creating more episode articles on a topic about a particular season of a show); we're expanding at the ends, which means there is a gap of space where we know there should be something there but we're allowing the topic to stay with the hopes that it will meet the criteria. There appears to be too much leeway going on with these articles, with everyone rushing to get them into some acclaimed status without really thinking about whether they are truly ready yet. That's my opinion. As it stands, I don't think my lone opinion is going to change 30 Rocks's chance of being a featured topic.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that sounds like a much more reasonable, well thought out opinion to me than what you expressed initially. However, I would disagree with it as I do not think asking such topics to wait 6 years before they can be featured is more sensible - I think it is less sensible. While I agree that the situation isn't perfect, as a peer review on a changing article isn't going to be valid for long, I think that this is the best system we can use to ensure that such topics are as complete as possible at all times, whilst still maintaining the quality of all the articles involved as best we can, but at the same time not putting excessive demands for multiple peer reviews on the maintainers of the status of the topic - rst20xx (talk) 21:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

FT promotions

Hey, rst20xx, I appreciate you doing the FT promotions while I was away, I know that they can be a bit time consuming. Nevertheless, I how you won't mind me nitpicking a couple things. First, it's best to mention failed nominations in the ArticleHistory templates of all articles, even though most failed topics still do not do so; it makes it a lot easier to look back at nominations years later. Secondly, I feel that you made a mistake in promoting the Smallville (season 1) nomination. Even though it had a majority in support, I think that there were too many well-reasoned oppose votes to call the debate a consensus to promote. I'm not going to challenge your decision to promote it, but I think that topic is now a FTRC waiting to happen. Again, I hope that you'll forgive my nitpicking and stick around the FT pages! --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Artic Gnome, good to have you back and I was happy to help out in the meantime. I didn't put "failed" on the Everglades articles as firstly there weren't even FTC candidate processes, and secondly, well if you look at the nom you can see it shouldn't have been brought in the first place. But anyway, you're right, I guess ultimately I was just being lazy and only just getting into the role then.

Secondly, with regards to the Smallville nom, that did get a bit heated and there was pressure from all sides, I hope you're wrong obviously but I guess time will tell.

Thirdly, I would like to apologise for the ridiculous amount of upheaval you have come back to, and briefly explain it from my point of view. If you look here, you'll see that there was a proposal to up the criteria. Following that conversation, it quickly became clear that while upping was good for some reasons, it was bad for others. Hence I proposed a split off here, with good topics being featured topics but with lower criteria, and both largely occupying the same space. (I explain there how topics can move between good and featured at will using templates, and would be happy to implement this.)

Anyway, at the end of that discussion I feel it was somewhat hijacked by Cirt, who set up Wikipedia talk:Good topics. However, he did not fully understand WP:FT? 3.c), so left it out, and since then we have spent most of the time debating that criteria's inclusion in WP:GT? - largely pointless and quite frustrating. Anyway, he's now given me permission to include it, so that's that sorted, but borne out of this are the two slight changes to it that we've brought here and here.

Anyway, the long and short of it is that it appears the second straw poll at Wikipedia talk:Good topics will pass, meaning that things will be done much as I said they should be right back in the very first place, and so this whole thing will be an entirely pointless exercise! Sorry again about the giant mess, I'll be helping to clear it up from here on out and I hope you had a good holiday! - rst20xx (talk) 13:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:FT? 3.c)

Please go ahead and feel free to make the changes in the manner you see fit to WP:WIAGT, and then let me know and I can have a look to see exactly what you have in mind to start out with.

At this point I think it's best to just get moving now that at least we have clear consensus at Wikipedia talk:Good topics that some form of "Good topics" is warranted. Cirt (talk) 03:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm changing it to match WP:FT? 3.c) for now, as we discussed - rst20xx (talk) 13:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:GTOP progress and going forward

Feel free to keep me updated on how this all goes. I feel I need to take a break/breather from it all for a while to clear my head and step back and let others in the community share their viewpoints and act on the matter, so the relevant pages are not on my watchlist. I wish you well with however things turn out. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 03:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Upon reflection

I've taken a step back and given it some more thought and consideration, and I think I have come around a bit more to the points you have brought forth at Wikipedia talk:Good topics and Wikipedia talk:Featured topic criteria regarding the way you envision the Good topics process moving forward. I feel that I was a bit too hardline in my stance in discussions with you, and didn't really take enough time to fully reflect on the points you were making. I am sorry and feel badly about that and I hope that some form of Good topics will make it as a reality. Cirt (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that's alright. We can all get a bit short-sighted when we're caught up in the heat of the moment. I might turn out to be wrong but I think what will probably happen is that (somewhat ironically) something akin to my original proposal, way back when, will be implemented, though obviously if people later feel that good and featured topics should be farther split, then that can always happen at that time - rst20xx (talk) 21:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

What would be your vision of the lowest tier? Cirt (talk) 21:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Quite possibly that will be what you proposed, i.e. no number/percentage featured requirements :P Though obviously it's not just up to me any more - rst20xx (talk) 21:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Understood, and good point. Cirt (talk) 21:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Rst20xx/Good topics plan

I read through all you wrote here and I think your plan is an excellent way to go. I had not realized how much of this could be automated. Feel free to let me know if there is anything I can do to help. Cirt (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, appreciate the support. It took a bit of thinking to work all that out. At the moment I'm thinking it's best to hold off on that to see how the vote goes, but if it passes I'll move the plan to the Wikipedia space FT and open a discussion there - rst20xx (talk) 22:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. Cirt (talk) 22:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Query - what do you think should be done if there is obvious consensus of Supports at Wikipedia talk:Good topics for the Second Straw Poll, but not the first? Cirt (talk) 22:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

There's widespread confusion there, I was just looking at some of the opposes for the first and we have some people saying stuff like "I'd oppose a separate process but would support two-tier FTs". So when all is said and done we need to do some sums there and see if shifting those votes to support opens clear consensus. And if there's still not consensus, I'm really not sure - rst20xx (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Re:Guitar Hero FTC

Look at the comment on my talk above your post by Arctic.gnome. It was gonna get restarted anyway. Please look at that before I do anything.Mitch32^(UP) 17:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I just saw that. Sorry! rst20xx (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Tennis performance timeline comparison

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Tennis performance timeline comparison, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.flashspace.co.uk/word/tennis. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 00:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope! rst20xx (talk) 00:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Don Robertson

Have now requested a page move to over-redirect my earlier pagemove. Afraid I messed things up a bit earlier on. TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am partly responsible here, for not fixing those links that now pointed to the disambig. Sorry about that. Shall we fix them now? :P rst20xx (talk) 22:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds ok to me. TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll start at the bottom, you start at the top! rst20xx (talk) 22:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we've got them all now. I've de-linked the articles that appeared to refer to Don Robertsons that aren't on the list, and happily someone has now undone my page move. TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! Job done - rst20xx (talk) 22:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 19:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)