User talk:Gobonobo/Archive 12

Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

The Signpost: 09 April 2012

Photo of humane society worker

Hi, do you know if this image is of a HSUS worker or just a local Humane Society worker? HSUS has no affiliation with local human societies.--Dodo bird (talk) 02:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't say for certain, but I would guess that she was volunteering for a local shelter. The Commons description only says Humane Society volunteer. Gobōnobo + c 02:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Ok. I removed the image since if the volunteer is not a HSUS staff, it has no relevance to the article.--Dodo bird (talk) 03:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

re Blanche Lazzell

Hi,

Your nomination has passed GA. See Talk:Blanche Lazzell/GA1. Congratulations!

Although I hope you continue to work on it, you have done a fine job and put much work into the article. The GA is well deserved. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 17:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Mathew. I plan on continuing work on the article. Your suggestions have been quite helpful. Gobōnobo + c 17:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the Wikipedia Ambassador Program

Hi Gobonobo!

Congratulations! Your application to join the Wikipedia Education Program as an Online Ambassador has been accepted. We are honored to welcome you the Ambassador team!

The information below is provided to ensure that your new role as an Online Ambassador is a successful one. There are tasks listed, as well as reading material. Please make sure to complete the actions presented below, as quickly as possible.

The Wikipedia Education Program is a relatively new program that is continuing to experience change and transition. Our goal is to be better than we were yesterday. For this reason, please remember to check the information and talk pages of the United States Education Program and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program often. If you have any questions, please contact one of your fellow Ambassadors or one of the members of the Ambassador Steering Committee.

Please complete the following, as soon as possible
  1. Add your username to the official list of Online Ambassadors;
  2. Add a profile for yourself here; and
  3. Read and review the Wikipedia Ambassadors Principles;
  4. Read the United States Education Program's Memorandum of Understanding (provides list of current courses); and
  5. Select one (or more) of the courses from the MOU and add your name to their Online Ambassador slot.
  6. Sign up for the Wikipedia Ambassador Program announcements email list.

Support Structure

Online Ambassadors serve as a vital link in the Wikipedia Education Program, assisting new student editors transition into the Wikipedia editing community. They serve in a leadership role alongside the course instructor; local Campus Ambassador(s), who work with the class in person; and the Regional Ambassador, who checks in periodically with the pod to make sure everything is going well. Together, the instructor, Campus Ambassador, Regional Ambassador, and Online Ambassador encompass the course "pod".

The pod is the term we use to refer to the group of individuals that work together to help the students in a particular course successfully contribute to Wikipedia. A prototypical pod might look something like this:

  • A professor or course instructor who is fairly new to Wikipedia, leading a class of 20–30 students, who have been assigned to make significant contributions to new or existing articles related to the course subject.
  • Two Campus Ambassadors, one of whom is an experienced Wikipedian and one of whom is new to the encyclopedia. The Campus Ambassadors are provided with training to learn the basic policies and guidelines of Wikipedia and how to help students contribute effectively.
  • Two Online Ambassadors, one of whom is a moderately experienced Wikipedian, while the other is very experienced. Both have knowledge of community policies and guidelines and are available to provide editing guidance, answer questions, and assistance navigating the community. When needed, Online Ambassadors are also available for one-on-one mentorship.
  • One Regional Ambassador, a moderately experienced Wikipedian who coordinates assistance and support for universities and courses based on a large geographical region.

Role and Responsibilities

The list of the responsibilities of the Online Ambassador are presented in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). In essence, the role of the Online Ambassador includes:

  1. Helping students in your class(es) when they ask for it and answer their questions;
  2. Serve as a liaison between the professor/student and the community;
  3. In general, keep an eye out for the students and professors and help them navigate the community;
  4. Helping students get feedback on their work (whether from you or other editors with an interest in or knowledge of the subject area)
  5. Be a good example for students, modeling good faith communication and editing practices; and
  6. Communicating regularly with the other members of your pod regarding the progress of the student, along with any issues that come up.

Online Ambassadors can also assist students that are outside of their pod. Generally, Online Ambassadors represent the Ambassador Program and provide assistance for students whenever encountered. While feedback on the style and formatting of student articles is essential, assistance may also be needed to review the articles substance and content. When needed, the Online Ambassador may request the assistance of WikiProjects that focus on technical issues presented in student articles.

Communication Channels

There are four main places for news, updates, and discussion about Wikipedia Ambassadors and the Wikipedia Education Program:

  1. Wikipedia talk:Ambassadors
  2. Wikipedia talk:United States Education Program
  3. The Wikipedia Ambassador Program announcements list. This is a low-traffic email list that is used for significant announcements that are relevant to the whole program. Please sign up as soon as you get a chance.
  4. Internet Relay Chat (IRC). If you use IRC, please consider adding #wikipedia-en-ambassadors and #wikipedia-en-classroom to your channel lineup. The latter is the main help channel for the program, where students and instructors seek live help.

Future communication tools are being developed. Newsletters about the program or messages for Online Ambassadors may occasionally be delivered to your talk page. If you have any questions, please let me know.

Again, welcome to the Ambassador team! We look forward to working with you!

--Epistemophiliac (talk) 00:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
Thank you for your work on Hilary Rosen . It's so nice to go to bed concerned about an article and wake up to find it fixed! Thank you. HectorMoffet (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you HectorMoffet. I see you also edit US politics articles, so we'll probably cross paths again. Let me know if you ever need help with anything and welcome to the project. Cheers, Gobōnobo + c 23:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

  • Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
    • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
    • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
  • The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
  • To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
  • If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
  • HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
  • Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 20:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

stop censoring my posts

You live in minnesota you have no damn idea how the people of Mississippi feel about Jim hood. More than half the state hates him and knows that he does all his flamboyant charades to help him in his for when he finally runs for Gov. Worry about wtf is going on in minnesota an leave my crap alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brut2010 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Brut2010. I didn't intend to censor you. I undid this change that you made to Hood's article because it was not sourced. Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core policies and I try to remove unsourced contentious material about living people regardless of what state they're from. Gobōnobo + c 21:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

censorship

wiki-man ahoy!
you go wiki-man! Brut2010 (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:United States Conference of Catholic Bishops logo.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:United States Conference of Catholic Bishops logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


AFD: Dimensional approach/models to personality disorders

Hello, I am the creator of/main contributor to the dimensional models of personality disorders page. Thank you very much for your vote to keep the page - it is part of a class project and I am a first-time contributor to Wikipedia, so I am still new to doing organization, tone, etc. correct according to Wikipedia guidelines. I am fully in support of editing the page so that is more up to Wikipedia's standards and plan to work on that throughout the week, and suggestions you have of what I could do to improve the page would be much appreciated. Thanks again! Allexe11 (talk) 22:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Allexe11. Thanks for creating that article. I'm sorry if editors have been a bit brusque with you; some of our processes can be a bit brutal. We're currently having a discussion about whether or not to include DYK goals for class projects like yours, so hopefully we'll get it all sorted out. It looks to me as if your article will survive the deletion process and I'd encourage you to continue working on it as you would normally. I'll chime in on the talk page with any specific suggestions. Cheers, Gobōnobo + c 22:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 April 2012

Occupy Minneapolis

I saw that you had created an article on Occupy Minneapolis in your sandbox. Seeing that it was good and supported by reliable sources, I moved it to article space with the proper attribution to your sandbox in order to comply with the GFDL. If for any reason you object to my movement of the article into articlespace, please inform me and I will speedy tag it as {{db-userreq}}. Wer900 talkessay on the definition of consensus 02:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I'm still working on this and would appreciate if it wasn't live yet. Gobōnobo + c 02:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

thx

Thanks for "Bees for Development" Victuallers (talk) 07:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Please no not remove conflict of interest tags with out consensus

I know you believe these tags are wrong, but until the issues are addressed, they should stay. There is no consensus to remove them. There is no documentation that the stated COI (students priortising classroom objectives over Wikipedia guidelines) has been resolved. If you wish to have them removed, please engage in consensus building on the talk page. --LauraHale (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

There was a consensus of two that COI was being used inappropriately at the time I pulled the tag (and I did engage on the talk page), but I'm more than happy to continue working it out on the talk page. Gobōnobo + c 03:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

re: your comment on my talk page

I wasn't thinking of you at all but of User:Smallman12q. Meatpuppetry occurs only if you have an involvement in the article/class so that your view wouldn't be neutral. No worries if you're just a helpful editor! It's some of the Online Ambassadors that are the most problematic. They seem to have poor article writing skills but nevertheless take on an advocacy role regarding the classes they monitor. This most certainly is wrong and harmful to both the encyclopedia and to the educational programs. MathewTownsend (talk) 03:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I should clarify that I am an online ambassador (though a very new one), but I've yet to get a class. I think some of the stickiness with the ambassadors might arise from the part on Wikipedia:Online Ambassadors that says their role is partly to keep the newcomers from being "bitten". And I liked avocado role better (you had me looking that one up). Gobōnobo + c 04:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Yeh, I had a laugh at avocado too. (That's what a hasty use of spell checker gets you!) I'm not sure how to keep newcomers for being "bitten". In fact, they often will be. Most "bitten" newcomers have no support, aren't part of an "Education Program" etc., so those are the ones that regular editors should provide interference for, not students. If they are students, they have to learn to deal with it, since if they want to complete the course they have to stay and become grownup editors. Offer them support, but I think most would be teaching the student what happened and why, so they learn to avoid further such incidents and to handle them appropriately when they do happen. For an Online Ambassador to chastise regular editors on behalf of the student could just cause more resentment among the en:wp community than already exists, and that surely won't help. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Hannah Kempfer

Hello! Your submission of Hannah Kempfer at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Obama Eats Dogs‎

While I agree it is ridiculous, I have removed the speedy deletion tag from Obama Eats Dogs‎, as it doesn't fit the criteria, as it has been covered by various news outlets, including the Washington post, I suggest taking it to AfD if you still think it should be deleted. --kelapstick(bainuu) 06:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. That's probably the same decision I would have made but I thought an admin should have a look anyways. Gobōnobo + c 06:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 April 2012

Seamus (dog)

I noticed that you have made edits to the Seamus (dog) article. There is a survey to determine whether the Seamus article should be kept, renamed, merged, or deleted. Thank you. HHIAdm (talk) 17:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC) Talk:Seamus (dog)#Consolidated survey

I saw your comment about the Talk page being an inappropriate place to discuss the deletion or merger of the Seamus article. I created the survey because it's so unclear what should be done. There were proposals to rename the article, merge the article, and delete the article. While I agree that normally an AfD is the appropriate forum for deletion, there is severe risk with this article that different forums will come to different conclusions especially if individuals are unaware of all the proposals being offered. HHIAdm (talk) 18:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seamus (dog) (2nd nomination)
Hi HHIAdm. Thanks for your effort to sort this all out. It makes sense to have a centralized discussion. Since the AfD discussion for Seamus seems to be where the fate of these articles will ultimately be decided, I think editors should be encouraged to air their views there rather than in the survey. An AfD decision could result in any of the outcomes offered in the survey and would override the survey should they differ. Gobōnobo + c 18:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. I have added a link from the survey on the talk page to the AfD page. HHIAdm (talk) 21:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited War on Women, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scott Walker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

War on Women

It seems that you have attempted to unilaterally restart the POV essay War on Women, which was recently deleted at Articles for Deletion. Knock it off — this kind of attempt to sidestep consensus will not end well for you. WIkipedia is not a place for R ants and D ants to fight to the death over the ongoing political campaigns of their glorious leaders. Carrite (talk) 17:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Carrite. I wasn't trying to sidestep consensus. I've not much experience creating articles that have previously been deleted, so this is something of a learning process for me. Gobōnobo + c 19:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi Gobonobo, regarding the above, I left a note for you here. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 18:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you SlimVirgin. I've asked Wifione to advise. Gobōnobo + c 19:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
To give you some feedback on the article - 'War on Women' is a new term, and is only referenced in a few of the referenced in a few of the articles (especially as many are about events before the term existed). Therefore much of the article is synthesis - material that may make logical sense, but requires interpretation (which may be subject to bias). Essentially, only the first and last paragraphs can be directly related to the article topic. Much of the rest describes Republican policies on womens issues (which probably belong on their own page). Essentially the primary issues are: the term is a neologism & there needs to be strong evidence of notability & the article is mostly synthesis (which could be interpreted as biased).
  • To solve this; Notability must be asserted, and Republican policies would be better discussed on a more neutrally named page.
Clovis Sangrail (talk) 00:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi Clovis. Thank you for your feedback. You address two aspects, the name and the scope, that I also recognize as having room for improvement. My understanding is that the term "War on Women", in the sense that it has been used since 2011 or so, concerns laws that have been passed in the US Congress and state legislatures that affect women's rights (or have a perceived effect on women's rights), so it is a new term but it describes a new thing. That legislation and related events have been deemed a "War on Women", albeit primarily by women's groups and Democrats. I recognize that the name is perhaps less than perfect and I'm open to suggestions for a move. The article is not strictly about the term itself, but the legislation that is being described by that term, which is a nationwide legislative policy initiative, regardless of the name it is given or whether it is acknowledged as such. I think this article helps to explain why this is not just synthesis. Gobōnobo + c 03:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi Gonobo. To clarify synthesis, the wikipedia definition (WP:SYN) excludes 'combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources'. To that end, any of the early sources need to be explicitly linked to 'War on women' (rather than providing general evidence). A second level of synthesis is that the examples given have a negative outcome on women (which is one that the R & D's will continue to debate forever). However much of the material could be objectively construed as the Republican party's policies (and could be presented in an article as that. It could also be valuable to create an article on Democrat policies. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 08:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
WP:SYN is sometimes used in deletion discussions to apply broadly to the subject of an article as well as in specific instances within an article. I think in this instance it is important to recognize that a certain amount of synthesis may be going on with the progenitors of the term. If a group of politicians is using synthesis to create and popularize a term offwiki, and that term becomes widespread, it may still warrant coverage in Wikipedia. While synthesis (arguably) was used in the creation/application of the term, it would not violate WP:SYN if we are documenting their use of the term.
I don't think that every source used in an article about X necessarily has to mention X explicitly. For instance, this piece mentions the war on women in connection with the 20 week abortion restriction laws and specifically points out the states that have passed or are considering those bills. Then there are links to the specific legislation in each state, which of course don't mention the "war on women". [1][2][3][4][5][6] That said, I'd like to address specific instances of synthesis in the article, which I very much consider a work in progress. Gobōnobo + c 18:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I think WP:SYN can be avoided if the article is about the term 'war on women' as it is used politically rather than describing an actual war against women (which will never meet NPOV). Wording like 'The War on Women seeks to limit access to abortion...' is probably leaning towards latter. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 07:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of War on Women

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on War on Women, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. –sumone10154(talk • contribs) 20:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Take 2

Actually having been able to see your piece and the previous piece, it's clear that I was mistaken about what seemed to be a sneaky restart of a deleted subject around consensus. Whether the piece is a POV-driven synthesis about a non-notable neologism or a keeper might be a matter of some debate — and I feel sure the question will be decided at AfD before long. Regardless of that, the piece as it currently stands is quality work and in no way resembles the deleted piece. There's a hell of a lot of work in it and it's clear that you're skilled in the ways of the wiki... —Tim Davenport, Corvallis, OR /// Carrite (talk) 06:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Tim. I appreciate that very much. Gobōnobo + c 16:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Modest Barnstar
Thank you for participating in the January 2012 MTC Drive. The drive was a big success. As a result of the drive thousands of files was transferred and many files was nominated for deletion because of copyright issues or because they were not usable. For your big work transferring files to Commons you are hereby awarded this barnstar. Cloudbound (talk) 19:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 April newsletter

Round 2 of this year's WikiCup is over, and so we are down to our final 32, in what could be called our quarter-finals. The two highest scorers from each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers overall, have entered round 3, while 30 participants have been eliminated. Pool B's Conradh na Gaeilge Grapple X (submissions) remains our top scorer with over 700 points; he continues to gain high numbers of points for his good articles on The X-Files, but also Millennium and other subjects. He has also gained points for a good topic, a featured list, multiple good article reviews and several did you knows. Pool E's Scotland Casliber (submissions) was second, thanks primarily to his biology articles, with Pool H's New York City Muboshgu (submissions) coming in third, with an impressive 46 did you knows, mostly on the subject of baseball. Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both scored over 600 points. Pools E and H proved our most successful, with each seeing 5 members qualify for round 3, while Pools C and D were the least, with each seeing only 3 reach round 3. However, it was Pool G which saw the lowest scoring, with a little under 400 points combined; Pool H, the highest scoring group, saw over triple that score.

65 points was the lowest qualifying score for round 3; significantly higher than the 11 required to enter round 2, and also higher than the 41 required to reach round 3 last year. However, in 2010, 100 points were needed to secure a place in round 3. 16 will progress to round 4. In round 3, 150 points was the 16th highest score, though, statistically, people tend to up their game a little in later rounds. Last year, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 points were needed. Guessing how many points will be required is not easy. We still have not seen any featured portals or topics this year, but, on the subject of less common content types, a small correction needs to be made to the previous newsletter: File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg, our first featured picture, was the work of both Vanuatu Matthewedwards (submissions) and United Kingdom Grandiose (submissions), the latter of whom has also gone on to score with File:Map of the Battle of Guam, 1944.svg. Bonus points also continue to roll in; this round, England Ealdgyth (submissions) earned triple points for her good articles on William the Conqueror and the Middle Ages, Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both earned triple points for their work on Western Jackdaw, now a good article, Michigan Dana Boomer (submissions) earned triple points for her work on lettuce and work by Bavaria Stone (submissions) to ready antimony for good article status earned him triple points. United Kingdom Jarry1250 (submissions) managed to expand Vitus Bering far enough for a did you know, which was also worth triple points. All of these highly important topics featured on 50 or more Wikipedias at the start of the year.

An article on the WikiCup in the Wikimedia Blog, "Improving Wikipedia with friendly competition", was posted at the end of April. This may be of interest to those who are signed up to this newsletter, as well as serving as another way to draw attention to our project. Also, we would again like to thank United Kingdom Jarry1250 (submissions) and Bavaria Stone (submissions), for continued help behind the scenes. As ever, 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. 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 (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2012

DYK for Hannah Kempfer

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ed Begley Sr.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ed Begley Sr.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Thimble Summer.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Thimble Summer.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of War on Women for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article War on Women is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/War on Women (2nd nomination) 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 high-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. McDoobAU93 19:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 May 2012

Whoops

Thanks for catching my mistaken edit. I was responding to Debbie, who reported my for edit warring, and I accidentally did so on the wrong page. William Jockusch (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Animal rights

You are receiving this semi-automated message because you are a participant of WikiProject Animal rights. If the project is not on your watchlist or you have not visited the WikiProject recently you will not be aware of some of the changes that I have made to the pages, or aware of an a issue that has been raised about my attempt to re-categorise some of the project related articles. Please revisit the project talk page to add your input. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Entertainment Weekly 2012-02-08 cover.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Entertainment Weekly 2012-02-08 cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:5 Very Good Reasons To Punch A Dolphin In The Mouth cover.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:5 Very Good Reasons To Punch A Dolphin In The Mouth cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:New Internationalist (magazine) July August 2011 cover art.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:New Internationalist (magazine) July August 2011 cover art.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

You asked about whether I'd got permission for the New Internationalist cover I uploaded. The answer is yes, I'm a co-director of the company so give this permission myself (and have checked with relevant colleagues) Thomas Ash (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)