As you had participated in the previous AfD, your views would be welcome here Talk:Use_of_Twitter_by_celebrities_and_politicians#Proposal_to_merge. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 16:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Just letting you know I reviewed the article here, waiting for responses. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... how about we give it a shot over the weekend? It certainly would be nice to have the tools in time for the free agent madness. I still don't think I'm psychologically ready for this, but I don't know if I'll ever be. Meh. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

It must have been cool to have been at the game. I do wish the Bulls were there instead. :) Zagalejo^^^ 05:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. Some interesting stuff you found. I haven't thought about most of those discussions for a while. :) I should be getting to bed right now, so I'm planning to kick things off early tomorrow evening. Zagalejo^^^ 06:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this evening, I mean. Probably sometime after 7:00 PM (central time). :) I've made a few minor edits to the nomination statement to correct some typos. I hope that's OK. Zagalejo^^^ 06:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yea I most of the ad through an ipad so I knew I would have typed some typos Secret ^account 00:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Thanks for cleaning up my page. Zagalejo^^^ 01:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that went better than I expected! Thanks so much for setting things into motion. Zagalejo^^^ 02:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for editorial efforts that helped Don Kindt become a WP:GA.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

A quick note about other competitions taking place on Wikipedia which may be of interest. There are 13 days remaining in the June-July GAN backlog elimination drive, but it is not too late to take part. August will also see the return of The Core Contest- a one month long competition first run in 2007. While the WikiCup awards points for audited content on any subject, The Core Contest about is raw article improvement, focussing heavily on the most important articles on Wikipedia. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 11:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Secret,

Do you still volunteer to review articles? I've been trying to improve the LeBron James one for the better part of the past two weeks. I think it's looking a lot better, except we still need to fix dead links. Would you be willing to give some feedback on it? --Ktmartell (talk) 18:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Secret! Zad68 created some teams for Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention. He currently placed you on the "Retain new editors" team. Are you interested in being a part of it? EpochFail is the team leader, but he will be out for the rest of the month so we'll need to start with some organization. I created Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Retain new editors so we can centralize discussion. The page may be moved around later on. In any case, I hope you would be happy to join the team. Otherwise, you can always check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention#Project teams for some other teams that might interest you. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've declined your PROD on Sonar Vs Muslimgauze because it was recreated after a previous PROD deletion. If you'd still like to pursue deletion, you'll need to take it to WP:AfD. Cheers, Whouk (talk) 12:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Secret, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Thedatabank to a proposed deletion tag. The speedy deletion criteria are extremely narrow to protect the encyclopedia, and do not fit the page in question. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Electric Catfish 10:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The CSD criteria for G11 are very small and the article does not meet them. However, the guidelines for WP: CORP are that to establish notability, the article must have reliable 3rd party sources. Therefore, I converted it into a PROD. Electric Catfish 11:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "thedatabank’s mission is to create positive social change through technology. They do this by providing high performance, easy to use, affordable software solutions to nonprofit organizations engaged in making the world a better place; and by providing a workplace that respects diversity, encourages innovation, and creates sustainable employment for our community". That's a random sentence from the article, not to mention the clear WP:COI of the author. C'mon "our community" that's a textbook example of G11, so I don't understand why the tag got declined. I guess it is just the citations to the company own website that confused some editors. The tagging is correct but I won't bother as I'm hardly active right now, and it wasn't like it's fully declined, just moved to prod. Secret ^account 09:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Currently, the eighth-place competitor (and so the lowest scorer who would reach the final round right now) has scored 332, more than double the 150 needed to reach the final round last year. In 2010, however, 430 was the lowest qualifying score. In this competition, we have generally seen scores closer to those in 2010 than those in 2011. Let's see what kind of benchmark we can set for future competitions! As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 22:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. At here and here, you removed a significant amount of stuff from Marvin Hamlisch that you didn't feel belonged in the article (some of which I don't necessarily agree with). What I'm concerned about is that the "minor" flag was set on those changes. Was that intentional? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 13:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly removed a duplication paragraph, some way too overdetail borderline copyvio for some composition he did that didn't made a lasting impact and a trivial mention of him in a movie. And I added citations. It's really just cleanup (the article was in poor shape), and wasn't a major edit in my opinion. The minor edit policy is a very tricky one. What one may consider as minor may not be to another person. Secret ^account 19:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I try to stick to WP:MINOR – using it for only minor cosmetic/formatting, punctuation, spelling, clearly incorrect grammar, etc. – basically anything that can't be reasonably argued about. I think removing or adding full sentences or more would generally be arguable. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 15:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all :)

A couple of new things.

First, you'll note that all the project titles have now changed to the Page Curation prefix, rather than having the New Pages Feed prefix. This is because the overarching project name has changed to Page Curation; the feed is still known as New Pages Feed, and the Curation Toolbar is still the Curation Toolbar. Hopefully this will be the last namechange ;p.

On the subject of the Curation Toolbar (nice segue, Oliver!) - it's now deployed on Wikipedia. Just open up any article in the New Pages Feed and it should appear on the right. It's still a beta version - bugs are expected - and we've got a lot more work to do. But if you see something going wrong, or a feature missing, drop me a note or post on the project talkpage and I'll be happy to help :). We'll be holding two office hours sessions to discuss the tool and improvements to it; the first is at 19:00 UTC on 14 August, and the second at 23:00 on the 15th. Both will be in #wikimedia-office as always. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's funny enough you'd bring up that; I hiatused because the effort to delete bilateral relations of countries was pretty successful, and I couldn't be motivated to work on content in a context where everything was at significant risk of deletion. It didn't help that I'd just written a featured article, which was a fuck-ton of work; why build a sandcastle if people are just going to come and knock it over? WilyD 05:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on making some of these NFL articles a bit better...always good to get some encouragement.--Batard0 (talk) 08:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for participating in my RfA. I appreciate your sentiments and I hope I can continue to retain your trust in the months to come.

Take care. =) Kurtis (talk) 17:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good news! You are approved for access to 350 high quality reference resources through Credo Reference.

• Fill out the survey with your username and an email address where your sign-up information can be sent.
• If you need assistance, ask User:Ocaasi.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Credo article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Credo pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Credo accounts/Citations.
• Credo would love to hear feedback at WP:Credo accounts/Experiences
• Show off your Credo access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Credo_userbox}} on your userpage
• If you decide you no longer can or want to make use of your account, donate it back by adding your name here

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 17:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing you are wary of the article in the same way I am of the list of floppers in flopping (basketball). They are both based on someone's subjective opinion from reliable sources. However, OR will be a hard-sell as there are multiple sources. Have you looked at Talk:List_of_Major_League_Baseball_records_considered_unbreakable#Next_steps? There is an effort to make this more than any ol' record that has been called unbreakable by someone. Theoretically, its possible; practically, it's a lot of work to maintain and make sure cruft references arent added or that people dont add original research with a bunch of random stats from a stats site.

I think if you want to see this deleted, it will take something like an essay to explain the nuances of the issues, as they go beyond most people's perception of OR. I dont mind working with you on this if you have further ideas.—Bagumba (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support in my RfA despite any differences we've had in a few AfDs. I look forward to maintaining your trust in me.—Bagumba (talk) 00:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know these were in the public domain. I saw something in the guidelines saying football/baseball cards weren't suitable, but I suppose that must refer to more recent ones. I'll replace images with the Bowman cards and public domain claims where they can be found.--Batard0 (talk) 06:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I swapped 'em out for Frank Gatski, Dante Lavelli, Mac Speedie, Lou Groza and a couple others where they could be found. I think I slapped the right PD notice on them, but I'm not 100% on that. Thanks again for the help. --Batard0 (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

On the subject of next year, a discussion has been opened here. Come and have your say about the competition, and how you'd like it to run in the future. This brainstorming will go on for some time before more focused discussions/polls are opened. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What a great topic for an article. I had never even thought about making a page on this, but I imagine there are quite a lot of sources that can be found for it. I am interested in a collaboration and have a couple of books that have details on how the myth started; John Thorn's 2011 book in particular goes into great detail on it. The issue for me is time. I'm a full-time student, and am barely keeping up with my present work on Wikipedia. It might be a week or two before I can devote any significant time to creating such an article due to my workloads, and I don't know if you plan on waiting that long. However, as I said I am interested in this topic and can get something started in my sandbox, when time permits. Giants2008 (Talk) 11:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your userpage update and just wanted to drop you an anti-stress kitten to combat the thyroid drama. I once had a similar issue with mine and spent a week in the hospital getting it straightened out, so I know how annoying those little glands can be! At any rate, feel better, and I hope you've got the sucker beaten into submission now :)

A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All editors who were approved for a Credo account and filled out the survey giving their username and email address were emailed Credo account access information. Please check your email.

• If you didn't receive an email, or didn't fill out the survey, please email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com
• If you tried out Credo and no longer want access, email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com

If you have any other questions, feel free to contact me. I hope you enjoy your account! User:Ocaasi 15:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Boy, am I glad to see a familiar face around here! Thanks for the welcome! I'd love a crash course whenever you have a chance actually! I'm afraid to do anything outside my userspace without rereading 7 years worth of revised policies! - Acetic Acid 04:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]