John, the personal attacks are certainly an ongoing problem, but more concerning is the use of an IP account, 24.78.166.69(talk·contribs·WHOIS) for edit warring and 3RR violation. The user made more than six straight reverts on the 30 September just from this account. When protection was implemented, GabrielVelasquez showed up out of the blue, warning 24.78.166.69's opponents about edit warring, making the same arguments, and using the same edit summaries. At least two users (myself and User:ChiZeroOne, possibly others) have asked GV to clarify if 24.78.166.69 is his account. Although it is obvious that it is, GV refuses to address the question. I could file an SPI, but I was hoping I could get GV to voluntarily agree to stop using two accounts and stick with one. Viriditas (talk) 08:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
John, I just confirmed and verified, via evidence that GV provided in his contribution history, that both the IP and GabrielVelasquez are the same user.[1][2][3][4] Could you recommend where to go from here? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 08:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering why you added the 'WikiProject Christianity|class=GA|importance=|charismatic-christianity=yes|charistmatic-christianity-importance=' category to the following Talkpages:
It seems that some of these people might have perhaps lived in a religious household as a child, but I am not sure about the Charismatics Category for all of them, so would like to know what your rationale is - thanks. Shearonink (talk) 01:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have proposed here to rename Category:Hindu terrorism to Category:Hindutva terrorism, as to be more accurate to the meaning that the terrorism is politically and nationally motivated and not religiously motivated. Please join the discussion. SilverserenC 22:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is excellent - at this stage I know that south asia, is dormant, - (and probably needs a workforce to actually get it up and running again)and east asia is proposed but I would prefer to just start tagging and think about the subnationals/parts of the whole later - or is that going to cause problems? SatuSuro 23:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey whenever, no urgency - I have noticed you have been busy - no rush - whenever I start the tagging I want to get a handle on the cat tags before much else in the project - so by looks any timeis good - whenever you are ready - thanks for the help! SatuSuro 23:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I understand now - yes any small bits to be included as well yes SatuSuro 01:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good - I know I can be slow on the uptake at times - do we have a working project tag for the category pages yet? SatuSuro 00:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing - what a lot of work that has been - please - hey take your time no rush - I would very very much like to have a project category tag if it is at all possible - thank you a million times again - it has been great to see the amazing hard work you have put into it! thank you! SatuSuro 00:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again - looks very good - I hope to do still lots of 'prettying up to do' - and I gotta deconstruct the Death project page and death portal to get a handle on the formatting - but you have put it in place- thank you! SatuSuro 01:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, John Carter. You have new messages at Shearonink's talk page. Message added 11:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Your recent edits to the Witch Trials Task Force Page[edit]
Please be advised that as you are not a member of our task group you are not welcome to edit our task group page with out first posting your intent to do so on our discussion page and waiting for a response that your actions are not offensive. I am responding to your actions here because it is in line with you constant and witless rant about "asume good faith". If you abuse process with me any further than you already have do not expect me to asume good faith on your part ever again.
Hopefully,
John5Russell3Finley (talk) 17:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the NPOV issues are now resolved and have removed the tag. I will look for other positive reviews as the article requires at least one more to balance it. And get a new arching bot :o) mark nutley (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bogged down (even in semi-retirement) on numerous fronts, John, and I deeply apologize for my absence. I just haven't had time to change gear and shift over to that intricate area once more. I'll do my best, if things are soon clarified on that other POV-ridden question about editing Shakespeare. Cheers (and I will in the meantime follow up on Ignatius) Nishidani (talk) 16:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have agreed to mediate the Ebionites 2 case. I'm requesting that all parties start with opening statements, instructions are at the top of the page. Thanks for agreeing to go to mediation, I'm hopeful we can get this resolved to the satisfaction of all parties. Don't hesitate to contact me with any questions or issues. --WGFinley (talk) 01:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You recently removed the speedy delete tag I placed on Peter Heier. I see nothing in this article, nor on a Google book search that meets Wikipedia:Notability. Specifically, there is no "significant coverage" consisting of anything more than a "trivial mention". Please let me know if you found a citation to the contrary. Thanks, Dkriegls (talk) 01:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I don't think the link you added meets "significant coverage". Dkriegls (talk) 01:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting back to me. It seems to me that his info is more appropriate for a list of noted exorcists, like the source book it comes from, than for individual biographies. Dkriegls (talk) 23:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks for taking the lead on this. Cheers. Dkriegls (talk) 00:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your name on the Buddhism Wikiproject and would like some input on this article. The editor in question has a track record of dubious sources, and another editor, who can read Chinese, has commented on this article at my talk page. The subject is fine, eg [5], but not the article. Thanks. (I like my bacon burned, by the way). Dougweller (talk) 08:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The recent changes you have made seriously changed this template. Your "typo" edits have made the LDS-work-group and its "importance" stop functioning and I would suspect due to the changes several other groups don't work also. These "typos" aren't really "typos" since they are variable that are defined inside the templates codes, so they can be anything. They need to be undone so this template will work again.--ARTEST4ECHO(talk|contribs) 12:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am the assistant to Sue Gardner, the Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation. Sue and I will be traveling to the United Arab Emirates in early December to attend and speak at TedxDubai on Saturday, December 4. While traveling in Dubai Sue would like to meet with local Wikimedians and other project contributors to learn about your community and to inform you about the Wikimedia Foundation. We find these informal meet-ups a useful way to gather groups of Wikimedians who may enjoy learning about the work of other contributors in their region, and to learn about the work of the Wikimedia Foundation. While in Dubai we plan for Sue to conduct press interviews with mainstream media and to possibility speak at a local university.
The reason I am contact you is to inquire if you are interested in meeting Sue and gathering with other Wikimedians during her upcoming visit. I plan to arrange a private location with light food and beverages in an open space for attendees to share and meet each other. If you are interested to attend or know other Wikimedia contributors who may be interested in attending please email me at jowen@wikimedia.org.
We hope to have the opportunity to meet you in December.
Thanks for your comment. Calvin is not a lexicographical authority of any repute whatsoever. I wanted to use standard modern lexicographical sources, they want to use Calvin because they share his POV. Calvin would be perfectly at home in an article or section entitled 'Calvinist views on baptism', but that is not how he is being used (my attempts to create such a section on the other baptism page were simply reverted). I still can't find anyone who will tell me why I can't use standard modern lexicographical sources in this article, and why Calvin is a more authoritative source than modern scholarship. Why is this so difficult?
Yesterday I took the trouble to do this, but to be perfectly frank what is the point if (a) we don't have to use WP:RS if we don't have to, (b) outdated scholarship is to take precedence over modern scholarship, and (c) sources do not have to meet WP:V?--Taiwan boi (talk) 14:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your advice, that was most useful. If only Wikipedia had, you know, polices, which people were, you know, expected to follow. I'll see what can be done. In the meantime, let me know if there's really any point in me listing those resources. If people aren't going to cite them, and if they don't have to cite them, and if we can just grab bits and pieces from 19th century works, then there is no point in me making the offer, and I'll take it to Citizendium, where they actually have information literacy standards.Taiwan boi (talk) 14:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have some scholarly sources on Ebionism if you want to use them.--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see a few I have which aren't on your list yet. I'll see what I can do to get them to you. Would email be easier?--Taiwan boi (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, they don't. I am not a Calvinist. I do not agree with his position. I do not agree with his POV. I do believe that many people still do and that is more to the point than "modern scholarship". In strange way, he is a reliable source since so many rely on his position and writings and so few read the marginalia or footnotes. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps in a way he is reliable, as you have pointed out. However, if so, he would really be reliable for their interpretation only. You have yet to establish that "so many" do rely on his position. Yes, maybe, 100 years ago, when the Hastings encyclopedia was written, that may have been true. But all articles are intended to rely first and foremost the current academic position on the matter. So, in matters of the definition of the term, whatever the opinions of individuals who do agree with a given position, we are supposed to reflect the highest quality academic research first and foremost, and treat other opinions as that. So the sources most accepted by the academic community, which in this case probably means the linguistic academic community, are the ones that should be given the greatest weight as per WP:WEIGHT. John Carter (talk) 14:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The irony John, is that the quote which Walter claimed was from Calvin, the quote which he argued dogmatically was authoritative, relevant, and a WP:R, wasn't even from Calvin. On the contrary, Calvin said the exact opposite of the quote, which was actually from a footnote in a modern edition of Calvin's work. Once I pointed this out, Walter immediately ceased his support for Calvin, and an edit was made arguing that Calvin was wrong. This is a clear indication of POV editing; a source is only considered authoritative by Walter until such a time as it is pointed out that it doesn't support his argument. Thank you for reminding Walter of WP:WEIGHT. Please see this diff and tell me which edit makes proper use of WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT.
My edit:
Differentiated between standard scholarly reference sources and non-scholarly sources
Identified POV sources as such ("Immersion, Proved to Be Not a Scriptural Mode of Baptism But a Romish Invention")
Included all the sources Esoglou had added to the article
Included all sources in a Wiki-oriented for/against presentation
Re-ordered the article in a logical way
Represented sources accurately
Esolglou's edit:
Fails to differentiate between standard scholarly reference sources and non-scholarly sources
Treats non-scholarly sources as equivalent in authority to standard scholarly reference sources
Removed a large number of scholarly reference sources which do not support his POV
Removed almost all sources which oppose his POV
Reverted my ordering of the article
Fails to represent all sources accurately
I would appreciate your comments.--Taiwan boi (talk) 01:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When Rlevse "retired" more than two years ago after a bad decision, I sent him a private email asking him to reconsider. But this is different. While putting an article through the FA process, he added unambiguous and relatively expansive copyvios (in one edit 8 consecutive minimally reworded sentences out of an original 9 consecutive sentences in a news report) to the article. This problem was discovered today while the article was on the main page, after similar problems with other editors' DYK contributions had been discussed for a while, a discussion with which Rlevse was clearly extremely unhappy.
Retiring and officially stepping back from their position (I expect that we will hear about that step soon) is the best thing an Arb can do in that situation to protect the institution itself from further damage. Maybe you should consider self-reverting your edit to Rlevse's talk page, as it could lead to an unnecessary side conflict and is only likely to fuel the scandal. HansAdler 16:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, you weren't the only one who sent e-mails two years ago. But I hadn't known about the copyvio questions. In a few, extreme, cases, even that might not be really horrible, if the language used is the among the best possible language for the material and if it is done in such a way as one might think a few quotation marks and maybe a single citation were simply overlooked, which I think could happen to the best of us once in a while. Maybe, I don't know the particulars in this case. But at this point I don't think my removing my first comments would do any good - we can hope that it doesn't escalate. John Carter (talk) 16:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately it's not such a minor thing. See WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Plagiarism and copyright concerns on the main page#Which is witch? for my analysis of an 8-sentence edit by Rlevse that was entirely plagiarised. This was probably the worst. Others, especially Uncle G and Moonriddengirl, have found various shorter instances of copying, sometimes loosely, sometimes literally with no changes. I could not find similar problems in Rlevse's two previous FAs, by the way, but the main source for one of them is not online. HansAdler 16:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The 2010 WikiCup is over! It has been a long journey, but what has been achieved is impressive: combined, participants have produced over seventy featured articles, over five hundred good articles, over fifty featured lists, over one thousand one hundred "did you know" entries, in addition to various other pieces of recognised content. A full list (which has yet to be updated to reflect the scores in the final round) can be found here. Perhaps more importantly, we have our winner! The 2010 WikiCup champion is Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), with an unbelievable 4220 points in the final round. Second place goes to TonyTheTiger (submissions), with 2260, and third to Casliber (submissions), with 560. Congratulations to our other four finalists – White Shadows (submissions), William S. Saturn (submissions), Staxringold (submissions) and ThinkBlue (submissions). Also, congratulations to Sasata (submissions), who withdrew from the competition with an impressive 2685 points earlier in this round.
Prizes will also be going to those who claimed the most points for different types of content in a single round. It was decided that the prizes would be awarded for those with the highest in a round, rather than overall, so that the finalists did not have an unfair advantage. Winning the featured article prize is Casliber (submissions), for five featured articles in round 4. Winning the good article prize is Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), for eighty-one good articles in round 5. Winning the featured list prize is Staxringold (submissions), for six featured lists in round 1. Winning the picture and sound award is Jujutacular (submissions), for four featured pictures in round 3. Winning the topic award is Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), for forty-seven articles in various good topics in round 5. Winning the "did you know" award is TonyTheTiger (submissions), for over one hundred did you knows is round 5. Finally, winning the in the news award is Candlewicke (submissions), for nineteen articles in the news in round three.
The WikiCup has faced criticism in the last month – hopefully, we will take something positive from it and create a better contest for next year. Like Wikipedia itself, the Cup is a work in progress, and ideas for how it should work are more than welcome on the WikiCup talk page and on the scoring talk page. Also, people are more than welcome to sign up for next year's competition on the signup page. Well done and thank you to everyone involved – the Cup has been a pleasure to run, and we, as judges, have been proud to be a part of it. We hope that next year, however the Cup is working, and whoever is running it, it will be back, stronger and more popular than ever. Until then, goodbye and happy editing! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 03:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hindu-Buddhist prayer beads has been moved to Buddhist prayer beads by Tktru. The page wasn't actually moved but the old article was pasted to the new location and then redirected. That obfuscates the edit history. Is there a way to do a proper page move to Buddhist prayer beads without losing edit history? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helpsome (talk • contribs) 00:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A request for comment regarding the overall layout of the TM topic area is ongoing here. As you have commented previously your analysis of the best way forwards would be appreciated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Holidays for a Signpost article to be published at the end of November. 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, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 22:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This page is within the scope of WikiProject United Arab Emirates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Arab Emirates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United Arab EmiratesWikipedia:WikiProject United Arab EmiratesTemplate:WikiProject United Arab EmiratesUnited Arab Emirates articles
Sue invites you to meet with her and other local Wikipedia contributors the afternoon of Saturday, December 4. If you are interested to attend please sign-up on using the below link or email me at jowen@wikimedia.org.
John, I'm moving this here as I realized that posting this kind of information at the AfD is exactly what I'm against, so I shouldn't do it even if I'm trying to prove a different point. But I would like a response either way (hence the "move" here)--
You wrote:
Actually, I think it might well be reasonable to raise such issues here. Remembering that this is not a debate, or a vote, it may in at least some cases be reasonable to raise points regarding a history of disruptive edits regarding similar content, up to and including sockpuppetry. I acknowledge some people are more active in AfD than I am, but indicating to the person who will ultimately close the AfD and make the final decision that there have been concerns regarding the behavior of editors in related content might be appropriate. I might myself wish for a fewer of them in this particular instance, but this discussion does seem to be attracting a lot of the "regular suspects editors" of this topic, and if there have been concerns of sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, collusion, or whatever, in related matters before regarding some of them, indicating that to the closer seems to me a reasonable thing to do. John Carter (talk) 17:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how someone once receiving a warning from an admin about editing a related page has anything to do with the AfD process. The general socking issue might be relevant, if there is concern of that happening again, but this is ridiculous. Thanks to the links provided at AN/I by Jehochman, I've discovered that before he changed his identity Cirt was blocked several times editing in subject areas related to this entry. Should that get mentioned here and in every related AfD he contributes to? No way, and I'm sure you and others would agree to that as well. I'm disturbed by how muddy the waters are allowed to get when some people are doing the muddying but not others. They should stay clean all around. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I put Portal:Somerset up for review on the peer review page a couple of weeks ago & haven't (yet) had any comments. If you had the time to take a look that would be great.— Rodtalk 15:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am honestly humbled by the suggestion, believe me, but very seriously doubt I have the temperment for it. I regret to say that David Bruce Banner's best-known quote is one that unfortunately I could use rather often as well, and I doubt anyone would like to see an arbitrator "hulk out" during one of their cases. John Carter (talk) 18:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, not that being on the committee is one of the least stressful things one can do, for that matter.
That's for considering it. And please let me know if you change your mind. - jc37 19:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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) 23:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, John Carter. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page. Message added 02:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
JC, is there anything that can be done about the above article? It seems that, every whipstich, I have to correct soneones (probably) well-intentioned attempt to translate the title into english as 'Cry of Pains'(which it is, literally), when it contextually means 'Cry of Dolores', because it occurred in the town of Dolores, Guanajuato. Most of these edits are by users with IP addresses-maybe protect the content so that one needs an account in order to edit it? I know, I know, this is hardly of earth-shattering importance, but I've been pulling my hair out and, at my age, I don't have much left. What think you?--Lyricmac (talk) 18:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I looked at the hidden text stub and, as I expected, it was as if I was reading greek.
Personally I think that this would serve. Now, how would it be done?
Thank you, John-spot on.--Lyricmac (talk) 04:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello John Carter. You have listed yourself as an active contributor of WikiProject Warriors, but as we are trying to see who is still active, we have put all active contributors under "status pending." If you are still active, go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Warriors and move your name to "Active." Move your name to "Inactive" if you no longer wish to contribute. You may always move it back. On December 27, 2024, all members who have not listed themselves as active will be moved to the "inactive" section. Thank you!
Yeah I'd anticipated that. Naturally its difficult in the UK to photograph in remote areas of Snowdonia etc and of course we have many fields which look very similar... Hopefully Ser Amantio can make the foundation see some light in it as Jimbo clearly didn't..♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per this discussion and the fact that you are listed on {{PortalReviewVolunteers/List}}, this is to inform you that there are two featured portal candidates at present that need more input. Thanks. BencherliteTalk 11:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia Campus Ambassadors wanted in Bozeman, Montana[edit]
Hi! I'm leaving you this message because you're listed as a member of WikiProject Montana. The Wikipedia Ambassador Program is currently looking for Campus Ambassadors to help with Wikipedia assignments at Montana State University - Bozeman, which will be participating in the Public Policy Initiative for the Spring 2011 semester. The role of Campus Ambassadors will be to provide face-to-face training and support for students on Wikipedia-related skills (how to edit articles, how to add references, etc.). This includes doing in-class presentations, running workshops and labs, possibly holding office hours, and in general providing in-person mentorship for students.
Prior Wikipedia skills are not required for the role, as training will be provided for all Campus Ambassadors (although, of course, being an experienced editor is a plus).
I know Montana is a big state, but if you happen to live near Bozeman and you are interested in being a Wikipedia Campus Ambassador, or know someone else from Bozeman who might be, please email me or leave a message on my talk page.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
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) 23:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I'm The Arbiter, one of the coordinators for WikiProject Zoo. I am proud to announce the launch of a new portal: Portal:Zoos and Aquariums! ZooPro, ZooFari, and I worked hard to create a new portal for information on zoos, aquariums, and the associated projects and articles on Wikipedia. If you could head on over, take a look at our work, and maybe learn some more about zoos and Wikiproject Zoo, it would be great! Cheers and Happy Editing!
Re [7], I believe the term is "Independent Scientologists". We may need a new category at some point; I think people are beginning to self-identify as such. --JN466 12:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - I am trying to resurrect WikiProject Pipe Bands but the project template needs tweaking (i think) to get the assessment working viz http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Glossary_of_bagpipe_terms - if you are around in the short term could you8 please look? If I dont hear from you in a few days i might be very unprincipled and try others as well - cheers - trust you computer situation is better than it was a year (or was it 2 cannot remember which) I have had all my expensive camera gear lightened from my charge this time around - have a good christmas if you read it before - cheers SatuSuro 12:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether or not it is appropriate to add to the reviews on your Ebionites user page, but the Biblical Archaeology Review's review of Jesus Dynasty seems to be back online here, and I thought this might also be worth including. • Astynaxtalk 09:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you are a fellow active member of WikiProject Moldova. Some time ago I created a new userbox for the project and proposed that it become official. Since no responses have been made as of yet, I am hoping to spark a discussion at Template talk:WikiProject Moldova User on the matter.
Hi John, as you've contributed to the discussion on the WP:WARRIORS talk page about including Seekers in our scope, please feel free to vote here, as all opinions are welcome. Thanks, :.:∙:∙∙:∙:.:|pepper|:.:∙:∙∙:∙:.: 23:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. You are being contacted because you have previously shown interest in the WikiCup but have not yet signed up for the 2011 WikiCup, which starts at midnight. It is not too late to sign up! The competition will remain open until at least January 31, and so it is not too late to enter. If you are interested, simply follow the instructions to add your username to the signup page, and a judge will contact you as soon as possible with an explanation of how to participate. The WikiCup is a friendly competition open to all Wikipedians, old and new, experienced and inexperienced, providing a fun and rewarding way to contribute quality content to Wikipedia. If you do not want to receive any further messages about the WikiCup, or you want to start receiving messages about the WikiCup, you may add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the WikiCup talk page or contact the judges directly. J Milburn and The ed17 06:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
John, when you have a spare moment, would you be so kind as to look at the above article and my comment on the discussion page? What do you think should be done? The entire article was plaigerised from a commercial website(the link is included in my comments). What is the best recourse? Many thanx.--Lyricmac (talk) 20:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and adapted the copy for sp:wikipedia to re-write the article but more information is needed and also documentation.--Lyricmac (talk) 03:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Invitation to join WikiProject United States[edit]
Hello, John Carter/Archive 2011! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!
Hello John. Unfortunately, I have lost complete interest in Ebionites as a topic and Wikipedia article. Furthemore, in light of the fact that my past experiences with some of the other contributors to the Ebionites article were quite tumultuous and these individuals are still involved, the last thing I want to do is butt heads with them again. So I wish you luck. --Loremaster (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any old sources that I didn't include in the Ebionites article. If they were deleted during various edits by other contributors during the years since I left this article, I suggest you go back to old versions of the article to find them. --Loremaster (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are have just violated 3RR by reverting the Ebionites article four times within a 24 hour period here, here, here and here. Perhaps you are under the misaprehension that the 4 reverts have to be to same material? No so, just the same article. Please self revert or I will report you.-- cheers, Michael C. Pricetalk 21:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey John. We're having a !vote to decide what to do with the scope change. (hopefully, as soon as you and Airplaneman comment, we can try to decide what the consensus is). Thanks, Brambleclawx 02:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, Ovadyah has no reservations about the page which he has created for the same purpose which seems to be started by him in preparation for possible arbitration or for filing a claim on the COIN, should the mediation not get a mediator soon. I believe he has begun that one at your individual approval, even though I had expressed the same sort of objections. If Ovadyah is himself willing to do the same thing with his evidence collection page, something I believe he has shown no interest whatsoever in doing, then I would have no objections to doing the same myself. But, yes, if there is no mediator assigned in the near future, I am very seriously considering filing at COIN regarding him, and probably Michael C Price as well. John Carter (talk) 15:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The COIN section has been archived with no action. Would you mind blanking the section now? Or would you mind me doing so? Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, John Carter. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page. Message added 04:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
HeyBzuk (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!
What goes around, comes around. Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC) [reply]
Please refrain from engaging in speculation, as you did here User_talk:John_Carter/Ebionites#Evidence_of_possible_POV.2FCOI_on_the_article about my religion, my alleged membership in the EJC, and who I am off-Wiki. The statements you have made to date are false and potentially libelous. If you continue to propagate these false allegations following this talk page warning, in WP:COI or elsewhere on article and admin talkpages, such statements will rise to the threshold of being knowingly false and libelous in fact. Thank you. Ovadyah (talk) 05:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Welsh Christians until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Grutness...wha? 02:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John, I noticed that at User:John_Carter/Ebionites you've copy and pasted many sources verbatim. I'm fairly sure that this shouldn't be done, since they will be copyrighted. I was tempted to remove them myself, but thought it was best to drop you a note first and let you do it yourself. I haven't looked into the COI issues in detail, but at first glance, it looks more like a content issue than a COI issue, but I'll try to look at it in more detail tomorrow nad post at COIN. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Warriors for a Signpost article. 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, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 05:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. Signups are now closed, and we have 129 listed competitors, 64 of whom will make it to round two. Congratulations to The Bushranger (submissions), who, at the time of writing, has a comfortable lead with 228 points, followed by Hurricanehink (submissions), with 144 points. Four others have over 100 points. Congratulations also go to Yellow Evan (submissions), who scored the first points in the competition, claiming for Talk:Hurricane King/GA1, Miyagawa (submissions), who scored the first non-review points in the competition, claiming for Dognapping, and Jarry1250 (submissions) who was the first in the competition to use our new "multiplier" mechanic (explanation), claiming for Grigory Potemkin, a subject covered on numerous Wikipedias. Thanks must also go to Jarry1250 for dealing with all bot work- without you, the competition wouldn't be happening!
A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round two is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 22:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Back in 2009 (at least, I think it was then), I turned most of the LDS Movement WikiProject Banners into WPChristianity banners, with the project in a parameter (under your instruction). Now, an IP has undone most (~200) of those edits. Is it still appropriate to consolidate all banners under the WPChristianity banner? and if so, is there an easy way to undo all those edits? Regards, Spalds (talk) 14:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you John for the subscription databanks info and your wiliness to help Wikiprojects in this manner.Moxy (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, John Carter. 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.
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) 17:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was a really lame attempt at humor, based on the random sentence generator which was used in the book Atlanta Nights. It probably makes a bit less sense now, with the revisions. John Carter (talk) 18:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John Carter, there has been this discussion going on for 12 days about moving Avatar (Hinduism) back to Avatar. I know there is a problem with backlogs lately, so maybe I should just wait. Meanwhile the discussion is running in circles. Whatever work its closure involves, User:Redtigerxyz and I have volunteered to do it. Can you please take a look? HoverfishTalk 15:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile it was closed by another administrator. Best regards. HoverfishTalk 19:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So begins round two of the WikiCup! We now have eight pools, each with eight random contestants. This round will continue until the end of April, when the top two of each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers of those remaining, will make it to round three. Congratulations to The Bushranger (submissions) (first, with 487 points) and Hurricanehink (submissions) (second, with 459), who stormed the first round. Casliber (submissions) finished third with 223. Twelve others finished with over 100 points- well done to all of you! The final standings in round one can be seen here. A mere 8 points were required to reach round two; competition will no doubt be much more fierce this round, so be ready for a challenge! A special thanks goes, again, to Jarry1250 (submissions) for dealing with all bot work. This year's bot, as well as running smoothly, is doing some very helpful things that last year's did not. Also, thanks to Stone (submissions) for some helpful behind-the-scenes updating and number crunching.
Some news for those who are interested- March will see a GAN backlog elimination drive, which you are still free to join. Organised by WikiProject Good articles, the drive aims to minimise the GAN backlog and offers prizes to those who help out. Of course, you may well be able to claim WikiCup points for the articles you review as part of the drive. Also ongoing is the Great Backlog Drive, looking to work on clearing all of the backlogs on Wikipedia; again, incentives are offered, and the spirit of friendly competition is alive, while helping the encyclopedia is the ultimate aim. Though unrelated to the WikiCup, these may well be of interest to some of you.
Just a reminder of the rules; if you have done significant work on content this year and it is promoted in this round, you may claim for it. Also, anything that was promoted after the end of round one but before the beginning of round two may be claimed for in round two. Details of the rules can be found on this page. For those interested in statistics, a running total of claims can be seen here, and a very interesting table of that information (along with the highest scorers in each category) can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, John Carter. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page. Message added 04:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Hi John. You may not have noticed, but there's a section where I'd like you to indicate if you're participating in the mediation or not. Cheers! Jayjg (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The request for arbitration is accepted (titled Ebionites 2). However, the case will be held in abeyance for four weeks to allow mediation to proceed. After four weeks, or earlier if the mediation is closed as unsuccessful, the Committee will reexamine the situation to determine whether the case will proceed or be dismissed.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 12:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your note on the project page that you have access to quite a few resources about Africa. If you have the time, could you email me an article [8] from All Africa (to reference the article on Kao Denero)? --Banana (talk) 08:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright I've sent you an email. --Banana (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking :) --Banana (talk) 03:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John. Your latest comment on my Talk: page confused me a little. Would you mind responding to this question? I only want to mediate if everyone is committed to the mediation. Jayjg (talk) 02:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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) 23:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abbo of Metz until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OMG, I love it. I'm stealing it. Do you have a patent on this? Do I owe you wiki-royalties? Or should I just wait for you to join forces with the RIAA and sue your potential friends and customers as a preemptive strike to prevent future relationships and business? Dave (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"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) 16:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are half way through round two of the WikiCup, which will end on 28 April. Of the 64 current contestants, 32 will make it through to the next round; the two highest in each pool, and the 16 next highest scorers. At the time of writing, our current overall leader is Hurricanehink (submissions) with 231 points, who leads Pool H. Piotrus (submissions) (Pool G) also has over 200 points, while 9 others (three of whom are in Pool D) have over 100 points. Remember that certain content (specifically, articles/portals included in at least 20 Wikipedias as of 31 December 2010 or articles which are considered "vital") is worth double points if promoted to good or featured status, or if it appears on the main page in the Did You Know column. There were some articles last round which were eligible for double points, but which were not claimed for. For more details, see Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring.
A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round three is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ovadyah (talk) 20:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I notice that you are a member of the arts and entertainment workgroup in WikiProject Biography.
I have made edits to the article Jools Holland which is currently rated as Start Class. I believe it may be eligible for B class or at least C class status now. I did not want to chance it myself, as I presumably now have a COI with the article in relation to how "good" I think it is! I'd appreciate your input. Philip.t.daytalk 19:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ebionite Jewish Community (3rd nomination)[edit]
I'm not interested in Ebionites as a topic nor a Wikipedia article. I don't care either way if the Ebionite Jewish Community article is kept or deleted. Please tell In ictu oculi and everybody else that I do not want to be contacted regarding any issue related to Ebionites ever again. --Loremaster (talk) 21:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
though Tom Reedy was and remains the real stalwart there. I'm more bookwormish than literary, and to cite Lear, 'Thou owest the worm no silk.'! Regards Nishidani (talk) 18:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, a number of the posters in this category have been nominated for deletion, so you might want to look through them. SilverserenC 20:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Round 2 of the 2011 WikiCup is over, and the new round will begin on 1 May. Note that any points scored in the interim (that is, for content promoted or reviews completed on 29-30 April) can be claimed in the next round, but please do not start updating your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. Fewer than a quarter of our original contestants remain; 32 enter round 3, and, in two months' time, only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. Casliber (submissions), who led Pool F, was our round champion, with 411 points, while 7 contestants scored between 200 and 300 points. At the other end of the scale, a score of 41 was high enough to reach round 3; more than five times the score required to reach round 2, and competition will no doubt become tighter now we're approaching the later rounds. Those progressing to round 3 were spread fairly evenly across the pools; 4 progressed from each of pools A, B, E and H, while 3 progressed from both pools C and F. Pools D and G were the most successful; each had 5 contestants advancing.
This round saw our first good topic points this year; congratulations to Hurricanehink (submissions) and Nergaal (submissions) who also led pool H and pool B respectively. However, there remain content types for which no points have yet been scored; featured sounds, featured portals and featured topics. In addition to prizes for leaderboard positions, the WikiCup awards other prizes; for instance, last year, a prize was awarded to Candlewicke (submissions) (who has been eliminated) for his work on In The News. For this reason, working on more unusual content could be even more rewarding than usual!
Sorry this newsletter is going out a little earlier than expected- there is a busy weekend coming up! A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 19:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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) 05:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Invitation to join Wikimedia US/WALRUS mailing list[edit]
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) 23:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John, I hope you're doing well! I got a comment from someone who didn't like Wayne Shorter being classed in our offline releases under Buddhism. We earlier had a similar request from WP:BUDDHA to remove Courtney Love from their lists for V0.8. I was reviewing the tagging for these, and it looks like you were doing some very frenetic (AWB?) assessments back in 2007 when these were tagged. Most on this list are now untagged; however, would you mind if I review the list from that time and bring any remaining ones to WP:BUDDHA for untagging? I know little about Buddhism, so I don't feel able to make the call myself, but I presume the project can advise on which of those "famous Buddhist" articles truly belong there.
Personally, I'm very grateful for all of your WikiProject tagging back in 2007 - it certainly helped us a lot when we put together Version 0.7. Obviously if you tag several thousand articles, a couple are going to get mis-tagged.
Hello, John Carter. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page. Message added 04:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Having briefly reviewed the article's discussion history, I've identified you as a potentially aggrieved editor whose contributions may have been negatively impacted by the actions of a group of editors who are alleged to be POV-pushing and engaging in WP:GAMES. I invite you to peruse the arbcom request and voice your opinion and experiences, at your leisure. The link is:
We're half way through round 3 of the 2011 WikiCup. There are currently 32 remaining in the competition, but only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. Casliber (submissions), of pool D, is our overall leader with nearly 200 points, while pools A, B and C are led by Racepacket (submissions), Hurricanehink (submissions) and Canada Hky (submissions) respectively. The score required to reach the next round is 35, though this will no doubt go up significantly as the round progresses. We have a good number of high scorers, but also a considerable number who are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. Also, an important note concerning nominations at featured article candidates: if you are nominating content for which you intend to claim WikiCup points, please make this clear in the nomination statement so that the FAC director and his delegates are aware of the fact.
A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Greetnings, I was looking at the list of WikiProjects at the WikiProject Council and it states that WikiProject United States History is inactive. I am not sure thats true and I know you are active in it so I thought I would ask you. If its not inactive I recommend changing the listing at the Council page. --Kumioko (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Needs more reference citations. John Carter 16:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if anybody goes to that page, but the comment itself shows up in a couple of the project banners in the parent page, Talk:Horse. Do you mind if I move the comment and delete the /Comments page?
—WWoods (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Incidently, Werdnabot seems not to be working to archive your talk page. You might want to change to an alternative like MiszaBot.
—WWoods (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, John Carter. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page. Message added 00:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Sorry John, you invited me, and gave link to the workgroup for early Christianity, could you remind me please. Not that it seemed active. Just keep coming across fringe (typically Messianic-Jewish-Christian) editing on what should by rights be sensible encyclopedia pages. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have started a discussion and will contact each of the active members for their comments and input on the suggestion. Please take a moment and add your comments to the discussion or feel free to contact me if you have any questions. --Kumioko (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, John Carter. 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.
Would you like to help improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to the National Archives and its incredible collection? This summer, the National Archives—which houses some of America's most important historical documents—is hosting me as its Wikipedian in Residence, and I have created WP:NARA to launch these efforts.
There are all sorts of tasks available for any type of editor, whether you're a writer, organizer, gnome, coder, or image guru. The National Archives is making its resources available to Wikipedia, so help us forge this important relationship! Please sign up and introduce yourself. Dominic·t 15:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Escusa until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Moray An Par (talk) 03:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are half way through 2011, and entering the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; the semi-finals are upon us! Points scored in the interim (29/30 June) may be counted towards next round, but please do not update your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. 16 contestants remain, and all have shown dedication to the project to reach this far. Our round leader was Casliber (submissions) who, among other things, successfully passed three articles through featured article candidates and claimed an impressive 29 articles at Did You Know, scoring 555 points. Casliber led pool D. Pool A was led by Wizardman (submissions), claiming points for a featured article, a featured list and seven good article reviews, while pool C was led by Eisfbnore (submissions), who claimed for two good articles, ten articles at Did You Know and four good article reviews. They scored 154 and 118 respectively. Pool B was by far our most competitive pool; six of the eight competitors made it through to round 4, with all of them scoring over 100 points. The pool was led by Hurricanehink (submissions), who claimed for, among other things, three featured articles and five good articles. In addition to the four pool leaders, 12 others (the four second places, and the 8 next highest overall) make up our final 16. The lowest scorer who reached round 4 scored 76 points; a significant increase on the 41 needed to reach round 3. Eight of our semi-finalists scored at least twice as much as this.
No points were awarded this round for featured pictures, good topics or In the News, and no points have been awarded in the whole competition for featured topics, featured portals or featured sounds. Instead, the highest percentage of points has come from good articles. Featured articles, despite their high point cost, are low in number, and so, overall, share a comparable number of points with Did You Know, which are high in number but low in cost. A comparatively small but still considerable number of points come from featured lists and good article reviews, rounding out this round's overall scores.
We would again like to thank Jarry1250 (submissions) and Stone (submissions) for invaluable background work, as well as all of those helping to provide reviews for the articles listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Please do keep using it, and please do help by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup.
Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here, for those interested, though it appears that neither are completely accurate at this time. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, John Carter. You have new messages at Ryan Vesey's talk page. Message added 19:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ulster Special Constabulary. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.RFC bot (talk) 05:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 00:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.RFC bot (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GLAM Baltimore 2011 is a series of GLAM related events that will take place July 22-23 in Baltimore. The weekend launches with a happy hour for emerging GLAM professionals and concludes the following day with a lively discussion and series of breakout sessions on the morning of the 23rd. Attendance to both is encouraged but not required. We do hope you'll participate for this exciting event! See you in Baltimore! SarahStierch (talk) 13:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Smithsonian Archives of American Art Backstage Pass[edit]
The Smithsonian is hosting its first Backstage Pass at the Archives of American Art in, Washington, D.C., on Friday, July 29. 10 Wikimedians will experience the behind the scenes aspects of archiving the world's largest collection of documents and photographs related to American art. After a complimentary lunch, an edit-a-thon will take place and prizes will be awarded. Followed by an evening happy hour. We hope you'll participate! SarahStierch (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Yeshu. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.RFC bot (talk) 05:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Chepni Turks. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.RFC bot (talk) 05:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are half way through the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; there is less than a month to go before we have our final 8. Our pool leaders are Adabow (submissions) (Pool A, 189 points) and PresN (submissions) (Pool B, 165 points). The number of points required to reach the next round is not clear at this time; there are some users who still do not have any recorded points. Please remember to update your submissions' pages promptly. In addition, congratulations to PresN, who scored the first featured topic points in the competition for his work on Thatgamecompany related articles. Most points this round generally have, so far, come from good articles, with only one featured article (White-bellied Sea Eagle, from Casliber (submissions)) and two featured lists (Hugo Award for Best Graphic Story, from PresN and Grammy Award for Best Native American Music Album, from Another Believer (submissions)). Points for Did You Know and good article reviews round out the scoring. No points have been awarded for In the News, good topics or featured pictures this round, and no points for featured sounds or portals have been awarded in the entire competition. On an unrelated note, preparation will be beginning soon for next year's WikiCup- watch this space!
There is little else to be said beyond the usual. Please list anything you need reviewing on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, so others following the WikiCup can help, and please do help if you can by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup- points are, of course, offered for reviews at GAC. Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 11:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion to pull WikiProject Wyoming under WikiProject United States[edit]
It was recently suggested that WikiProject Wyoming, to which you are a member, may be inactive or semi active and it might be beneficial to include it in the list of projects supported by WikiProject United States. After reviewing the project it appears that there have not been any active discussions on the talk page in some time and the only content updates appear to be simple maintenance so being supported by a larger project might be beneficial. I have begun a discussion on the projects talk page to see how the members of the project feel about this suggestion. --Kumioko (talk) 00:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.RFC bot (talk) 23:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John - by going through the history of the Wiki:astrology project page I see you were involved in setting up the categories for the project. I have a question to ask you about this. Could you drop a quick note on my talk page to let me know when you are back from your wikibreak? Thanks -- ZacΔ talk! 13:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:August 2011 Gaza Strip air raids. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.RFC bot (talk) 20:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Campaignbox Texas Revolution. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.RFC bot (talk) 17:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note. I'm afraid I know little more about FG than the average American. However I've put the project and the main article on my watchlist. If there are any specific issues that come up which need more input let me know. FYI, Vassyana hasn't edited since February, so he may be retired. Will Bebacktalk 22:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The finals are upon us; we're down to the last few. One of the eight remaining contestants will be this year's WikiCup champion! 150 was the score needed to progress to the final; just under double the 76 required to reach round 4, and more than triple the 41 required to reach round 3. Our eight finalists are:
Casliber (submissions), Pool A's winner. Casliber has the highest total score in the competition, with 1528, the bulk of which is made up of 8 featured articles. He has the highest number of total featured articles (8, 1 of which was eligible for double points) and total did you knows (72) of any finalist. Casliber writes mostly on biology, including ornithology, botany and mycology.
PresN (submissions), Pool B's winner and the highest scorer this round. PresN is the only finalist who has scored featured topic points, and he has gathered an impressive 330, but most of his points come from his 4 featured articles, one of which scored double. PresN writes mostly on video games and the Hugo Awards.
Hurricanehink (submissions), Pool A's runner-up. Hurricanehink's points are mostly from his 30 good articles, more than any other finalist, and he is also the only finalist to score good topic points. Hurricanehink, as his name suggests, writes mostly on meteorology.
Wizardman (submissions), Pool B's runner-up. Wizardman has completed 86 good article reviews, more than any other finalist, but most of his points come from his 2 featured articles. Wizardman writes mostly on American sport, especially baseball.
Miyagawa (submissions), the "fastest loser" (Pool A). Miyagawa has written 3 featured lists, one of which was awarded double points, more than any other finalist, but he was awarded points mostly for his 68 did you knows. Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, including dogs, military history and sport.
Resolute (submissions), the second "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Resolute's points come from his 9 good articles. He writes mostly on Canadian topics, including ice hockey.
Yellow Evan (submissions), who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool A). Most of Evan's points come from his 10 good articles, and he writes mostly on meteorology.
Sp33dyphil (submissions), who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Phil's points come from his 9 good articles, 4 of which (more than any other finalist) were eligible for double points. He writes mostly on aeronautics.
In other news, preparations for next year's competition have begun with a brainstorming thread. Please, feel free to drop by and share any thoughts you have about how the competition should work next year. Sign ups are not yet open, but will be opened in due course. Watch this space. Further, there has been a discussion about the rule whereby those in the WikiCup must delcare their participation when nominating articles at featured article candidates. This has resulted in a bot being created by new featured article delegate Ucucha (talk·contribs). The bot will leave a message on FAC pages if the nominator is a participant in the WikiCup.
A reminder of the rules: any points scored after August 29 may be claimed for the final round, and please remember to update submission pages promptly. If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The goal of WikiProject Arminianism is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Arminianism available on Wikipedia. WP:WikiProject Arminianism as a group does not prefer any particular tradition or denominination of Calvinism, but prefers that all Arminian traditions are fairly and accurately represented.
The September 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.RFC bot (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John - I was usage on en wiki - searching this holysmoke.org in relation to an arbitration case evidence and I saw it was used on an article in your userspace and I saw it was an article so I noindexed it as it usual to stop it showing up in google returns. I hope you don't mind, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 01:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:September 11 attacks. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.RFC bot (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.RFC bot (talk) 16:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Militant atheism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.RFC bot (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are invited to the National Archives in College Park for a special backstage pass and scanathon meetup with Archivist of the United StatesDavid Ferriero, on Saturday, October 8. Go behind the scenes and into the stacks at the National Archives, help digitize documents, and edit together! Free catered lunch provided! Dominic·t 16:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.RFC bot (talk) 13:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are on this year's home straight, with less than a month to go until the winner of the 2011 WikiCup will be decided. The fight for first place is currently being contested by Miyagawa (submissions), Hurricanehink (submissions) and Sp33dyphil (submissions), all of whom have over 200 points. This round has already seen multiple featured articles (1991 Atlantic hurricane season from Hurricanehink and Northrop YF-23 from Sp33dyphil) and a double-scoring featured list (Miyagawa's 1948 Summer Olympics medal table). The scores will likely increase far further before the end of the round on October 31 as everyone ups their pace. There is not much more to say- thoughts about next year's competition are welcome on the WikiCup talk page or the scoring talk page, and signups will open once a few things have been sorted out.
If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 12:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I never got back, I was swamped. But yes it'd be a good idea. But I think the envelope should run from 400BCE-400CE, otherwise you'd never get the envelope of editors able to contribute on everything from Maccabees, Dead Sea scrolls, early Christian/rabbinical origins, etc. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ecumenical council. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.RFC bot (talk) 07:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry. I forgot to remove the RFC tag. The issue has been pretty much resolved and wasn't really that interesting anyway. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 13:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mexico City. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.RFC bot (talk) 13:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Iranian Azerbaijanis. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.RFC bot (talk) 13:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Volunteer (Irish republican). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.RFC bot (talk) 14:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Occupation of the Baltic states. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.RFC bot (talk) 16:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John, there is currently a dispute at the FLG pages [9], can you review the dispute and try mediate an amicable solution? Thanks--PCPP (talk) 07:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Battle of Omdurman. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.RFC bot (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Nazism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.RFC bot (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for finding sources on the Human Rights Torch Relay article. HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bit awkward, but I see that I'm being proposed to be banned, or I'm actually banned for one year on editing Falun Gong related articles[10]? I'm not sure how is that possible without being in the slightest notified that I'm even being considered for something like this. Please let me know if you have any suggestion at this point. Last but not least, please check out briefly my contribution on the last year [11], it will take only a minute, I promise :) Thank You! Best Regards, --HappyInGeneral (talk) 23:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Sri Lanka. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.RFC bot (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Serer people. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I built an article on the Tuidang movement. Literature on it is sparse, but I pulled together what I could. Let me know your thoughts.Homunculus (duihua) 19:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:War of the Pacific. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.RFC bot (talk) 21:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.RFC bot (talk) 22:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The 2011 WikiCup is now over, and our new champion is Hurricanehink (submissions), who joins the exclusive club of the previous winners: Dreamafter (2007), jj137 (2008), Durova (2009) and Sturmvogel_66 (2010). The final standings were as follows:
Prizes for first, second, third and fourth will be awarded, as will prizes for all those who reached the final eight. Every participant who scored in the competition will receive a ribbon of participation. In addition to the prizes based on placement, the following special prizes will be awarded based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, the prize is awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round.
The Featured List Award: Miyagawa (submissions), for his performance in round 4. PresN (submissions) matched the score, but Miyagawa won the tiebreaker.
The Recognised Topic Award (for good and featured topics): PresN (submissions), for his performance in round 3.
The Reviewer Award (for good article reviews): Wizardman (submissions), for his performance in round 3.
No prize was awarded for featured pictures, sounds or portals, as none were claimed throughout the competition. The awards will be handed out over the next few days. Congratulations to all our participants, and especially our winners; we've all had fun, and Wikipedia has benefitted massively from our content work.
Preparation for next year's WikiCup is ongoing. Interested parties are invited to sign up and participate in our straw polls. It's been a pleasure to work with you all this year, and, whoever's taking part in and running the competition in 2012, we hope to see you all in January! J Milburn and The ed17 00:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen your offer to send articles several times now related to Falun Gong. I have amassed my own collection (including, conveniently, electronic copies of most books on the topic, which I regard to be sources of a higher order than news or magazine articles for most topics), but would nonetheless be interested in what you have. In particular, I've had my sights on updating and consolidating 'Falun Gong outside mainland China', which has been badly neglected for years. I suspect it's one page where journalistic accounts are going to be more abundantly useful than scholarly ones. Any information that you think would be valuable to evaluate for that page would be appreciated.Homunculus (duihua) 03:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Greeting, I am a coordinator for WikiProject Animation. A B-Class checklist will be added to the project banner, along with the work group text, including the importance function. The B-Class checklist will include 6 point parameters to assess against the criteria. If you have any questions, please discuss at our talk page. Thank for your time. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 00:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.RFC bot (talk) 23:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Pregnancy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.RFC bot (talk) 00:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.RFC bot (talk) 01:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Pray the Gay Away?. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.RFC bot (talk) 01:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Just wanted to take a moment to let you know about the newly created Batman work group, a part of WikiProject Comics designed to improve the classification and coverage of Batman-related articles on Wikipedia. You are invited to join the group, by adding your name to the list of participants. Feel free to pass this message along, to anyone else you know who would be interested. Thank you for your time and consideration, and we look forward to hearing from you! Fortdj33 (talk) 02:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Zenkai is claiming no Christian or Jew, etc would use the phrase 'creation myth'. I've provided a couple of examples there showing that he's wrong, maybe you can also? Dougweller (talk) 06:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Almoravid dynasty. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.RFC bot (talk) 02:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Veterans Day. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.RFC bot (talk) 03:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello: when you are back from your wikibreak, could you please tell me what the situation of the Angola Project is? I started editing on Angola about a year ago, then discovered there exists this project, registered there as a participant, but somehow have not seen edits by any other participant. What is happening? Aflis (talk) 13:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its Angola, likely inactive. Feel free to continue working on Angola topics though and use it as a workbase though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am slightly bewildered. Are "Dr. Blofeld" and "John Carter" identical? What does the first sentence ("Its Angola...) mean?? And what does, in this concrete case, mean "using as a workbase"??? Aflis (talk) 14:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@John Carter: thank you for your explanation & offer. Blofeld had already made the "disambiguation". I have been studying Angola over the last decades and continue interested in bibliographical information. The email address you might use is balde0430@gmail.com. By the way: work on en:WP is for me a major sideline; my main commitment is with pt:WP. Aflis (talk) 14:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC) PS: Across WPs, one subject I am at this stage giving attention to is the Angolan War of Independence, 1961-74. I am especially interested in academic studies on the subject area, published since 1990, in whatever language. Do you think you can be of help in this regard? Thanks in advance! Aflis (talk) 14:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you in advance. I think I have a reasonable choice of pieces published until 1990, but a rather poor one for the 1990s and 2000s. I am sure looking forward to whatever you come up with, but there is no hurry: please take your time! -- Aflis (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are perfectly right: often the material available can be used for more than one Angola related article. As I am now more concerned with the Independence War, but will then go back to a whole range of articles (in the field of contemporary history) which need correction & improvement, I would be grateful if you sent anything that falls into this scope. Thank you once again! Aflis (talk) 12:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have by now read the text by Carolina Peixoto: although its just an MA dissertation, it is in fact a useful piece, no doubt mainly due to its excellent supervisor, Marcelo Bittencourt. Aflis (talk) 14:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should I look forward to more materials, now that Christmas is over? Or should I wait until hte beginning of the upcoming year? Anyway: all the best for 2012! -- Aflis (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Continuation War. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.RFC bot (talk) 04:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Katrina Kaif. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.RFC bot (talk) 05:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.RFC bot (talk) 06:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.RFC bot (talk) 07:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John, would you please take a look at that article? It's written by a new editor and seems to me to need some help, probably. Beyond a rename though, I'm not sure what it needs - minor cleanup or complete overhaul. Are the sources reliable, or are they fringe? Thanks, LadyofShalott 04:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Genesis creation narrative. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.RFC bot (talk) 07:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I have seen far too much unethical behaviour already on that page from the conservatives who refused to accept the result of a perfectly valid RfC, and are trying to get their way by a war of attrition. Those criticising my deliberately more brutal and blunt comments should condemn those who are damaging Wikipedia wit persistent unethical behaviour. I will not stop calling a spade a spade here. As for calling others on their motives, I learnt long ago that it's important if we want a lasting result of a debate to try to understand and identify the true motives of others, even if they don't recognise them themselves. HiLo48 (talk) 23:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Astrology project would like your views on what constitutes appropriate content and sources for astrology-related content[edit]
Hi, this is to let you know that there is an important discussion taking place in the WP:Astrology project, which affects the guidelines for content and sources on astrology-related pages. This requires input from its members. It would be very much appreciated if you could leave a comment/express your views on the issues raised.
Hello, John Carter. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page. Message added 19:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.RFC bot (talk) 09:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:7 World Trade Center. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.RFC bot (talk) 10:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Senkaku Islands. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.RFC bot (talk) 11:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Stub-Class philosophy articles by work group[edit]
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astrology. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.RFC bot (talk) 12:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Thanksgiving. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.RFC bot (talk) 13:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello John Carter. You have listed yourself as an active contributor of WikiProject Warriors, but as we are trying to see who is still active, we have put all active contributors under "status pending." If you are still active, go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Warriors and move your name to "Active." Move your name to "Inactive" if you no longer wish to contribute. You may always move it back. On December 27, 2024, all members who have not listed themselves as active will be moved to the "inactive" section. Thank you!
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.RFC bot (talk) 19:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Yugoslavs in Croatia. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Religion articles without a WikiProject[edit]
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.RFC bot (talk) 21:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ram Dass. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.RFC bot (talk) 21:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:South Asia. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.RFC bot (talk) 22:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see that at the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Germanic_Mysticism , you left a call for people to contribute to the general WikiProject on religion. I am rather surprised that, although there is the WikiProject on Germanic mysticism, there is not a WikiProject on mysticism in general. The WikiProject on Germanic mysticism appears to be inactive. Could you please look at my proposal, which I have left where you suggested we leave messages? Man thanks - I would have thought a general WikiProject on mysticism might be more active than one specifically linked to Germanic mysticism. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 09:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Nazareth. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gandzasar monastery. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 01:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ariel A. Roth. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 03:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! As you've previously expressed interest in the competition, I'm just letting you know that the 2012 WikiCup is due to start in less than 24 hours. Signups are open, and will remain so for a few weeks after the beginning of the competition. The competition itself will follow basically the same format as last year, with a few small tweaks to point costs to reflect the opinions of the community. If you're interested in taking part, you're more than welcome, and if you know anyone who might be, please let them know too- the more the merrier! To join, simply add your name to Wikipedia:WikiCup/2012 signups, and we will be in touch. Please feel free to direct any questions to me, or leave a note on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! You are receiving this note as you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Please feel free to add or remove yourself. EdwardsBot (talk) 01:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:John of Damascus. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 04:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2011. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 06:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Christmas Eve. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 07:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As the project coordinator and manager I am re-launching Wikipedia Project Rome. The new scope of the project is the city, Kingdom, Republic, Empire and it's influence on the entire world we know today. The current project emphasis is on the fall of the Republic and bringing these articles to GA! Please let your friends and associate know about this projects new scope!
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Georgia (country). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 07:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Taliban. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 08:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Schiavone. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Religion in Africa. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), with an unbelievable 4220 points in the final round. Second place goes to 
TonyTheTiger (submissions), with 2260, and third to 
Casliber (submissions), with 560. Congratulations to our other four finalists – 
White Shadows (submissions), 
William S. Saturn (submissions), 
Staxringold (submissions) and 
ThinkBlue (submissions). Also, congratulations to 
Sasata (submissions), who withdrew from the competition with an impressive 2685 points earlier in this round.
Jujutacular (submissions), for four featured pictures in round 3. Winning the topic award is 
Candlewicke (submissions), for nineteen articles in the news in round three.
Done Rich Farmbrough, 20:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC).
Template:Rivers/Categories has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. — This, that, and the other (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
The Bushranger (submissions), who, at the time of writing, has a comfortable lead with 228 points, followed by 
Hurricanehink (submissions), with 144 points. Four others have over 100 points. Congratulations also go to 
Yellow Evan (submissions), who scored the first points in the competition, claiming for Talk:Hurricane King/GA1, 
Miyagawa (submissions), who scored the first non-review points in the competition, claiming for Dognapping, and 
Jarry1250 (submissions) who was the first in the competition to use our new "multiplier" mechanic (explanation), claiming for Grigory Potemkin, a subject covered on numerous Wikipedias. Thanks must also go to Jarry1250 for dealing with all bot work- without you, the competition wouldn't be happening!
Casliber (submissions) finished third with 223. Twelve others finished with over 100 points- well done to all of you! The final standings in round one can be seen here. A mere 8 points were required to reach round two; competition will no doubt be much more fierce this round, so be ready for a challenge! A special thanks goes, again, to 
Stone (submissions) for some helpful behind-the-scenes updating and number crunching.
Piotrus (submissions) (Pool G) also has over 200 points, while 9 others (three of whom are in Pool D) have over 100 points. Remember that certain content (specifically, articles/portals included in at least 20 Wikipedias as of 31 December 2010 or articles which are considered "vital") is worth double points if promoted to good or featured status, or if it appears on the main page in the Did You Know column. There were some articles last round which were eligible for double points, but which were not claimed for. For more details, see Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring.
Nergaal (submissions) who also led pool H and pool B respectively. However, there remain content types for which no points have yet been scored; featured sounds, featured portals and featured topics. In addition to prizes for leaderboard positions, the WikiCup awards other prizes; for instance, last year, a prize was awarded to 
Candlewicke (submissions) (who has been eliminated) for his work on In The News. For this reason, working on more unusual content could be even more rewarding than usual!
Racepacket (submissions), 
Canada Hky (submissions) respectively. The score required to reach the next round is 35, though this will no doubt go up significantly as the round progresses. We have a good number of high scorers, but also a considerable number who are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. Also, an important note concerning nominations at featured article candidates: if you are nominating content for which you intend to claim WikiCup points, please make this clear in the nomination statement so that the FAC director and his delegates are aware of the fact.
Wizardman (submissions), claiming points for a featured article, a featured list and seven good article reviews, while pool C was led by 
Eisfbnore (submissions), who claimed for two good articles, ten articles at Did You Know and four good article reviews. They scored 154 and 118 respectively. Pool B was by far our most competitive pool; six of the eight competitors made it through to round 4, with all of them scoring over 100 points. The pool was led by 
Adabow (submissions) (Pool A, 189 points) and 
PresN (submissions) (Pool B, 165 points). The number of points required to reach the next round is not clear at this time; there are some users who still do not have any recorded points. Please remember to update your submissions' pages promptly. In addition, congratulations to PresN, who scored the first featured topic points in the competition for his work on Thatgamecompany related articles. Most points this round generally have, so far, come from good articles, with only one featured article (White-bellied Sea Eagle, from 
Another Believer (submissions)). Points for Did You Know and good article reviews round out the scoring. No points have been awarded for In the News, good topics or featured pictures this round, and no points for featured sounds or portals have been awarded in the entire competition. On an unrelated note, preparation will be beginning soon for next year's WikiCup- watch this space!
Casliber (submissions), Pool A's winner. Casliber has the highest total score in the competition, with 1528, the bulk of which is made up of 8 featured articles. He has the highest number of total featured articles (8, 1 of which was eligible for double points) and total did you knows (72) of any finalist. Casliber writes mostly on biology, including ornithology, botany and mycology.
PresN (submissions), Pool B's winner and the highest scorer this round. PresN is the only finalist who has scored featured topic points, and he has gathered an impressive 330, but most of his points come from his 4 featured articles, one of which scored double. PresN writes mostly on video games and the Hugo Awards.
Hurricanehink (submissions), Pool A's runner-up. Hurricanehink's points are mostly from his 30 good articles, more than any other finalist, and he is also the only finalist to score good topic points. Hurricanehink, as his name suggests, writes mostly on meteorology.
Wizardman (submissions), Pool B's runner-up. Wizardman has completed 86 good article reviews, more than any other finalist, but most of his points come from his 2 featured articles. Wizardman writes mostly on American sport, especially baseball.
Miyagawa (submissions), the "fastest loser" (Pool A). Miyagawa has written 3 featured lists, one of which was awarded double points, more than any other finalist, but he was awarded points mostly for his 68 did you knows. Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, including dogs, military history and sport.
Resolute (submissions), the second "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Resolute's points come from his 9 good articles. He writes mostly on Canadian topics, including ice hockey.
Yellow Evan (submissions), who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool A). Most of Evan's points come from his 10 good articles, and he writes mostly on meteorology.
Sp33dyphil (submissions), who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Phil's points come from his 9 good articles, 4 of which (more than any other finalist) were eligible for double points. He writes mostly on aeronautics.
MuZemike (submissions). Everyone still in the competition at this stage has done fantastically well, and contributed greatly to Wikipedia. We're on the home straight now, and we will know our winner in two months.
Sp33dyphil (submissions), all of whom have over 200 points. This round has already seen multiple featured articles (1991 Atlantic hurricane season from Hurricanehink and Northrop YF-23 from Sp33dyphil) and a double-scoring featured list (Miyagawa's 1948 Summer Olympics medal table). The scores will likely increase far further before the end of the round on October 31 as everyone ups their pace. There is not much more to say- thoughts about next year's competition are welcome on the WikiCup talk page or the scoring talk page, and signups will open once a few things have been sorted out.
The Bushranger (submissions), for his performance in round 1.
Candlewicke (submissions), for his performance in round 1.