|
User talk:William Saturn/2011Invitation to join WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 02:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC) WikiCup 2011 January newsletter 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 A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round two is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 22:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC) Your EmailHi William S. Saturn: If you have just sent me an Email, could you let me know why and what you have on your mind etc, you can let me know that by Email as well. But I will not respond by Email until I get to know you better. If possible we can talk on this page or on my user talk page if it is a reasonable matter. I tried to find you on the User:William Saturn page but it's blanked, so I came here because that was also a user name in your Email to me. If this is not the person who wants to contact me, then kindly ignore and/or delete this message. Thanks for your understanding. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 04:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
It's not nonsenseThe same primary contributors who have worked on both Nixon and Reagan have whitewashed both subjects, carefully, cleverly, and purposefully couching major critical aspects in ambiguous terms and light prose. This is pure propaganda. Viriditas (talk) 06:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
WikiCup 2011 February newsletterSo 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 Some news for those who are interested- March will see a GAN backlog elimination drive, which you are still free to join. Organised by WikiProject Good articles, the drive aims to minimise the GAN backlog and offers prizes to those who help out. Of course, you may well be able to claim WikiCup points for the articles you review as part of the drive. Also ongoing is the Great Backlog Drive, looking to work on clearing all of the backlogs on Wikipedia; again, incentives are offered, and the spirit of friendly competition is alive, while helping the encyclopedia is the ultimate aim. Though unrelated to the WikiCup, these may well be of interest to some of you. Just a reminder of the rules; if you have done significant work on content this year and it is promoted in this round, you may claim for it. Also, anything that was promoted after the end of round one but before the beginning of round two may be claimed for in round two. Details of the rules can be found on this page. For those interested in statistics, a running total of claims can be seen here, and a very interesting table of that information (along with the highest scorers in each category) can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Good tryAh well, good try.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC) Phil DavisonWhat is the persistent coverage that warrants reconstituting the Phil Davison article? I don't mean this as an objection to reconstituting it; this is just a curiosity question. Also, feel free to revise my comments about your parody of the video on your comments page if you wish. (Not that it matters, but I stumbled upon the article by way of an edit-conflict warning on an unrelated talk page I was editing.) — Steve98052 (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Talkback Message added 04:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Gingrich 2012I'm confused why you believe that I am edit warring (this note on my page). Last week we discussed the inclusion of the fact that stock photography was used on the Newt Gingrich fundraising committee website, which you seem to think is important but I think is trivial. I gave a perfectly reasonable explanation for why it should not be included, but you did not respond. Specifically, I challenged your claim that it was "widely covered" and demonstrated it was not. Several days later, without any response, I changed it back. Now, I see that you still have not responded on the talk page, but your edit summary stated that "there is no clear dispute of the material on the talk page". That's not true. I don't dispute that it's factual, but I do dispute that it's relevant. Based on guidelines, I don't think it belongs. And please do not accuse me of edit warring. I aim to be polite and discuss changes based on policy, but for some reason you won't talk to me. Stargat (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
WikiCup 2011 March newsletterWe 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 A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round three is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 01:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Rand PaulThere is a discussion on Rand Paul's certification. I noticed you contributed regularly to the article and I just want your input on whether my version is better if User:BigK HeX version is preferable. Truthsort (talk) 01:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)  It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. --JayJasper (talk) 03:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC) Article for deletion debateThe article Young Conservatives of Texas has been nominated for deletion at AfD. Your input as to whether or not this article meets Notability standards is invited. Thank you. Carrite (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC) WikiCup 2011 April newsletterRound 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. This round saw our first good topic points this year; congratulations to Sorry this newsletter is going out a little earlier than expected- there is a busy weekend coming up! A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 19:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Triple Crown jewels
Re:vandalism messageRegarding the message you left on my talk on May 5 "Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia", you obviously mistook me for the user who followed my edit on Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012. If you look at the edit history of that article, you will see that in your own summary you reverted back to my change, rather than reverting it. You will also see that the change I made was a sourced and legitimate update to the current candidate list, and not vandalism at all. I'm sure it was a honest mistake, but please take care before posting such messages to be sure you have the right person. It dosen't look good to have a "stop vandalizing pages" message posted on one's talk page, not to mention it can be a little discouraging, especially when one is a fairly new user and has done no such thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjv110ma (talk • contribs) 16:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for removing the warning from my talk page, and for the "welcome" posting. Apology accepted, all is forgiven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjv110ma (talk • contribs) 17:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC) Randall TerryPlease don't revert any changes without explanation. If you want to include Randall Terry in the list of Democratic presidential candidates then please provide a citation which shows that Terry has filed the necessary paperwork with the FEC. Jay Gatsby(talk) 22:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Cibolo Creek map feedback neededOkay, I've reloaded all the GIS software and took a stab at a Cibolo Creek watershed map. Please review it here and let me know if you have any changes. Alterations are very easy at this point; the software is crazy flexible now apparently (five years of development were put to good use it seems). When you're good, I'll add in the little Texas locator map and we should be good to go. Kuru (talk) 03:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Collaboration
If you're interested in having lots of fun and working with great editors, click here and make history. We're now taking nominations. Lionelt (talk) 01:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC) Request for commentPlease summarize your position in a paragraph here. I think this format is more expedient than a single paragraph describing the dispute.--Chaser (talk) 20:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
WikiCup 2011 May newsletterWe'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. A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Republican Primary ArticleMr. Saturn: With all due respect, my edit was not vandalism. Please don't make threats, comment on the article's talk page if you'd like to contribute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.158.38.11 (talk) 00:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Commons POTY At least we agree on something [1][2].--Chaser (talk) 13:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
From BLPWhat do you suppose these paragraphs mean? it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to BLPs, including any living person mentioned in a BLP even if not the subject of the article, and to material about living persons on other pages Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased or malicious content. This word 'santorum' is not widely used, even among those who support its use. It is a fabricated word explicitly created for political attack. On top of that, it is a very disgusting thing, and since typically etymology follows from a logical source, we see in this case it is being forced into existence rather than taking the path many words do with logical creation. Wikipedia is supposed to follow editorial guidelines, not be a tool (as in, be jerks). -- Avanu (talk) 22:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
DYK for James Hedges
Calmer Waters 00:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC) 18:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Iran & State TerrorismWhy did you revert my recent edit of Iran & State Terrorism? It was not a blanking of sourced material as you stated. It was a large number of changes, which I had put on the discussion board a day earlier. Why did you revert without any response in the discussion board? For the record, the following, no matter how well sourced, are not examples of terrorism and do not fall under any definition of terrorism:
Poyani (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Work is finished an a first positive vote on DYK was setted. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 11:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC) William, I saw your note on the Santorum page. I hear what you're saying, however, it doesn't matter if it's sourced or not, it's still an attack page. Per policy, such pages are to be blanked and nominated for speedy deletion. So, blanking is fine, per policy. KoshVorlon' Naluboutes Aeria Gloris 15:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
--William S. Saturn (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
For that reason, this is an attaack article. Policy calls for it to be blanked and speedied. KoshVorlon' Naluboutes Aeria Gloris 18:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC) ps: BLP is exempt from Vandalism.... nice try on the AIV page though!
Article ideaI got your e-mail. I've been following the presidential election closely and wouldn't mind helping out. Who's the candidate you have in mind? Difluoroethene (talk) 05:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Finnish parliamentary election 2011, give your thoughtsHi! Seems like you've been involved a lot in writing about the US elections. Therefore, I'd like to hear your thoughts on the talk page of the article Finnish parliamentary election, 2011. To the point: I re-wrote the first sentence of the article, because I thought it was somewhat poor English. Afterwards, my edits have been reverted, on (IMO) dubious grounds... I'd like to hear your opinion! :) Regards. -- Frous (talk) 05:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC) US Presidents members listI'm not quite sure how alphabetizing the list of members and seperating out the inactive participants, several of them being retired, blocked or banned is a controversial edit but if you prefer it the way it is with yourself in the top slot then its ok with me. --Kumioko (talk) 18:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Moore2012No I am not Roy Moore, just a fan and supporter of the judge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moore2012 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC) Thanks........for reverting vandalism on my user page.--JayJasper (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
WikiCup 2011 June newsletterWe 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 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 Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here, for those interested, though it appears that neither are completely accurate at this time. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC) DYK for Jack Fellure
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC) For your considerationI noted, with some considerable interest, your recent edit to the Obama "conspiracy theories" article ("some commentators") which has, thus far anyway, apparently survived as consensus acceptable. Quite coincidentally, a dispute as to the legitimacy of similar wording is now in progress in the "santorum" article talk, where "some observers" is one of 2 phrases being objected to under WP:WEASEL. It's an interesting (I think anyway) debate that may have WP-wide relevancy & repurcussions and I've solicited the MOS folks for some informed views. I thought you might be interested in a look-see. Rgds. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi William! I'm sorry the project hasn't met your expectations. You're right of course. Far too much time is being expended on issues which don't improve articles. I expect in the near future the project will stabilize and get back to the work of improving conservative articles. When that happens I hope you'll give us another chance. – Lionel (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC) WikiCup 2011 July newsletterWe 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 There is little else to be said beyond the usual. Please list anything you need reviewing on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, so others following the WikiCup can help, and please do help if you can by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup- points are, of course, offered for reviews at GAC. Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 11:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC) Misplaced comment?I think you accidentally placed a comment indicating you have reviewed Agriculturalism in the section about Thaddeus McCotter presidential campaign, 2012 (in DYK)--SPhilbrickT 20:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Great job on McCotter campaign articleHey, just wanted to say great job on creating content for Thaddeus McCotter presidential campaign, 2012. I had listed it on WP:USPE articles for creation list, and intended to get it started, but haven't the free time lately to do as much editing as I would like to. I logged in today prepared to start to working on it, only to find it was already filled in, and very well written and extensively sourced at that! I saw that you were the one who started the content and did the vast majority of the work. So thank you for your efforts and very well done.--Rollins83 (talk) 13:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
DYK for Thaddeus McCotter presidential campaign, 2012
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 08:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC) Ken Grammer Candidate Page in list of 2012 US Presidential CandidatesWilliam, I admit to misunderstanding the guidelines for creating a page for our presidential campaign. I also admit that I did indeed re-add the page after admins had deleted it, assuming at first I had simply made edit mistakes that caused the edits to be faulty. This evening I received a complaint about potential "sockpuppetry" on my part. I replied to that claim but I want to personally reply to you since apparently your name was "edited" in one of the modification attempts. I certainly did not edit any comments nor do I know the person and/or IP address of the person making those changes. As I said in the response to the claim, once I understood the rules I stopped and made no further attempts to create the page. I also only have only one Wiki account. I have also offered to delete my account if there are any continued suspicions that I am personally involved in any attempts to exploit the Wiki rules. I may have misunderstood the initial rules, but I am certainly not creating multiple accounts in any attempt to create issues for you or any other Wiki admin. The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC) Jonathan SharkeyCome on, you and I both know the procedure here. I saw material that didn't belong on the page. I deleted it, brought it up for discussion on the talk page, and I still want to continue that discussion. In the meanwhile, it is not right to bypass wikipedia policy and start putting the profile back up without discussion. As far as I recall, the growing consensus was for removal of the profile, and you left the talk page. I thank you for warning me about the 3RR because I'm probably getting close now, but I advise you to come to the talk page and settle this the right way.--Screwball23 talk 01:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC) DYK for Fed Up! Our Fight to Save America from Washington
Calmer Waters 08:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC) AN/IHello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding comments that you may have been the subject of by the editor in question. The thread is Disruptive Conduct of User:Screwball23. Thank you. WikiCup 2011 July newsletterThe finals are upon us; we're down to the last few. One of the eight remaining contestants will be this year's WikiCup champion! 150 was the score needed to progress to the final; just under double the 76 required to reach round 4, and more than triple the 41 required to reach round 3. Our eight finalists are:
We say goodbye to our seven other semi-finalists, In other news, preparations for next year's competition have begun with a brainstorming thread. Please, feel free to drop by and share any thoughts you have about how the competition should work next year. Sign ups are not yet open, but will be opened in due course. Watch this space. Further, there has been a discussion about the rule whereby those in the WikiCup must delcare their participation when nominating articles at featured article candidates. This has resulted in a bot being created by new featured article delegate Ucucha (talk · contribs). The bot will leave a message on FAC pages if the nominator is a participant in the WikiCup. A reminder of the rules: any points scored after August 29 may be claimed for the final round, and please remember to update submission pages promptly. If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC) 3RR Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively. Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
September 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States The September 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. WikiCup 2011 September newsletterWe are on this year's home straight, with less than a month to go until the winner of the 2011 WikiCup will be decided. The fight for first place is currently being contested by If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 12:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC) Important AFDI want your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathon Sharkey (5th nomination). Thanks! SOXROX (talk) 04:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC) Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. TalkbackMessage added 16:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Your wish is granted. Be careful what you wished for; the redirect is semi-protected still. Drmies (talk) 16:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
WikiCup 2011 October newsletterThe 2011 WikiCup is now over, and our new champion is
Prizes for first, second, third and fourth will be awarded, as will prizes for all those who reached the final eight. Every participant who scored in the competition will receive a ribbon of participation. In addition to the prizes based on placement, the following special prizes will be awarded based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, the prize is awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round.
No prize was awarded for featured pictures, sounds or portals, as none were claimed throughout the competition. The awards will be handed out over the next few days. Congratulations to all our participants, and especially our winners; we've all had fun, and Wikipedia has benefitted massively from our content work. Preparation for next year's WikiCup is ongoing. Interested parties are invited to sign up and participate in our straw polls. It's been a pleasure to work with you all this year, and, whoever's taking part in and running the competition in 2012, we hope to see you all in January! J Milburn and The ed17 00:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC) Keepup the good work!Re: [your latest edit] Screwball23 talk--23:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Back in June, you PRODded this and I deleted it. Undeletion has been requested on my talk page, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider taking it to AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Out of curiosity: What were those edits [3] [4] about in which you knowingly re-introduced misleading content. I'd really appreciate your reasoning for this.TMCk (talk) 01:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Deletion Mike Ballantine - Green Party candidate for PresidentWhy are you proposing to delete Green Party candidate for President, Mike Ballantine? There are only two candidates listed, Jill Stein and Kent Mesplay. Kent is not constitutionally eligible for President because he was born in Papua New Guinea yet you have him listed as a real candidate. If you don't list Mike, then you are picking and choosing the candidates instead of allowing the people to decide. Americans Elect is a new primary platform and Mike is an acknowledged candidate for this system. People want to know that he is a real candidate and not some digital construct. What is your intention delete him now and add him back in 45 days when Americans Elect posts him on their website? Wikipedia should be a neutral party in the presidential race, not the decider of who is legitimate or not, the people do that when they vote. You can contact Mike's campaign manager cjdavis9193@aol.com or Nancy Benac NBENAC@ap.org at the AP if you have any doubts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.162.77.177 (talk) 02:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Greetings! If you've no objection, I will soon put the article up for review at WP:GAN to make it a good article. Then we can go from there in bringing it up to FA. Regards, Tyrol5 [Talk] 16:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Harley MikkelsonWhy did you remove Harley Mikkelson from the Green Party section of the US presidential template with no explanation? He is a candidate. Period. I consider what you did a form of vandalism and I ask you to restore the link.--TM 01:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
December 2011 {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Spartaz Humbug! 05:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 William Saturn (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Purely punitive. Blocked for something that happened 28 hours prior. Nevertheless, I shouldn't have been blocked in the first place. The first two reverts were based on a misunderstanding on stylistic changes which was resolved on the talk page. The user I reverted the last two times was adding a non-notable candidate against consensus and against the editing notice (which I did not write myself). We have to be careful about candidates or their supporters spamming pages with candidates. We deal with this often, just recently here, and above at User talk:William S. Saturn#Deletion Mike Ballantine - Green Party candidate for President. I don't think we should be blocked for upholding the integrity of wikipedia.William S. Saturn (talk) 22:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC) Decline reason: You were clearly edit warring, so the block is appropriate. Nick-D (talk) 23:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
William Saturn (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Someone had to undo the vandalism. Since no one else bothered to raise a hand, I decided to do it myself. And I would do it again if given the chance. Decline reason: Reverting vandalism does not excuse block evasion, and threats to evade your block again don't encourage lifting it. The Bushranger One ping only 06:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Copied to AN/I. I've copied the entire three-comment dialog - I hope that's what you wanted -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Barry Goldwater presidential campaign, 1964 GA review on holdYou are the top contributor on this article. I did a GA review for it and nobody has responded. The nomination will fail in 3 days if no improvements are made. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 15:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United StatesThe December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. 2012 WikiCupHi! As you've previously expressed interest in the competition, I'm just letting you know that the 2012 WikiCup is due to start in less than 24 hours. Signups are open, and will remain so for a few weeks after the beginning of the competition. The competition itself will follow basically the same format as last year, with a few small tweaks to point costs to reflect the opinions of the community. If you're interested in taking part, you're more than welcome, and if you know anyone who might be, please let them know too- the more the merrier! To join, simply add your name to Wikipedia:WikiCup/2012 signups, and we will be in touch. Please feel free to direct any questions to me, or leave a note on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! You are receiving this note as you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Please feel free to add or remove yourself. EdwardsBot (talk) 01:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC) Disruptive activityYour recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block. If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. |
Portal di Ensiklopedia Dunia
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2010/Final/File:Mostar_Old_Town_Panorama_2007.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=54970373){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2010/Final/File:Mostar_Old_Town_Panorama_2007.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=54944081){kind=link}