This is an archive of past discussions with User:JayHenry. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
Hey, thanks for the heads up! Unfortunately I'm traveling and won't have a chance to watch out for it (or is that fortunately?) I'll just be happy if it survives the day without getting an infobox hammered onto it. Looks grim. --JayHenry (talk) 05:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Arts
Jay, just to alert you that Smile (Lily Allen song) is at FAC. I know you stopped buying her branded underwear and tofu at the time as you felt the release was too highbrow and unrepresentative, but you might want to jump in anyhoo. If you listen closely its a damn fine tune (really). Ceoil (talk) 09:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
No, it's my own query that was unclear: I meant, "[...] from the candidates themselves?" :-) I wanted to discuss your hesitations about the balance between secrecy, transparency and openness. It's a concern that pops up at interval but most often in an overblown matter by the more discontent elements of the community and discussing it with someone who doesn't have an immediately obvious chip on their shoulders is probably going to help me figure it out.
I can tell you that, with one year sitting on the hot plate, it's nowhere the horror that most people seem to think — though there is no way to prove it by definition — and that I now agree with the current setup for the most part. (The very observant may have noticed my own position on the topic changed a bit between this year's campaign and last year's). So I guess what I'd like to know is:
What do you think the nature of off-wiki discussions is?
What would you consider discussion that is definitely acceptable to hold off-wiki? What definitely isn't?
What is your perception of why such discussion takes place?
What have you found lacking in Arb's infrequent discussion of the topic?
I guess my point is that I think I'm generally considered a fairly reasonable person and I agree in the main with the current balance; so I'm tempted to guess that most editors' misgivings are based on a misperception of what goes on on the mailing list and Arb wiki or of why we're using them. Figuring out what, exactly, those misgivings are would be the first step in trying to address them. :-) — Coren(talk)12:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
(And this might go on record as the first time an ArbCom candidate asked questions about arb philosophy to a voter) :-) — Coren(talk)12:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I like to believe that it is my incredible thoughtfulness that draws Arbs here to ask questions of me. All is right in the world. Of course, I like to think the same thing when the guy running for mayor knocks on my door :)
Numerous Arbs have indicated the discussion is voluminous and thus I infer it is also fairly wide-ranging. I assume it consists largely of routine investigations into things like sockpuppetry, much lobbying from people in current RFARs, at least some Arb discussion of current RFARs, and various procedural-type discussions such as those listed in your agenda.
It is definitely acceptable to hold discussion of personally identifying information (such as IP addresses or real names) of editors in sockpuppetry investigations, where this is not known. It is definitely problematic to hold discussion of current RFARs or procedural-type discussions off-Wiki. Also, secret evidence should really only be considered when it contains personally identifying information. When David Gerard was allowed to use the list to privately lobby his case, this was inappropriate. The receipt of private evidence should be mentioned, and the question should always be asked does this merit secrecy? Secrecy should not be the default presumption.
I believe that the Arbs feel that since they live in a pressure cooker where their every edit is over-scrutinized, the mailing list allows them to "speak candidly" without "creating drama" or something such as this. I believe there is fear or "political retribution". And I believe the Arbs have also somewhat lost sense of what information is actually personal or private information. (If my user name were HippoGuy, then discussing that Jay Henry is my real name would be private information; that Majorly used to use the sockpuppet Aillema, is not private or personal information.) Something that is merely embarrassing to a Wikipedian's constructed identity is not private or personal. "HippoGuy is creating a lot of problems and should maybe be banned" is a discussion that can happen on Wiki. "HippoGuy wants to return from his ban -- he says he won't commit BLP violations on the articles of poachers anymore" is a discussion that can happen on Wiki.
An example is this. There was no reason to hold this procedural vote off wiki. Putting it on Wiki would have allowed the community to say "hey, wait a second, have you thought about the fact that you're moving the goal posts on us?" Does this vote merit secrecy was clearly never asked, because it could not have been answered affirmatively. Indeed, as we can probably agree in hindsight, holding it on Wiki would have led to less drama. Another unfortunate example is the ACPD. There is no clear reason (that I can think of) to brew any of this idea behind closed doors. It was actually a really good idea, murdered because for the community it was conjured out of nowhere and came with unclear motives. Again, posting this on Wiki from the get-go ("a thinktank would be nice, let's see what people think") would have led to less drama. Perhaps the initial appeals of the WP:BASC ought to remain private, but very little of the ensuing discussion needs to remain private. The news that the committee has voted X-Y to allow some troll to return to editing could benefit from some explanation. Even the clerks have a secret email list. (What clerking activities need to be secret? This is preposterous, and serves no purpose I can see but to inflate the clerks' sense of self-importance.)
It does make you position much clearer, and makes me see your perspective a little more precisely. I must admit I can't quite agree with you on the substance though I understand the principle you feel is at play.
Probably one of the points where we diverge most is in what you term "merely embarrassing"; whereas you feel there is no reason to keep such discussion private, there is a good argument to be made that making it public is very much unproductive, both because of the direct drama potential but also because experience has shown over and over that exposing dirty laundry can trivially push a borderline editor over the edge (even if, in the end, no direct intervention ends up being warranted).
I'll not deny that this confidentiality has been abused in the past, or that slip ups and errors do not happen occasionally. But it is my considered opinion that the current balance of openness vs confidentiality is currently pretty much on the spot and to the benefit of the project for the most part, and that significantly more openness would be, overall, more detrimental than benefical.
As an aside, note that I use "openness" and not "transparency"; the two are often conflated and confused with each other but are not that directly related. The committee needs to be as transparent as possible, but that does not imply or require that its workings be open. — Coren(talk)02:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I can see that you at least have a reason for not wanting to discuss editor conflict on Wiki. (I don't think there is no reason to keep the discussion private, but that on balance the secrecy is ultimately counterproductive.) I'm not sure what is meant by "exposing dirty laundry can trivially push a borderline editor over the edge", but I suspect that by "borderline" you're describing editors that I would be more likely to class as either 1) some sort of "thin-skinned drama monger" or 2) editors who were frustrated by the ArbCom's (somewhat historical) double standard (laxer standard) for Admin conduct. In the former case we need not pander to the sensitivity of dramaqueens; in the latter case, applying the same standard to admins is the solution.
You have offered no defense of secret procedural things. Why was the ACPD conjured in secret? Why were the AUSC procedural votes conducted on the mailing list? Why do the clerks need a secret mailing list? --JayHenry (talk) 03:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
(undent) Procedural decisions are arguably less clearcut, and more a matter of opinion. For the most part, they are deliberations that share two properties: community input is considerably less useful and they are likely to encourage unhealthy attempts at micromanagement (the latter, especially, is problematic: look at how messy and indecisive the community can get at minor points of process, usually stalling in complete lack of consensus). To be honest, the process of reaching consensus between 18 arbs is tricky enough, and solved cleanly with simple votes, without inviting the extra complication. History has shown that even trivial matters can (and usually do) quickly devolve into a mess, not even taking into account those editors who actually intend to disrupt the workings of the committee.
This again revolves around the difference between transparent and open. The committee will keep its workings secret only when privacy is involved, but needs not expose all of its internal decision making to remain transparent: the only real requirement is that what we end up doing is accompanied with a rationale and as much explanation as is possible; and barring the occasional oversight or error that is always the case. In fact, this year's committee is unarguably the most transparent yet (take a look at the noticeboard and compare this to past years, for instance).
The clerk's list is an altogether different matter. Some editor behavior concerns are discussed there — which also is better served by discretion rather than public discussion — but its primary purpose is speedy coordination. (The wiki way is well suited for the collaborative construction of documents, but sucks as a communication medium for interactive matters).
I guess my point is that I didn't neglect how poisonous the current scheme allegedly is so much as disagree that it is in the first place. What little benefit could be extracted from moving that decision making process on-wiki would be completely overwhelmed by the downsides: added complexity and delay, increased drama (warranted or not), and increased canvassing and politicizing of an already difficult process. Openness might appear to be a desirable principle, but practical concerns are also important and, in my considered opinion, win out in this case. And, frankly, while it's unarguable that some do have misgivings about keeping the decision process off-wiki on principled grounds, much of the vocal opposition would be more honestly described as a desire for kibitzing and satisfying curiosity than genuine desire for openness for the sake of openness. — Coren(talk)05:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Heh. Perhaps the lesson to take home is that it is possible to both be reasonable and still arrive at different assessment of the value of different levels of openness. :-) — Coren(talk)15:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
If you'll excuse me chiming in, I have to say that I largely agree with JayHenry. Despite the fact that most candidates at the ArbCom elections last year called for greater openness, we actually seem to have more official "secret" lists than we used to. I am particularly saddened by the creation of the ArbCom clerks mailing list and the bureaucrat mailing list (which I refuse to be a part of). The trend has been to move more discussion off-wiki, not vice versa. In my experience, this all to often allows those privy to such discussions to mislead third parties as to their content and then use the "secret" nature of list to stifle discussion that might allow the third party to realise they were being misled. I would like to see candidates advocating the view that for any discussion, there must be a good reason to hold it off-wiki, beyond it being routine practice to do so. If a discussion ends up happening off-wiki that in fact didn't need to be private, then I'd hope everyone would agree to it being posted to the wiki as soon as possible for discussion to carry on here.
I don't think the ArbCom noticeboard has changed things as much as the current committee likes to believe. It is an improvement in that the community is at least informed of which Arbs voted for/against what, but it remains very limited in the information it divulges. It doesn't tell us the reason for their decisions, how discussions were shaped, or what alternative possibilities were not adopted - even on fairly routine matters. Whilst a step in the right direction, the noticeboard make it clear how much discussion the community is excluded from. A better step would be a commitment to bring much more off-wiki discussion onto the wiki, even if you don't agree to going as far as JayHenry proposes. WJBscribe(talk)18:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'll chime in also then :) I think Coren is spot on, but then I tend to view these issues from the perspective of FAC delegate, understanding that too much openness only creates more drama and doesn't resolve issues. I think Coren strikes just the right balance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, WJBscribe, JayHenry certainly expresses valid concerns even if I do not agree with them. I'm not going to commit to change the current balance. I can commit to always seriously reconsider it when a discussion starts to see if it can be productively moved on-wiki, but I'm not going to promise that it will always change the outcome. — Coren(talk)19:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
The bottom line, unfortunately, is this -- when you have perfectly-intentioned leaders and when everyone believes in the system, then it works. Doesn't matter the system. Communism would work great if the leaders were perfectly-intentioned and everyone believed in it. So would anarcho-capitalism or Zoroastrianism or, you know, world government led by the Freemasons or the MPAA or whatever. But the problem is leaders aren't perfectly intentioned and not everyone has blind faith. The challenge is to find a system that works as well as possible, even when the leaders are flawed and the people lack that faith. That system is transparency, the ultimate check and balance, more of it than we've got here.
Maybe we're getting closer (though elections scrutinized only by a small wikigod community is a clear step backwards from whatever progress has been made, under the spurious guise of "democracy" instead of the Banana Republicanism that it is) but we're nowhere near close enough. Coren, if everyone were you, maybe I'd trust you all to go off behind closed doors and deign to inform us whenever you see fit, with no particular guidelines or criteria, and maybe everyone else would trust you to do that too. And yet. There are untrustworthy people on the lists. We know it. We've seen both that they leak and what they've leaked. Both the material that never should have been leaked and the material that never should have been private. It's not hypothetical -- the trust has been abused.
The current balance needs changed. I can indeed agree that reasonable people can reach different conclusions. There are, for example, reasonable people who believe that we should do nothing to prevent global warming because changing the balance would be too damaging to the economy. I recognize they are reasonable. But I cannot vote for them; I believe something different. --JayHenry (talk) 03:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps, though I think you underestimate the average ethical fiber of the members of ArbCom: how likely is it that, if there is even a single principled Arb on the committee, serious misbehavior would continue unchallenged? At any rate, my objective here was not to change your voting intent but to discuss the subject, if you feel my position is detrimental to the project then it is your responsibility to vote against me (or at least to not support me). It may well be that we'll never agree on the principle, and will have to keep our disparate opinion. :-) You worry about spurious democracy but, ultimately, it is quite real given that you can express your disagreement, and vote to your conscience unhindered. — Coren(talk)03:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh, all my bluster aside, I'll probably vote for you at this point. I might disagree about the transparency thing, but we have enough of a shortage of reasonableness it might be wise to overlook a single political bone of contention. --JayHenry (talk) 03:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, thank you. As surprising as it may be to some, I did add data to my evaluation of the balance out of this discussion. We all try our best to help the project we so love, warts and all. :-) — Coren(talk)04:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
On running
In response to your aside, I would be more open to serving on the committee again if I didn't have to live through an election (and thus experiencing all over again the most dramatic parts of my time here). It's a pretty bruising experience and doesn't have much to do with the actual business of arbitration. Inevitably the top vote-getters will be mild-manned content editors who haven't made numerous enemies engaged in a major policy debate. Mackensen(talk)02:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if never having stood for any sort of election here on Wikipedia I just have a warped perspective of it all. Are the elections worse than the work itself? And if so, why?
As for the inevitability... I'm not sure if we've seen evidence that elections work out that way. Casliber was certainly a content editor, but he was also a major player in the interminable notability wars. Newyorkbrad isn't really a content editor. Risker stepped into her fair share of debates, as did, I think, FT2. Risker could probably even be considered a partisan in most of the Giano-related stuff. What you seem to be suggesting is a strategy of not making enemies by avoiding debates or just being milquetoast looks to me (in these cases) more like being a calming participant in debates. --JayHenry (talk) 03:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking more about Filiocht and Paul August, which probably dates me. I remain concerned that content editors who don't have a lot of prior experience with administrative duties are in for a rude surprise. I was pleased to see more questions about workload management and time spent outside the main namespace. Risker was a participant, but not a partisan, and in my view an ideal candidate. It's tough to balance that; for every Risker I can show you a dozen editors who burned out on politics.
My issue with the election is that doesn't have much relation to the matter at hand. Maybe a third of the questions are germane, but most answers are bland and don't tell you how a candidate will deal with the strain of actual arbitration. A candidate can give great answers and burn out in four months. A candidate can give great answers and get derailed because of silly drama (Giano). Mackensen(talk)03:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
There's something about the question and answer process that doesn't work right. Although it's important to be able to ask questions, for some reason, the ratio of useless-to-useful questions is extremely high. I agree this is a problem (i'm not a big question asker), but there's sure no solution that jumps out at me. --JayHenry (talk) 04:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Ruminating on two other matters. Maybe things have changed since I left the committee, but in practice Medcom and Arbcom never worked together as originally intended and I can't recall us ever taking a direct referral from them. Also, Fred made quite a few enemies during his tenure (as did many of us), but he did real yeoman work while on the committee. Mackensen(talk)02:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, was the original idea that MedCom and ArbCom ought to work together? I'll admit that, while probably well intentioned, the mediation system seems to yield few results. (Could just be the cases I've seen, that have been giant time pits.) Would improved MedCom-ArbCom relations accomplish anything in your opinion? --JayHenry (talk) 03:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, as I recall that was the idea. They were set up at the same time. The problem with mediation is the lack of coercion. Arbitration works because it can ban people from pages, topics, the project itself. I tried informally mediating a dispute once in lieu of arbitration and it became apparent that resolution was impossible until we'd thrown at least half the editors off the project. I don't see much point in improving relations except on general principle. Mackensen(talk)03:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I think the name ought to provide a strong hint as to the original intention. I suspect the original formulation of the arbcom was made w/ the model of Arbitration in mind. Disputes would go to medcom, if a solution couldn't be found that would be agreeable to all parties, then they would be arbitrated--where participants would make offers and the arbitrators would chose between them (in final offer arb.) or craft their own. For good or ill, that avenue of dispute resolution hasn't been followed (Mackensen's point above regarding un-mediatable disputes probably accurately describes the bulk of disputes headed for arbitration. Obviously facing dispute after dispute like that is taxing on mediators and good faith participants. I can definetly see how the bodies would have diverged quickly) and arbcom has morphed into a court of law. Protonk (talk) 05:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I saw your analysis of my ACE statement. I just wanted to let you know I added content to my original statement about a day after I announced my candidacy. I do not know if you had a chance to review it since then. If you have, then please ignore this. Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for bringing to my attention. I had not yet had a chance to evaluate and so hadn't seen the new statement. The new statement is certainly not empty so I removed my statement and will have more after thinking a bit. --JayHenry (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey there. I was reading your election guide, and I thought your analysis for Secret in User:JayHenry/arb#Very_Strong_Oppose was a bit harsh. While I respect your opinion, I was wondering if you could tone down your verbiage a bit; saying Secret is "completely unstable" and "barely illiterate" is a bit excessive, wouldn't you think? In any case, besides that, nice voting guide. It's highly interesting to see various voters' different opinions on the candidates. Cheers, NW(Talk)00:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
If an editor wants to resign and then get resysopped and then resign and then get resysopped and then make foolish comments at a high profile deletion, get called out on it, resign, scramble the password, create a new account pretending to be a new user, confess he's the old user, get another rename, somehow get the admin tools back, give them up again, ask for them back, change their mind, ask for them back again -- if an editor wants to do all that, well, okay. If an editor wants to write statements without taking a moment or two to proofread, well, okay. Heck, I do that sometimes. We all make typos. But if an editor wants to run for ArbCom, to become one of the project's most powerful editors, with the ability to ban, with checkuser access, with oversight access, with mailing list access, and wants to do this without anyone mentioning his unstable past, or without anyone mentioning the laziness of not proofreading your ArbCom statement... Look, I don't go after this guy normally, but I draw the line somewhere. --JayHenry (talk) 01:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
You asked for it...
If something is setting off alarm bells or even just vague reservations for others, I'd really like to know what. Because I'm a huge narcissist, I've been tracking what the assorted guides are saying about me. Here's everything that currently sounds like an alarm bell or just a vague reservation:
Ceranthor (in explaining the "weak" portion of his/her "weak support"): "he doesn't strike me as the ArbCom type"
MZMcBride: "I have odds on burnout within a year if elected." (He's supporting anyway.)
Riana: ""there's only so much unpleasant stuff you can ask them to do" (Q21)? Er - welcome to Arbcom :)" (My response here).
SandyGeorgia: "concerned about longevity (only 2 1/2 years on Wiki) and opening statement: "For reasons that I cannot fully fathom, let alone articulate, I am offering myself for election to the Arbitration Committee.""
Most people have yet to comment on me one way or another, so I'm sure there'll be more to add to that list in due time. For now, thanks for your kind words, and I hope I don't give cause to retract them. Steve Smith (talk) 06:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Ha! If I were running I'd do the same thing. Then again, I would never run for anything so maybe if I were really running I wouldn't. Hmmm.,. think I just blew my own mind. I'm very impressed with your thoughts, and my slight hesitation is that I've rarely had the chance to observe you in action. That's not one of my criteria, of course, but just means that I don't know what I don't know. Two and a half years is long enough for me, and both Sandy and Riana's quotes seem to be a bit out of context -- I interpreted what Sandy is quoting as humor at the enormity (all definitions) of the task at hand and Riana's as just a bit of practical reality. Admins are a volunteer force, not a collection of employees. As for MZMcBride's observation: do you think you'll burn out? --JayHenry (talk) 06:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Steve, I know your work well enough that I'm likely to support, but I've got to pick four from my current remaining eight or nine seven. I do worry about editors who have done a lot of content work in a few years, but could burn out when confronted with the difficulties of ArbCom. And your opening statement makes me wonder if you're ambivalent? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I took no offense at all to your comments, and will take none if you decide that I'm not one of the top eight candidates; my post above was intended entirely good humouredly. I found it a little surprising that 2 1/2 years (2 3/4, if we're going to be picky) is considered a short time, but such things are subjective. As for the ambivalence...well, I know I want to do this and that, if elected, I'll serve the full two years (possibly minus a couple of brief inactive periods during especially intense academic periods). The confusion, I think, is why I want to do this. Before you hold that too strongly against me, though, I also have no idea why I want to write 4,000 word articles about Premiers of Alberta about whom nobody has ever heard, and that seems to go okay. Steve Smith (talk) 18:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Might I rebut the entry into your guide that you made of me? The only special office that I would hold if elected would be a seat on the mediation committee (and I don't mediate these days, which is why I'm listed as an emeritus member). I am currently an arbitration clerk, but that's a purely administrative role; and in any case, I would be resigning from that if appointed as an arbitrator. I don't think you've been wholly fair on me. AGK11:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I will think about this and give your q&a another read. I'll be honest that I also have an initial and strong distrust for editors who run for many different offices. We have just moved to this opaque election process; a step backwards if we've ever taken one. In the past, this system would have been abused. If all our leadership positions are held by the same small group than we can be confident it will not be long until we have profoundly fraudulent elections. --JayHenry (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for reconsidering. Your concerns about the concentration of power are valid. I just don't think they apply to me, as this is the first elected office I have ran for since my RfA over two years ago. Regards, AGK00:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
No, I didn't… Clarification: Adminship is the only elected office I have held in the past two years. (I have volunteered on other occasions.) The point is that I would be a new entrant into the small group you describe. AGK16:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up -- I've adjusted my page to reflect that you have a fuller statement and look forward to reading your Q&A and statements and reviewing your history soon. --JayHenry (talk) 20:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
ArbCom questions
Not sure if you're aware of this already, but I have responded to the election questions, including several dealing with my resignation and the circumstances leading up to it. Kirill[talk][pf]12:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Kirill. Very good answers to what I imagine are very difficult questions. Confirmed my gut reaction that you're a man of integrity, the sort we should have on ArbCom. --JayHenry (talk) 20:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
No problem. I go galavanting amidst the techno pages every once in a while to find things to make life easier. I appreciate your sentiments regarding my health - cross your fingers (well, not while you're typing) as I have Social Security Disability examinations by a doctor and an ophthalmological specialist over the next two weeks (and a cursory "mental exam" somewhere in there) and if things go well, life should get somewhat easier. The crime articles, which I actually enjoy most of the time, seem to be such a hotbed of controversy and it's entirely too stressful to deal with that right now. I ran afoul of a prolific sock master the last two years from the Manson page and it soured me on conflict. Funny, I was looking at your userpage when you posted. I pass my time trying valiantly to work up Kate Winslet and Heath Ledger for a pass at WP:GA. I'm hoping to have Kate's page done in a week or so. Visually, I have to work slowly. You're so right about the way things work at Wikipedia, and I certainly have found both a perfect distraction from the troubles of real life as well as a gigantic fount of frustration. Sometimes all at the same time. Ah well, back to your arbcom election page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
It's certainly a clear example of how formulating these decisions in a mailing list echo chamber can lead to serious fuck ups. Folks have said at various points that there are sometimes serious disagreements on the functionary and arbcom lists, and there's no lockstep - but in this instance, it was immediately clear reading the statement that there were going to be consequences for the way it was written and the apparent lack of supporting evidence. I'm not sure what the best approach for the arbs would have been in this case, but if no one who voted for that statement saw anything wrong with it at all... it suggests that more skeptical eyeballs are needed. Nathan T 20:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
What concerns me is that they seem to look upon this incident and conclude that they need to be less transparent and less open, rather than more, to avoid these fiascoes. One thing that's apparent is that the Arbs seem to feel extremely embattled and feel like the community is not giving them the assumption of good faith. (While this applies to a handful of boisterous commenters, my sense is that most people in the community think this has been the best arbcom to date, and intend their criticism as constructive. Perhaps I just tend to think that everyone agrees with me, as that's certainly my sense and my intent.) The extent of this is evident in Bainer's comment--though he may have meant for a bit of levity it seems to be a real sentiment of the Arbs--that they would love "thoughtful and reasoned criticism" but simply cannot get any.
People are still not accustomed to interacting with a large group of critics. Consider that 20 years ago, there existed virtually no situation where a person would have to hear from a dozen critics all at once. Even the President of the United States, picking up the newspaper, would not find a dozen negative editorials one after the other. The individual comments at the Audit Subcommittee page, by themselves, could hardly be described as hyperventilating. But collectively they have a tremendously deflating effect on the Arbs. The noticeboards are prone to the same phenomenon where ten people will agree about something, everyone using fairly mild words, but the collective effect is described as a witch hunt or a panic. Am I being naive to suggest that the Arbitrators should 1) understand this phenomenon makes a collection of mild comments seem collectively hostile, when in fact they're not and 2) just suck it up, recognize that there are certainly kernels of thoughtful and reasoned criticism in these threads, and press ahead? On the whole they're doing a good job, so I'm worried about how demoralized they seem. --JayHenry (talk) 05:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Authoritative Screenshots
Um, that screenshot is faked. I found SEVERAL raptors among the candidates. So I'm afraid I can't take your assertion that your guide is authoritative with the proper gravity it aspires to. But at least you finished yours which is more than I can say (so far). ++Lar: t/c13:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I'm glad to hear that things in real life are turning the corner. I wish all the best with your family. After there's been time for you to develop an on-wiki track record reflective of the changes I'll certainly be open to reconsidering. --JayHenry (talk) 18:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Planning Discussions Now Finished Regarding DC Meetup #9
You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here.
Planning — for the most part, anyway — is now finished (see here) for DC Meetup #9.
Could you very briefly outline the circumstances for this user's resignation from ArbCom? I've seen it characterised as resulting from a lack of commitment elsewhere, which is in contrast to your description of a principled resignation.
I know very little about this but would be impressed by the thought he's someone who can actually publicly accept responsibility for his actions. Thanks.Dduff442 (talk) 09:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi duff, here's a brief outline as I see it. In July the Arbitration Committee proposed an Advisory Council on Project Development, and Kirill was one of the key arbitrators behind the launch. Many members of the community were very vocally opposed to this proposal and the idea was rejected. It led to a lot of fighting on Wiki and a lot of attacks on the ArbCom. Kirill resigned for his role in the debacle. I had not heard anyone describe the resignation as a "lack of commitment", but the fact is this: his resignation helped end the anger over this incident, his resignation helped end the fire that the rest of the ArbCom was receiving, and in a professional organization when someone makes a high profile screw up they accept responsibility, step down if necessary, and allow things to continue.
In order to understand why I think his resignation is important, I have to share a bit of background. In the past, Wikipedia's top editors were never accountable for anything. Arbitrators could behave abusively without any consequence. For years, they retained access to a secret mailing list, even after significant abuses or after their terms ended. Because of this culture of unaccountability, the ArbCom would never issue consequences for high-ranking editors. For example, someone with checkuser or oversight who used the tools abusively would always be protected by ArbCom. This culture is only slowly changing and it's because of people like Kirill who talk about things like "accepting responsibility" and resign after mistakes. There are still several dozen abusive administrators that the ArbCom does not yet have the integrity to address. But every time someone like Kirill (or Casliber or Jayvdb) acts with integrity, it forces everyone else to learn about integrity, conduct themselves with integrity, and eventually enforce that integrity. --JayHenry (talk) 15:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I think my views on Kurt in general are well known. In fact, I'm astonished to see him back from an indef ban that I provided the impetus for. I'm absolutely certain that his "views" in RfA have morphed into constant trolling, if they were ever held deeply in the first place. I'm likewise convinced that the majority of his project space participation falls into the category of "general shit stirring", and my deeply held opinion is that general shit stirrers should be shown the door--even those with excellent mainspace contributions. That said, I find the fervor over his AfD comments actually puzzling. In comparison to folks who actively attempt to undermine the system and are either unwilling or incapable of understanding their limits in afd back and forth, Kurt's comments on AfDs are practically benign. And the response to them is universally more dispiriting than the comment itself, as that thread seems to show. His Arbcom candidacy is nothing more than a curiosity to me. It will be interesting to see if he does better this year compared to last year (I bet he will), but nothing says that candidacies have to be serious or motives pure.
And I admit that holding the general opinion that Kurt should be banned and simultaneously imploring various arbs, stewarts and admins to leave him alone largely on the basis of that technicality is rank pedantry. Guilty as charged. I don't subscribe to the silly circular logic about feeding trolls (what that thread is descending into is basically a recapitulation of the tired back and forth about trolling), but at the same time I can't justify letting a number of otherwise reasonable people offer nonsense about what can and can't be said in AfDs.
Might as well use the same thread. Anyway, as always, thanks for your constructive criticism; I've certainly taken it on board and will use it to my advantage. I'm genuinely curious, though, with regard to your concerns over me certification in Friday's RfC. To the best of my knowledge, I did nothing more than add my signature in that discussion, and as I view it, certifying a user RfC basically indicates "I agree there's a problem" rather than "I endorse what has been said above". Could you please help me understand this issue? –Juliancolton | Talk22:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I think it was perhaps not well-constructed, I'll say that much. Had I filed the RfC, I would have used more substantial evidence and a different tone. That's why I didn't involve myself in the discussion itself for the most part, and instead simply pointed out that I agree with the basis for it. –Juliancolton | Talk03:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
The past
Out friends are trying to concoct a version of the past Im not entirely happy with.[2] What say you we eradace this. I'm not especially bright, but I'm as devious as fuck. Ceoil (talk) 02:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I know we hate each other, and thats fine, but I'm not so thick. Today is national Fat Man Day, for me anyway at least. Those socks, bras, layers and folds. Miss 'em. Outriggr and Fat Bastard gone in one night?
Well, you know what they say, the wheel of time turns and ages come and pass, leaving memories that become legend, legend becomes myth and even myth is long forgotten when the age that gave it birth comes again. Fat Man may become legend and even myth but in time even the enormity of TFM is bound to disappear in the gristmill of history. I'm feeling a bit out of sorts with this whole new decade thing. Do the Irish do New Year's resolutions? --JayHenry (talk) 04:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Haha, glad somebody recognized! I'm not really a fan anymore but I started them as a kid. Made it through 7 or 8 and then just started losing track of the story in between books. I'm sort of awaiting reviews of the final books to decide whether to go back and read the whole series. I'd have to start at the beginning to understand what's going on: I remember the three guys Rand, Mat, Perrin and then it gets fuzzy, especially the spelling: there's the redhead Avedena, the brunette Egwen, the blonde Elaine, Perrin's girlfriend Falcon nose, the short one Nyaneave, her boyfriend Lan looked like Steven Seagal. Hey, I remember more than I thought! --JayHenry (talk) 15:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I started reading them in middle school and stopped when they really went downhill. After Jordan died, Brandon Sanderson was picked to finish the series. The Gathering Storm (book) is the result, and its actually very good, so now I'll end up reading the series from adolescence into my thirties. It has less detail in certain areas (especially clothing, thankfully) and quite a bit more action, much more like the earlier books in the series. If you still have an interest, I recommend picking it back up there. Just find a synopsis of the three previous books, they aren't really worth reading (reminds me of the same problem with Terry Goodkind). Nathan T 16:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I just read Majorly's reply to you in the Juliancolton RfB - I never realized you weren't an administrator. Just proves how little the flag itself really means in most situations. Nathan T 16:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I must sincerely thank you for your support on the Preity Zinta and the Cillian Murphy articles. I cannot believe one user is ignoring other users' views and goes against consensus. I reported him on WP:ANEW. Thanks again, Shahid • Talk2me17:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
The frustrating thing for me is that this user is threatening to use his tools to block people. Administrators should not be able to behave like this. It's the very definition of abusive administrator to threaten to use your tools to advance some pet cause. How he thinks he's improving the encyclopedia by attacking consensus and threatening to block the people who work on Featured Articles? It just leaves me so discouraged. And the funny thing is that I don't even care about these actors (I just happened to review Cillian Murphy at FAC about three years ago and have kept it on my watchlist), I'm just sick of abusive admins like this guy. As regular editors we have virtually no recourse against his threats and abuse. --JayHenry (talk) 19:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello JayHenry, and thanks for your vote of confidence at my RfA. Of the many people who supported me, yours was one of the !votes which meant the most: I have nothing but positive memories of our overlap at DYK and it was a nice surprise to that hear you and other DYK regulars whom I highly respect still remember my efforts.
I noticed that you opposed SoWhy's RfB per his involvement in WP:NEWT, and in light of that you might want to read the note I just left on my RfA. Perhaps it will make you reconsider your !vote for me; if so I will understand. I just wouldn't feel entirely honest accepting your support without making you aware of all the facts.
Welcome to the biggest WikiCup Wikipedia has yet seen! Round one will take place over two months, and finish on February 26. There is only one pool, and the top 64 will progress. The competition will be tough, as more than half of the current competitors will not make it to round 2. Details about scoring have been finalized and are explained at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. Please make sure you're familiar with the scoring rules, because any submissions made that violate these rules will be removed. Like always, the judges can be reached through the WikiCup talk pages, on their talk page, or over IRC with any issues concerning anything tied to the Cup. We will keep in contact with you via weekly newsletters; if you do not want to receive them, please remove yourself from the list here. Conversely, if a non-WikiCup participant wishes to receive the newsletters, they may add themselves to that list. Well, enough talk- get writing! Your submission's page is located here. Details on how to submit your content is located here, so be sure to check that out! Once content has been recognized, it can be added to your submissions page, from which our bot will update the main score table. Remember that only articles worked on and nominated during the competition are eligible for points. Have fun, and good luck! Garden, iMatthew, J Milburn, and The ed1719:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
You're not one of those people who just signs up, are you JayHenryBot [sic]? We're rooting for you over on WikiCup Review (under the subsection How WikiCup Undermines the Quality Command and Control Structure Review Processes and Should be Community Banned). (You di'n see me here.) Outrigger (talk) 06:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. We've had some shakeups regarding late entries, flag changes and early dropouts, but the competition is now established- there will be no more flag changes or new competitors. Congratulations to Sasata (submissions), our current leader, who, at the time of writing, has more listed points than Hunter Kahn (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions) (second and third place respectively) combined. A special well done also goes to Fetchcomms (submissions)- his artcle Jewel Box (St. Louis, Missouri) was the first content to score points in the competition.
Around half of competitors are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. 64 of the 149 current competitors will advance to round 2- if you currently have no points, do not worry, as over half of the current top 64 have under 50 points. Everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places in round 2! 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, by email or on IRC. Good luck! J Milburn, Garden, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
WikiCup 2010 February newsletter
Round one is over, and round two has begun! Congratulations to the 64 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our first round. A special well done goes to Sasata (submissions), our round one winner (1010 points), and to Hunter Kahn (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions), who were second and third respectively (640 points/605 points). Sasata was awarded the most points for both good articles (300 points) and featured articles (600 points), and TonyTheTiger was awarded the most for featured topics (225 points), while Hunter Kahn claimed the most for good topics (70). Staxringold (submissions) claimed the most featured lists (240 points) and featured pictures (35 points), Geschichte (submissions) claimed the most for Did you know? entries (490 points), Jujutacular (submissions) claimed the most for featured sounds (70 points) and Candlewicke (submissions) claimed the most for In the news entries (40 points). No one claimed a featured portal or valued picture.
Credits awarded after the end of round one but before round two may be claimed in round two, but remember the rule that content must have been worked on in some significant way during 2010 by you for you to claim points. The groups for round two will be placed up shortly, and the submissions' pages will be blanked. This round will continue until 28 April, when the top two users from each group, as well as 16 wildcards, will progress to round three. 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; thank you to all doing this last round, and particularly to those helping at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. 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, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back. And if the weather is good, we'll have a star party with the telescopes on the roof of Pupin Hall!
I did you a solid. Us highly attractive Wikipedians have to stick together. Oh, and hi. (Yes, this is embarassing. Nth account, nth time back, etc.) Riggr Mortis (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Classification of animal taxa
Hello! You seem knowlegeable about the subject of zoology. I am also working animal related articles of Wikipedia. I have had some debate with some other editors (administrator?) about using subfamilies. It seems that some have taken it upon themselves to delete information on subfamilies which are useful to readers. Have you had any frustrations with this?
I checked the Wikipedia Taxon page ( Wikipedia:Taxobox_usage ) and found this: "Taxoboxes should include all major ranks above the taxon described in the article, PLUS minor ranks that are important to understanding the classification of the taxon described in the article, or which are discussed in the article. Other minor ranks should be omitted." Was some council of the scholars held deciding more? What are your thoughts on this?
Cheers
Bruinfan12 (talk) 03:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
This strikes me as something that's not important one way or the other. There are many important things worth working on, so I'd suggest focusing on one of those things. --JayHenry (talk) 23:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
WikiCup 2010 March newsletter
We're half way through round two, and everything is running smoothly. Hunter Kahn (submissions) leads overall with 650 points this round, and heads pool B. TonyTheTiger (submissions) currently leads pool C, dubbed the "Group of Death", which has a only a single contestant yet to score this round (the fewest of any group), as well five contestants over 100 points (the most). With a month still to go, as well as 16 wildcard places, everything is still to play for. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.
Although unrelated to the WikiCup, April sees a Good Article Nominations backlog elimination drive, formulated as a friendly competition with small awards, as the Cup is. Several WikiCup contestants and judges have already signed up, but regular reviewers and those who hope to do more reviewing are more than welcome to join at the drive page. 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, iMatthew and The ed17
Delivered by JCbot (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Hola!
Hey, Jay! It's so good to hear from you. I saw an aloof hippo at the zoo a few weeks ago, and thought of you. :) Wikipedia is quieter than it used to be, some awesome people have come and gone, and good reviewers are harder to find than they were before, but other than that it's pretty much the same place. I've always stayed out of the kerfuffles for fear of my own sanity, but I'm guessing they're present as before. I'm more active than I was before as I finally have a little free time on my hands -- I'm working on my tenth FA, a little article about a now forgotten literary controversy -- but who knows how long that will last? Thanks for the congrats, btw, and hope you're well, María(habla conmigo) 12:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Aw, come on, there has to be some subject out there that would spark your Wiki addiction anew; weren't you going to tackle F. Scott Fitzgerald? The Great Gatsby? I would gladly help with the latter, although I haven't read it in years. BTW, have you seen the amazing progress at Ernest Hemingway? I did the GA review for it not too long ago, and it's pretty awesome. I felt like a drama-monger, though, demanding that there be "more liquor! more masochism!" Papa needs his drama. María(habla conmigo) 12:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
WikiCup 2010 April newsletter
Round two is over, and we are down to our final 32. For anyone interested in the final standings (though not arranged by group) this page has been compiled. Congratulations to Hunter Kahn (submissions), our clear overall round winner, and to ThinkBlue (submissions) and Arsenikk (submissions), who were solidly second and third respectively. There were a good number of high scorers this round- competition was certainly tough! Round three begins tomorrow, but anything promoted after the end of round two is eligible for points. 16 contestants (eight pool leaders and eight wildcards) will progress to round four in two months- things are really starting to get competitive. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.
Judge iMatthew has retired from Wikipedia, and we wish him the best. The competition has been ticking over well with minimal need for judge intervention, so thank you to everyone making that possible. A special thank you goes to participants Stone (submissions) and White Shadows (submissions) for their help in preparing for round three. Good luck everyone! 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 ed1717:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Planning Discussions Now Underway Regarding DC Meetup #10
You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here.
We are half way through round 3, with a little under a month to go. The current overall leader is Sasata (submissions), who has 570 points. He leads pool C. Pools A, B and D are led by Hunter Kahn (submissions), Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) and White Shadows (submissions) respectively. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.
Two of last year's final 8, Theleftorium (submissions) and Scorpion0422 (submissions), have dropped out of the competition, saying they would rather their place went to someone who will have more time on their hands than them next round. On a related note, a special thank you goes to White Shadows (submissions) for his help behind the scenes once again. There is currently a problem with the poster, perhaps caused by the new skin- take a look at this discussion and see if you can help. The competition has continued to tick over well with minimal need for judge intervention, so thank you to everyone making that possible. Good luck to all! 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 ed1720:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
==Question--
Hi. I have noticed you've put in some work with the J.D. Salinger page. I took to adding a bit about two unpublished stories but they were promptly deleted. See here [3]
Wondering if you thought the sources I had were in fact enough--I literally had the link to where they are located. I've had no-so productive experiences with this particular reverter in the past so I'd like to dodge any nastiness in advance. Thanks in advance.
Jim Steele (talk) 00:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
We are half-way through our penultimate round, and nothing is yet certain. Pool A, currently led by Sasata (submissions) has ended up the more competitive, with three contestants (Sasata (submissions), Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions)) scoring over 500 points already. Pool B is led by Casliber (submissions), who has also scored well over 500. The top two from each pool, as well as the next four highest scorers regardless of pool, will make it through to our final eight. As ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.
Planning has begun for the 2011 WikiCup, with open discussions concerning scoring and flags for next year's competition. Contributions to those discussions would be appreciated, especially concerning the flags, as next year's signups cannot begin until the flag issue has been resolved. Signups will hopefully open at some point in this round, with discussion about possible changing in the scoring/process opening some time afterwards.
Earlier this round, we said goodbye to Hunter Kahn (submissions), who has bowed out to spend more time on the book he is authoring with his wife. We wish him all the best. In other news, the start of this round also saw some WikiCup awards sent out by Suomi Finland 2009 (submissions). We appreciate his enthusiasm, and contestants are of course welcome to award each other prizes as they see fit, but rest assured that we will be sending out "official" awards at the end of the competition. 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 ed1722:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Hey, just in case you missed it, there is an oppurtunity to get a free dinner this Tuesday August 11 and a chance to meet and hang out talk about Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Public Policy and WP:GLAM/SI. Sorry that this is so late in the game, I was hoping the e-mail would be a better form of contact for active members (if you want to get on the e-mail list send me an User e-mail ). Hope that you can attend, User:Sadads (talk)11:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
WikiCup 2010 August newsletter
We have our final eight! The best of luck to those who remain. A bumper newsletter this week as we start our home straight.
Pool B's winner was Casliber (submissions). Awarded the top score for featured articles this round, Casliber writes primarily on natural sciences, especially botany and ornithology.
Pool A's close second was Sasata (submissions). Awarded the top score for featured pictures this round, Sasata writes primarily on natural sciences, favouring mycology.
Pool B's close second was ThinkBlue (submissions). Awarded the top score for good articles and topics this round, ThinkBlue primarily writes content related to television and film, including 30 Rock.
The second wildcard was White Shadows (submissions). Someone who has helped the Cup behind the scenes all year, White Shadows said "I'm still in shock that I made it this far" and writes primarily on Naval warfare, especially U-boats.
The third wildcard was Staxringold (submissions). Awarded the top score for featured lists and topics this round, Staxringold primarily writes on sport and television, including baseball and 30 Rock.
The fourth wildcard was William S. Saturn (submissions). Entering the final eight only on the final day of the round, William S. Saturn writes on a number of topics, mostly related to Texas.
We say goodbye to the six who fell at the final hurdle. Geschichte (submissions) only just missed out on a place in the final eight. Resolute (submissions) was not far behind. Candlewicke (submissions) was awarded top points for in the news this round. Gary King (submissions) contributed a variety of did you know articles. Suomi Finland 2009 (submissions) said "I'm surprised to have survived so far into the competition", but was extactic to see Finland in the semi-finals. Arsenikk (submissions) did not score this round, but has scored highly in previous rounds. We also say goodbye to Ian Rose (submissions), who withdrew earlier this month after spending six weeks overseas. Anyone interested in this round's results can see them here and here. Thank you to Stone (submissions) for these.
Our final eight will play it out for two months, after which we will know 2010's WikiCup winner, and a variety of prizes will be awarded. As ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.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 ed1723:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
P.S. You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here.
WikiCup 2010 September newsletter
We are half-way through our final round, entering the home straight. TonyTheTiger (submissions) leads at the time of writing with 1180 points, immediately followed by Sasata (submissions) with 1175 points. Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) closely follows in third place with 1100 points. For those who are interested, data about the finalists has been compiled at Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/finalists, while a list of content submitted by all WikiCup contestants prior to this round has been compiled at Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Submissions. As ever, anything contestants worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.
You are invited to Wikipedia DC Meetup #12 on Saturday, October 23, 6pm at Bertucci's in Foggy Bottom. Special guests at this meetup will include Wikimedia CTO Danese Cooper, other Wikimedia technical staff and volunteer developers who will be in DC for Hack-A-Ton DC. Please RSVP on the meetup page.
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 ed1703:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
It's raining thanks spam!
Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia DC Meetup 13
You are invited to Wikipedia DC Meetup #13 on Wednesday, November 17, from 7 to 9 pm, location to be determined (but near a Metro station in DC).
To keep up-to-date on local events, you can join the mailing list.
A particular highlight for the wiki crowd will be 'Seductive Subversion: Women Pop Artists, 1958–1968', and the accompanying "WikiPop" project, with specially-created Wikipedia articles on the artists displayed on iPads in the gallery.
This will be a museum touring and partying meetup, so no excuses about being a shy newbie this time. Bring a friend too!
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 ed1706:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Description: There will be a behind-the-scenes tour of the National Archives and you will learn more about what NARA does. We will also have a mini-film screening featuring FedFlix videos along with a special message from Jimmy Wales. In the afternoon, there will be lightning talks by Wikimedians (signup to speak), wiki-trivia, and cupcakes to celebrate!
Details & RSVP: Details about the event are on our Washington, DC tenwiki page.
Please RSVP soon as possible, as there likely will be a cap on number of attendees that NARA can accommodate.
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 ed1722:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't know where Jay got it, but you can get pre 1930 GDP estimations from measuring worth. The BEA figures only go back to 1930 as far as I know, but you can see an example here. That's GDP not GDP growth but it should be pretty trivial to convert the former to the latter. Protonk (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
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 ed1723:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Spooky LG15 blast from the past
So I went on Facebook today, and the site suggested that I friend someone by the name of "Todd Janiak". I thought, "That name sounds familiar..." Of course, if you didn't remember (as I did not), he was one of the admins at lg15.com (I think he was the lead admin of the wiki, but I really don't remember specifics). Anyway, I thought that was sort of spooky, since I haven't thought of him in years, and as far as I am aware, there is nothing I can think of on the web that links the two of us directly. This is the second time that Facebook has made a bizarre friend suggestion from straight out of nowhere. Just thought I'd share. BBrucker2 (talk) 05:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
WikiCup 2011 March newsletter
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 ed1700:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
WikiCup 2011 April newsletter
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 ed1719:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
WikiCup 2011 May newsletter
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 ed1723:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
You're invited to the New York Wiknic!
You could be having this much fun! Seriously, consider coming.
This message is being sent to inform you of a Wikipedia picnic that is being held in your area next Saturday, June 25. From 1 to 8 PM or any time in between, join your fellow volunteers for a get together at Norman's Landscape (directions) in Manhattan's Central Park.
Take along your friends (newbies permitted), your family and other free culture enthusiasts! You may also want to pack a blanket, some water or perhaps even a frisbee.
If you can, share what you're bringing at the discussion page.
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 ed1723:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
Who doesn't like kittens. ITSJUST LIKE FACEBOOK NOW!
The Smithsonian is hosting its first Backstage Pass at the Archives of American Art 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) 14:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
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)
This week, our first multilingual featured article contest was announced. We are aiming to improve the articles on the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, or Bill of Rights to featured or good status in English and other languages. Prizes for winners will be a gift package from the National Archives including a book of your choice or a tote bag, and other swag, plus, of course, a special barnstar.
August 6 backstage pass
Plans are in the works for a meetup and backstage pass event at the National Archives II facility in College Park, MD. There will be a regular social meetup, a discussion with Dominic about WP:NARA, a tour of the building by NARA staff, and then time for a scanathon and editathon in the research rooms and library until the building closes at 5 pm. Keep your schedules open!
The National Archives' Archival Recovery Team (ART) is a team of law enforcement agents and archivists who investigate NARA's lost and stolen documents. They have received media attention ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]) and would like to request an article be written for the team, if Wikipedians deem it notable. It is hoped that making more information about the group available on Wikipedia will increase public awareness of the documents they are seeking to recover.
Ongoing
Today's Document challenge
The Today's Document challenge is an opportunity for Wikipedians to get their work related to National Archives holdings spotlighted on Archives.gov and the National Archives' tumblr. Each day the National Archives selects a document related to the day's date to showcase. The goal is to get articles related to the selected documents on the main page in ""Did You Know...?" the same day that the National Archives features the document. Alternatively, other appropriate articles related to National Archives holdings not already selected will be used for new documents of the day by NARA staff and posted to their tumblr.
Wikisource
WP:NARA has a sister WikiProject on Wikisource, WS:NARA. On Wikisource, editors transcribe, proofread, and arrange documents. This helps to make little-known documents more discoverable, or well-known documents more searchable, and improves accessibility. See the files being worked on. If you are new to Wikisource and would like to participate, there are experienced Wikisourcerors willing to be mentors.
New contributions
A list of some recent contributions to the project:
The National Archives has hundreds of thousands of digitized documents in its holdings. We are working on a bulk upload to Commons of one particular cache of about 123,000 TIFF master files in the next few days! Once uploaded, these will require a massive community effort to help categorize the files on Commons and add them to articles on Wikipedia or transcribe them on Wikisource.
Inclusion in the online catalog
We are currently working on a system for including links to pages on Wikimedia projects in the National Archives online catalog. The Wikimedia projects are hosting an increasing number of transcriptions of National Archives documents and high-quality image and video files that are not available through NARA's own site. Links to these Wikimedia pages in the documents' actual catalog records will benefit the end user by providing them access to further resources about the documents, and they will also demonstrate the National Archives commitment to supporting Wikimedians' efforts.
To stop receiving this newsletter, please remove your name from the list.
DC Meetup, July 29
DC Meetup 21 - Who should come? You should. Really.
DC MEETUP 21 is July 29! This meet up will involve Wikipedians from the area as well as Wiki-loving GLAM professionals. See you Friday! SarahStierch (talk) 16:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
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 ed1711:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
_At_Launch_Approaching_End_of_Ways_-_NARA_-_5900076_-_1915_edit.jpg)
.svg)
