User talk:Calmer Waters/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

Hi

I was told that War of Internet Addiction was in DYK, but I could not find it on the main page, is there any reason? Arilang ^talk 00:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry so long to get back to you but it looks like from the time you posted this and now it has appeared on the main page. If your hook ever moves from the suggestion page after being verified, just take a look at queues page where it might be being held until it is time to appear. Cheers Calmer Waters 11:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Silivri Prison

Hi! Thanks a lot for your contribution on that. Cheers! CeeGee (talk) 11:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You did the astounding work, as I had only had the opportunity of promoting it. Keep up the good work and interesting suggestions. Kindly Calmer Waters 11:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Impressive

Hi Calmer Waters :) Thanks so much for your compliments! I recently found somewhat of a goldmine of articles to be created at Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Misc... some of them are excruciatingly hard to find sources for, but they do make for a change from the old Canadian historical biographies and will keep me busy for a while. I'm glad you like my username... I think that it may be important to conceal my real name somewhat as privacy issues could arise. Anyway, congrats on your RfA, and again, thanks for the compliment! Arctic Night 13:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you and your welcome :). I think the name is very creative and sticks out, which is good should you decide to undergo one for yourself in the future :). I only wished you had entered the Wikicup. You would be having quite the showing about now. Ironically, I entered and have yet to start writing a qualifying article. Maybe we can switch and you can take my spot :) Kindly Calmer Waters 13:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

If only! I think I would have had 260 points (just looking at the scoring on WP:CUP). That's not exactly top but I doubt I would have been knocked out in the first round... maybe next year. Arctic Night 14:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Baby Tate

I know you are heavily involved in DYK, so could I ask your opinion. I have just created this article, and thought I might put it forward to DYK as "...that the American Piedmont blues guitarist, Baby Tate, in a five decade career worked with a Blind Boy and a Peg Leg". Do you think that this is too silly, or likely to upset the disabled ? Thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it's quirky and don't feel it to be insensitive, but instead a kind of play on words. I think you should go ahead with it. Kindly Calmer Waters 16:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response - I will put it forward and see how it goes.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Re

I replied on my talk page. Thank you so much for your help... ---kilbad (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Heads up on DYK images

You're getting close, but one step was missing (fixed that) - the image itself should be downloaded on your PC from Commons and then physically uploaded to en.wiki (with the file description which you made allright). Otherwise, unless the image is protected by a friendly admin on Commons, someone can upload its (any) new version while the image is on the main page. Materialscientist (talk) 01:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I see. I had only protected the ability to see what was currently on the commons file of the same name. Uggh. That could be bad had someone known the potential opening. Thanks for catching that :). Ok, so download same image, upload under same file name unless cropping for some reason, paste commons' description onto the page, then save and 3 day protect. Thanks MS.Calmer Waters 14:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I actually still upload under the same name when crop, because most crops are usually not damaging the picture, but sometimes, we have to cut a detail for the main page which might be important fore the article. Then perhaps another image name would be better. Materialscientist (talk) 23:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. Practice makes "almost" perfect so they say. :) Thanks again. Calmer Waters 07:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Nagging issues...

Now that I have another more active derm editor helping me (i.e you (thanks again)), there is a longstanding issue with the list that I would like to address, and see if you have any thoughts on what should be done.

For any cutaneous condition, there may be (though certainly not always) different subtypes or variants. Take lichen planus for example, which has many subtypes and variants, or squamous cell carcinoma, which also has multiple subtypes, including the mucosal squamous cell carcinoma which you touched on the other day.

Therefore, for the most complicated cases, you might have something like:

Condition name (Conditions synonym(s))

Condition subtype (Condition subtype synonym(s))

Condition variant (Condition variant synonym(s))

Currently, I have been trying to list the main condition name as well as the specific subtypes/variants, hence squamous cell carcinoma and mucosal squamous cell carcinoma both being in the list.

However, here are some questions I wanted to get your opinion on. Right now, subtypes/variants are simply listed in alphabetical order, independent of the main condition. For example, mucosal squamous cell carcinoma is not listed under squamous cell carcinoma. However, should it be? Should we be indenting subtypes/variants under the main condition? What are the pros and cons of that?

Also, going with that, should the various subtypes/variants have their own stub, or be redirected to the main condition article? In general, I have been making stubs, though there are times when simply a redirect exists, as with mucosal squamous cell carcinoma. What do you think is best?

Alright, I know that is a lot to read. I hope my questions make sense? ---kilbad (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I was meaning to touch bases on that, I think you have worded it better than I would have. I had not done anything yet with the three other issues I brought up to you earlier Squamous cell carcinoma, Hairy leukoplakia, and Ameloblastoma for that exact reason. Through Hairy leukoplakia could just have the synonym Oral hairy leukoplakia added on the list. After you have stated they are indeed subtypes/variants (and many more within the list), I believe they should have their own articles if there is enough material (or expectation that there will be enough material) available in the future. I have been trying to look at other lists that may have encountered this issue, as well as how different articles have either incorporated the subtypes/variants as subsections of the article or separated them into their own individual articles. Still researching through :)

Indenting the subtypes/variants directly under the condition would be useful as this would allow any possible synonyms to keep with the current layout of the page. I'll take a comb through the WP:MOS and similar articles to see what I can dig up. I will see if I can come up with something that can help back up any rational or footnotes that are eventually used. It is possibly we are treading on new ground and will need to just be bold and go for it. :) Kindly Calmer Waters 16:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I should post over at WT:MED and get the communities thoughts on these issues? ---kilbad (talk) 04:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

prep queues

I noticed a backlog and finally got around to reading the instructions and trying it out. By the way, it looks like we are getting a LOT more suggestions than can seemingly be accomodated ... has anyone thought about upping the requirements for a DYK article... like the number of characters in a completely new article? 1500 characters seems awfully short and pitiful for most subjects.Thelmadatter (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

There has been discussion regarding raising the requirements; however, no consensus has yet been reached. As far as backlog, We were close to 400 nominations around a month ago, and two months before that were as low as 98 nominations. As long as the hooks remain at about 25%-50% verified, the backlog usually works itself out. Between 250-300 hooks IMO is probably the optimal range (not to many and protects us from shortage) Some views may differ however :)Calmer Waters 00:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Court Yard Hounds

Expanded. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Good to go. Calmer Waters 02:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Bolognia Push

Calmer Waters; I'm willing to take a letter for the Push; could you e-mail me access instructions for the source material? Thanks. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

That would be great!. Let me get the info together and I'll E-mail it to you in just a bit. Kindly Calmer Waters 03:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind taking a look at Naxos syndrome

Naxos syndrome (Diffuse non-epidermolytic palmoplantar keratoderma with woolly hair and cardiomyopathy, Diffuse palmoplantar keratoderma with woolly hair and arrythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy of Naxos, Naxos disease) is one of those articles which is under a different name than we have. Do you think this article deserves a move? ---kilbad (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, once Naxos syndrome is sorted out and re-categorized, with its synonyms, into the PPK category, we are done with the PPK recat project. Good work. ---kilbad (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure which of the two are more commonly used; however do believe the list should slowly be updated to reflect the article name as the main condition title, as you said and as we've been doing. Google scholar has 965 entries for Naxos syndrome; whereas, Arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia shows 7,470. Calmer Waters 23:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess my question is this, is "Arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia" synonymous with "Naxos syndrome."? If not, perhaps we should seperate Naxos syndrome and its synonyms out from the Arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia article. (Also, I have started updating WP:DERM:A to reflect our new template use with redirect talk pages. Please edit that guideline as you see fit.) ---kilbad (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I have seperated it out. ---kilbad (talk) 00:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I saw that. Thanks for sorting that out. This list is the gift that keeps on giving (always something to add, change, modify) :) Sorry my edits have been erratic and few lately towards the project. Got me doing back to back 16s so my time is limited lately. Still planning to finish the Hs, helping with redirects, stubs, references, and general other things with the project. Kindly Calmer Waters 00:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I know what it is like to be busy. I was a intern last year. Anyway, I have finished with the "R" section, and have moved on to "P" which could possibly be the largest section. I am not sure, but am getting sick just looking at it, lol. Anyway, thanks again for your help! ---kilbad (talk) 02:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Ol' That's the section with those bloody PPKs. (your brave :)) I'm going to start working on the Hs again. Think I'm still on the first of 4 sections, so lots to look forward to. Saw your request for possible outline suggestions of the main article Cutaneous conditions. Was surprised to find it barely past start class. Calmer Waters 03:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

So I actually found the content outline to Rook's Textbook of dermatology (see [1]) and have used/modified it to start a working outline for the cutaneous conditions article at Talk:Cutaneous_conditions#Working_outline. I intentionally tried to create an outline that does not mirror the list of cutaneous conditions structure because I think providing a different way to organize the information could be helpful. With that being said, how does the outline look to you. What changes do you think should be made, etc. Thanks again for your feedback! ---kilbad (talk) 21:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh my. This will be quite the undertaking. Your outline does indeed seem to cover the bases. Since I'm relatively naive in dermatology, it looks that you have found a very good source for making an outline (reminds me of the outline preparations for those long tedious research papers :)). The price it quite astounding, huh! Calmer Waters 06:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hello Calmer Waters. since you were the first person to introduce me to the DYK, I thought that it would be best to ask you this. Well I know that you are (currently) editing the 2 prep areas. Well since moveing articles into the prep area can be done by any user, I was wondering....can you teach me how to add articles to the 2 pages? when to add them? and how to balance the hooks around? I want to be more active at DYK than just adding my own noms and reviewing others and I thought that this is the best way that I can help out. Thanks! PS:(belated congrats on your RFA!)--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Would be more than happy to. I would first say to take a read through Wikipedia:Did you know/Preparation areas and maybe the essay From Hook to Main Page at the section, Compiling Prep areas 1 and 2. It will give an example of how to ease into doing a preparation area. Let me finish a couple of these and maybe I can help with any questions that may arise from starting one. The best way to learn is by doing after all :) Calmer Waters 02:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll read them now and come back to you if I have any other questions.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Well I think that I know how to do it. But how do you give credit to the nominators and those who create the acticles? Theres a section for it but I have no clue how to use it.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 03:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You would normally replace the place holder *{{DYKmake|Example|Editor}} or *{{DYKnom|Example|Editor}} with the credit template provided when opening the nomination's edit screen. However; you always have to check whether it is setup correctly, and on occasion you will have to manually fill out the template, replacing the Example and Editor with the article's title and the editor/editors names. Calmer Waters 03:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

OK then. So when you fill out the placeholders, do you put in the same order that the articles are in. And if one person moninated it and another created it, do you need to fill out two placeholders for the article?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 03:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest placing the credits in the order of the hooks. It doesn't take any longer and helps to make sure one was not forgotten somehow. If there is more than one editor, whether nominating or co-authoring, there would need to be a separate template for each editor. If you look at the prep areas P1 and P2 now (with the credits full) and the Prep extra area PrepExtra (with the credits empty), it may give you an idea of how they would be compiled. Calmer Waters 04:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

OK. Now I know how to do it! Thanks! ANd as for an article with a nominator and a creator, what order should I put the tags in Nom then creator or vice versa?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 04:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Really doesn't matter, but I would think the creators and then the nominator just to keep formatting consistent (will work either way) Calmer Waters 04:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Well that's the last question that I had. Thanks!--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 04:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. If anything comes up in the future, please feel free to ask. Kindly Calmer Waters 04:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Barn star

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		Thank you, Calmer Waters, for all your hard work on April Fools' Day DYK in 2010.Storye book (talk) 09:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Storye book. I think you deserve this more than myself :). Take care and thank you for everything you have been doing over at DYK lately. Calmer Waters 20:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey

I hope you are doing well! Your talk page seems very busy lately! Anyway, I wanted to know if you would share your thoughts at a thread that was recently started: Talk:List_of_cutaneous_conditions#Bites_.27n_stuff. ---kilbad (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Kind of bouncing around the Wiki a bit lately, I keep meaning to stop by the project. Hope things are going well for you also. Sure thing :) Calmer Waters 20:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Calmer Waters. You have new messages at White Shadows's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 02:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

RfA

Sorry for missing your comment, my orange bar was going off that night too much. It's a little humbling, especially as I think I'd still get snowballed in a few hours. I've got a lot going on the enxt two months, off-wiki and on. I'll think about it, though, and if I have any interest in running (and think I have a chance), I'll come talk to you and Masca early-June. Does that sound alright? ¬¬¬¬

Absolutely. Sounds good :) Calmer Waters 14:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks. (Now, what on Earth are those things where my signature was supposed to have been?) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 04:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Rochester Midtown Plaza - Interior.jpg

Hello, Calmer Waters. I would like to ask you to undelete the previous version of File:Rochester Midtown Plaza - Interior.jpg and restore it to the old resolution, as DASHbot should not have rescaled this photograph. Thanks. Powers ^T 14:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. Calmer Waters 14:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The reason is that the non-free portion of the image is already very small and complies with the non-free guidelines. Only the depiction of the sculpture is non-free; the entire rest of the photograph is free and need not be reduced. Powers ^T 14:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. I would interpret the policy to state use of Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is to be used, as the percentage or amount of the photo is occupied by the subject appears quite subjective. As I am fairly new to dealing with fair use images, and really mainly helping with the cleanup of a backlog, I did restore the previous version. Just suppose that it is likely to happen again. Would only suggest adding something to the fair-use rational if not already done, so others are aware of your interpretations regarding the use of this fair-use high resolution image. Kindly Calmer Waters 14:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, bots are notorious for not reading such notes. =) Powers ^T 14:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Ain't that the truth :) Take care. Calmer Waters 14:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

hi

We have similar usernames, thought I would say hi. - Stillwaterising (talk) 02:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey we do, I like your username :) Thanks for helping with the last few comments on my talk page. Much appreciated. Kindly Calmer Waters 02:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Marlborough College

I can't help feeling the new 'Marlborough slang' section which you deleted this morning has some merit. It even included a citation for the last point made! I'll raise a discussion on the Talk page. Moonraker2 (talk) 06:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

It appeared as sneaky vandalism. Unless I'm wrong or it means something different on the otherside of the ocean, an example placed into to otherwise unobtrusive slang such as, SQUADDING – Clearing up duties for fags. does not appear something that would warrant inclusion or be from a sanctioned magazine like that which was provided. Calmer Waters 14:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For tirelessly reverting vandalism to maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia Immunize (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Immunize. That was very kind of you. I have seen you helping to try to keep the vandalizing to a minimum, if possible :). Your hard work is also appreciated. Kindly Calmer Waters 14:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Friendly FYI

Hello!

Just to let you know, when using {{usernameblock}}, it should be substituted, else you end up with a {{subst:BASEPAGENAME}} in the middle of the comment, as seen here. Looking at your blocking log, I see this was the first ({{usernameblock}}) listed, so I wasn't sure if you knew this already and maybe just forgot. :) Thanks for taking the mop and keeping Wikipedia clean! ^Avicenna_sis @ 05:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes my first. Thanks for fixing the formatting of it. Tried a couple of things to get it to work, but looks like I missed the one thing that would. Nice catch. Thanks again. Calmer Waters (talk) 15:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for submitting my picture of the Montreal Olympic stadium as a WFP —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon.filiatreault (talk • contribs) 23:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I was looking at various articles that night and came across your picture and thought it was a beautiful image from a great vintage point. Its unfortunate that it wasn't chosen, but I think it makes a valuable contribution to the encyclopedia never the less. Take care. Calmer Waters 16:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism of my user page

Thanks. He'd asked a question on my talk page, I'd answered, and then he clearly got confused about which page he'd asked on. Weird. Dougweller (talk) 05:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I know, At first It appeared harmless, but overlapped much of the previous comments made by others, but then he kept adding the questions doing it the same way over and again in different places that it started appearing as disruptive vandalism. Still unsure what was the intention if any. Calmer Waters 16:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't vandalize

You are mistaken, I didn't vandalize anything. Wikipedia can't be vandalized because it is just a bunch of fanboy garbage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.54.162.153 (talk) 14:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

responded at your talk page Calmer Waters 14:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

More than one way to look at it

I would suggest that a welcome to an editor doing a move to an all caps title with dubious status would probably in the balance of issues be better warned than welcomed :) SatuSuro 14:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It appears he is trying and is on the verge of a block, so I had hoped this would at least give the user some of our guidelines. Calmer Waters 14:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

ON the basis of that - well done - reminds me very much of [2] SatuSuro 14:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Awmigod with that number of shifts in intent and actual changes - I am out - I did my suggestion at the talk page - I am no longer involved as I disagree with all the changes so far SatuSuro 14:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It looks to be out of control for a new user to be doing all of this. Uggh. Calmer Waters 15:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Heheh the words I'd user are somewhat more in the In the name of AGF I cannot possibly use them in WP open space :{ SatuSuro 15:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

He either won't listen or is intentionally being disruptive. I blocked the account to stop the edits and to begin clean up. Now hopefully he can use this time to read a few policies. Being able to AGF is starting to sound like more of a dream then a reality here. Thanks for the heads up and diligent work :) Kindly Calmer Waters 15:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem is the article original name I was sure was the name of a couple of books - but I cannot find them easily at the moment - where I did my field work in Java - the beliefs were still very strong and there were even tv and video items at that time that simply rekindled the various stereotypes - SatuSuro 15:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have zero background on the subject, but it appears the user started discussion on the talk page and then decided to go ahead and move the article. Its a gray area of being bold and being disruptive. If the user would just have stopped long enough to discuss this further with you, since you raised concern I don't think a solution couldn't be worked out; however, it does not appear that he would discuss these changes and was not taking head to warning placed. I place a very temporary block (24 hours) to allow him time to think about the concerns raised. If it starts again, please bring to either myself or another administrator. Calmer Waters 15:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It was something that I used to speak about with people at 3 am in the morning in dark places (  :) ) a great experience! My main concern if the user continues in that way - is oohh an idea - then goes back to the old days of be bold - the new lead para could read ok if there were WP:RS - but the whole article was focused on the western end of the supposed full range - to call it austronesian when the WP RS used were basically oriented to the western end is creating a problematic undue - the lead says one thing and the content another :( if the editor was capable of adding adeequate supporting WP:RS - I would say that the issue is much less of one of disruptive as being a bit too bold - the notion of waiting for others comments might be a salient insight if the user is capable of such - to actually wait for the average indonesian project editor can be up to a week - bit like a merge proposal properly in process - some patience is well worth the effort if the user returns with some further understanding of why experimenting with titles is a no brainer in the end - allowing community process and consensus in the end can be of benefit to all - rather than lone star shooting from the hip and counting the responses after the act :) SatuSuro 15:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I have seen some editors that start with quite a bit more advanced understanding of editing, such as with page moves and the meta aspects, than others (whether they gained that experience with another account in the past is always a curiosity); however, usually those users also have an understanding of the talk pages, as this user evidently had, and follow-up with comments made before acting. Maybe I'm too willing to give over to good faith and as only having had the bit for a little over two months, I try to be careful when dealing with new users or those that have made attempts or appears to have made attempts to be constructive before slamming the block hammer. VOA and obvious vandalism is much easier to handle if you know what I mean, but I suppose I would eventually need to gain some experience in the other aspects of user conduct. Take care Satu. By the way, have you ever thought of throwing your hat in the ring? The encyclopedia is always in need of more help with the mopping. Calmer Waters 15:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The late Douglas Adams had a thing about improbability [3], and [4] - the thing is [5] and [6] - I am convinced are all related - but whya and how I am not sure - its late in my part of the planet :) SatuSuro 16:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like I'm late to the party:) Well should you ever decide, consider me a Strong Support. Take care Calmer Waters 16:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

FICOBank

Just an FYI, that was a author blank, not vandalism blank. I deleted the article as an author blanked page. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed the warning also. Thanks for catching that and bringing it to my attention. Calmer Waters 05:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Bolognia push update

I am almost done with P. I completed section 9/12 today. Thank you so much for your help in the past, and if you have any free time in the future, your continued help would be greatly appreciated. Regardless, hope you are doing well! ---kilbad (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I will get over that way again. Does that mean its 75% completed from the text. Quite impressive. Your diligence with it is quite impressive. Calmer Waters 05:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Question, would you consider working on the letter O? There are only three sections, so it would not take too long? ---kilbad (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

No

You're completely out of order Calmer... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.37.96 (talk) 15:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

hmmmm :) Calmer Waters 17:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI 93.87.33.6‎ and Mujeres Asesinas

This anon IP has a way of asserting itself into articles in a willy-nilly without providing citations or edit summaries that can be followed. With Mujeres Asesinas, I have attempted to clean up the article because it gets a lot of hits due to its popularity. Unfortunately visitors like to come in and do fancruft type edits and 93.87.33.6‎ seems to have a thing about Michelle Vieth. When the anon IP got blocked recently, it was because it was inserting one name over hers so as to mask the deletion and followed its aggressive style of reverting edits without following standard guidelines. The insertion and deletion were both unsourced and contrary to the article reimprove tag and talkpage discussion. Like many other Univision programs, artists, bios, etc. this article suffers because it is hard to get good WP:V and WP:RS sources or information. Most times the info you get is what is called a chisme or a teaser that usually is gossip driven. When I see unsourced edits/deletions, I attempt to source them but it has taken me quite a few edits to get the article to where it is a Start class type article. Morenooso (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It just deleted a section again after you posted your note. This action is consistent with the observation I made. If the anon IP does not like an edit, it will delete or alter at will. --Morenooso (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I placed a escalated block on the account. I wish the software forced an edit summary before saving :) Calmer Waters 15:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree about your wish. I also wish articles like this would not receive fancruft type edits/deletions. Oh well, --Morenooso (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism is usually harder to detect for those not accustomed to the editors in question, with article based in a topic that usually haves its sources in non-English, whether its vandalism (like the changing of foreign language quotes) by just taking a quick look at the diffs. Thank you for elaborating as you did. Would also like to give you props for taking the extra time and trying to find sources before just removing the information as uncited or unverified. Cheers. Calmer Waters 16:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

If you could place your observation (without the prop for me) about the difficulty in detecting vandalism/fancruft vis-a-vis on the article talkpage, I would really appreciate it.--Morenooso (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Done Calmer Waters 17:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. Looks like some anon IPs have visited the article in my absence. --Morenooso (talk) 18:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Activity picked up on this article tonight. I reported a user to WP:AIV because it violated 3RR after the final warning. However, an admin, who does not seem interest in acting on AIV reports, is not taking action on several incidents because he has username of Dept of Redundant whatever. Supposedly Thalia is rumored for this coming season along with Paulina Rubio. Both have rabid fans and those articles suffer IMHO from fancruft type edits. Combined with the lead singer, Gloria Trevi, who somewhat competes with the same fancruft edits and competition to one-up each others' articles, I expect Mujeres Asesinas to take hits. --Morenooso (talk) 02:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I semi-protected the page for a month due to the ongoing issues that appear to have been raised more than adequately on both the talk page and edit summaries/page history. Cheers Calmer Waters 13:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I have several articles that have higher priority on my list. And with all the activity yesterday, I wanted to avoid all issues of a 3RR concerning my reverts. I will set a reminder to visit it tomorrow. --Morenooso (talk) 14:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

More vandalism by SeanTehNoob

I shook my wiki-fist very hard at SeanTehNoob's latest vandalism, which is as much as I can do, and I'd leave it at that except that all of this new user's edits have been vandalism. Yappy2bhere (talk) 05:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It looks like you won't have to shake your wiki-fist any longer at this user (by the way loved that :)), as it appears someone had blocked them shortly after you posted this. Thanks for the heads up. Calmer Waters 13:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I wonder who submitted a report on him somewhere? --Morenooso (talk) 13:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

help: please delete

Due to recent privacy concerns regarding the depth of this page: [[7]]. I am asking that you delete it completely. Please advise me if I need better reason. If so, copyright violations should qualify.

It does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion; however, if you could point me to the specific issues, maybe we can address those. Calmer Waters 13:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Penn Station(NYC) still being vandalized

The anonymous IP User:67.78.176.97 is still persistently vandalizing Pennsylvania Station (New York City). Would you say it's time for a ban, or just a longer block? ----DanTD (talk) 01:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Can't ban an IP, but I have just left a final warning on the talk page. If the user does it again, then we will go ahead and escalate the length of the block; however, I think you may be right and this IP might be static in this case (at least for now). Calmer Waters 01:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Didn't take long. Blocked the address for a month. Let me know if you see any ducks :) Take care. Kindly Calmer Waters 02:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

He sure is determined. :-( Thanks for the block. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Sometimes I think the edit summary vandalism is worst than the actual edits, at least those we can easily remove, the summaries, not so easy :) Calmer Waters 02:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

TUSC

6dcdc6d3eb918bd0514b0f452f6da63a Calmer Waters 02:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK nom of SMS Hannover

I'm inclined to object to a second appearance, but if consensus is that it should be allowed then I won't stand in the way. I've raised the issue at WT:DYK. Mjroots (talk) 08:35, 28 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 ed17 17:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I need a little help

Recently the parasitic infestations, stings, and bites section was further broken down into additional subsections. I wanted to know if you would help tidy-up the recent change, make sure everything looks accurate, do away with the "other" section, and help add intros and new categories to all the new subsections. I really like your careful editing, and, if you're available, would really appreciate your help. Regardless, thank you for your help in the past! ---kilbad (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

replied per E-mail Calmer Waters 04:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Dry Lake Wind Power Project

I started a Dry Lake Wind Power Project article. While I was searching Wikipedia to see if we already had such an article, I saw you listed it on User:Calmer Waters/text user page2 as a user sandbox link. The article is in the main space now so you won't need to sandbox it. --Teratornis (talk) 03:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice work. I read about the project in the paper months ago, and had meant to start an article; but apparently, did not ever get very far with it. Nice job. Calmer Waters 04:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Roxanne, Roxanne excerpt.ogg

May 5 you deleted the old version of the file. Unfortunately, the history of the file and the source information also disappeared. Is it possible to retsore this information? ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 05:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I restored the deleted files; however, it does not appear that the source information was present at those edits either. When we delete the prior versions, we only remove the audio file not being used (usually all but the most recent), not any of the template, summary information, or any other edits to the page when adding the updated version (if it is present). If I'm missing anything, please let me know as I appreciate the work you have continuously put into managing the media files. Kindly Calmer Waters 04:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring the file history. As you can see of the current file history, the source information was present and somehow the non-free rationale disappeared. Before I asked you to restore the file history, only your edit of removing the old file was visible. Please notice that you have two deletion entries at the same time in the log files, where other files like this only have one deletion entry of yours in the log file. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 09:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Your final warning

To User talk:87.15.161.43 has been exceeded. Varlaam (talk) 14:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

re: Redirect tagging

Hey Calmer Waters, sorry to keep you waiting.

Do you still need this task done? If so I'd be happy to have a shot at running it, however, I'm not sure AWB with Plugin++ will allow the extra "dermatology=yes" parameter, and I've been having problems with it recently anyway. So I think I will just throw some C# code together to for this task. I'm going to get an okay from another BAG member first (for the language change, should be uncontroversial :D), and it may take me awhile to get my act together on the coding. If you're okay with waiting a bit longer, that's fine and I'll have the articles tagged soon. Otherwise, feel free to ask another operator. Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I was wondering if it was possible. I have seen your other bots and even picked up a book to try to learn more about writing code, but as you are probably aware, it will be quite awhile till a novice like myself will be able to contribute in that way (I'll be a manual contributor for some time to come). There is no rush, and really appreciate your time in looking into possibly being able to run this task. Thanks on behalf of the entire Dermatology task force Kingpin. If there is anything I can do to return the favor, please let me know. Kindly Calmer Waters 15:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Hm, just wrote up the code, but still haven't got approval (it's not really important, but I like to play safe :D), anyway, it appears xeno has managed to get this done, so should all be good. By the way, if you need any help with bots on Wikipedia, or even just coding, feel free to drop me a note :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Awesome and nothing at all bad about being careful and really quite a commendable trait in my opinion :) I am starting to see how coding is like learning a new language. My first couple of attempts at script writing have been pretty unspectacular (nothing happened), so may take you up on that offer :) Thanks again, and hopefully one of these days I will be able to pay it forward and help fulfill a similar request down the road. Kindly Calmer Waters 14:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Weird edit summaries appearing

On my Watchlist several admin's edit summaries, such as User:MER-C have the following listed:

• "This page was slapped to a new title by Grawp’s humongous phallus."

About five admins have a similar edit summary and almost looks like a meatpuppet at work. I am going to look at some the edits and wanted to advise an admin who was not affected and currently active. ----moreno oso (talk) 10:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like they came from a banned user:Behn-kihl-nahm and taken care of by other admins. ----moreno oso (talk) 10:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 May newsletter

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 ed17 20:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Reviewer Status

Thanks.  :) C1k3 (talk) 06:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome :). This next step in trying to protect the integrity of the project will be quite the learning experience for most of us editors that haven't come across it on another of the projects. Kindly Calmer Waters 08:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Who/why?

Who requested, or why did you feel the need to do this: [8]?  HWV258.  09:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there an issue with this editor that I am not aware of? We are vetting and approving confirmed, established editors to make way for the new edit revisions that are soon coming to the project. If this editor wishes not to have this right, they can always request it be removed. Calmer Waters 09:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• HWV just alerted me to this, since we have both closely investigated the likelihood that CalendarWatcher is being operated by one or more other editors. I believe the very first edits in the user's contribs in 2005 give the game away. The account has a track record of ... spikiness, let us say. However, I'm unsure what the policy is concerning the provision of reviewer rights to such accounts. Maybe it's within policy, but I am concerned. Tony (talk) 09:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
• "Is there an issue with this editor that I am not aware of?"—thanks for asking. Have you looked at User_talk:CalendarWatcher#Previous_account.28s.29.3F? Since I posed the questions at that section, the regularly-posting CW account (after one dismissive response) went "dead". Conferring extra privileges on that account does nothing for the process and dignity of WP. I ask again: why did you feel the need to confer extra privileges on the CW account?  HWV258.  09:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I, along with many administrators are reviewing editors with clean block logs with long, active, and established accounts for this right. Per wp:reviewer Reviewer status – will be granted liberally (become a reviewer!), and may be granted based on automatically generated lists As we are attempting to prepare the way for tens of thousands of editors to be integrated into the new system upgrade, it is being declined for the most obvious cases (pending checkuser reviews, valid recent block logs, clear misunderstanding of basic editing standards. This right is not the same as one such as rollback or WP:autoreviewer which requires a more extensive review of edits in regards to the rights function. It is mean't to keep VOA and purely disruptive new editors for attempting to add harmful new material to the encyclopedia. Per-guidelines, the removal of the permission is only possible after review by the community or the arbitration committee. As I am always open to transparency and review of my actions, if you feel this action should be reviewed, I am willing to submit it to review as I am no longer able to remove the right myself. Kindly Calmer Waters 10:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. I would only ask that my dissent at the awarding of extra privileges to such as questionable account as CW be noted. The question as to what is the point of awarding privileges like confetti will inevitably asked—but hopefully also by others..  HWV258.  10:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I do see your point. The prior discussions on the scope of this feature have been debated in length in the past (how exclusive the right should be, should it be an extension of auto-confirmed, what types of edits should be involved, is it really needed with recent changes patrol feeds already addressing (debatable) the need, does it just get in the way of building the encyclopedia,etc). Because it is in the beginning phases and possibly quite wide spread reach of the feature, the compromise is the liberal extension of the access. I see no reason that in the future, that it will be able to be removed by any administrator for valid reasons or the future granting of the right per request or vetting under a more extensive review then what is currently being undertaking; however, for now the goal is to get the access out to editors so that testing of the feature can be adequately reviewed. I do apologize if changing this particular right has diminished any views you may have towards the project or myself. I will indeed confer with others as to what extent the right/privilege should be held and in what ways they are establishing that it should be granted. I do appreciate you bringing this up to my attention so promptly and do not take it lightly. Kindly Calmer Waters 10:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a back door way of semi-protecting all articles from IP editors, and should stop. I am opposed to this, just as I am opposed to flagged revisions. Only the powers that be must have realised that if there is not an army of editors volunteering to become reviewers, the whole process will grind to a halt - that's why they are 'volunteering' anyone with a clean sheet, and even many those with not-so-clean sheets, giving them reviewers rights. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 11:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes; what is going on? I was given "reviewer" right—without requesting it. This whole thing is a political football.  HWV258.  11:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much!

I just took the time to read about the responsibilities of being a reviewer, which was granted to me today. I have to say that I am flattered and honored that you would consider me for this trial. Thank you very much, and enjoy your week. --Candy156sweet (talk) 22:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

RfA

Thank you very much for your contribution to my Rfa. I have made a comment about it at User talk:JamesBWatson#Your Request for Adminship which you are, of course, very welcome to read if you wish to. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

List of Neon Genesis Evangelion characters

Hi. I have been having some problems in the discussion page of List of Neon Genesis Evangelion characters. This one member named Gwern believes that that an image of the uniform of the main characters should be added only because they wear the outfits most of the time. I try to tell her there is already an image of the main characters in there school uniform and there is no need to keep this image, plus it's an actual cosplay suit and not an image of the uniform seen in the series. Gwern refuses to justify why the image is necessary and only says that the uniform is iconic and that is all the reason why it should be there. Could you please help me out on this? the discussion is here.

Another problem i'm dealing with in the same article is restructuring the character article to be re organized as Main characters, Supporting characters, and other. but they didn't like the idea. Even though keeping it in the current structure is making the article in an in-universe style.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 July newsletter

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 ed17 22:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Fuoking

Hi CW. I just wanted you to know that that article is also a blatant hoax/parody; see here. May want to salt it. Thanks Tommy! [message] 23:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Done Tommy :) Thanks for the heads up and keep up the great work. Kindly Calmer Waters 23:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks CW Tommy! [message]

It was just recreated as Fuokings and deleted. ----moreno oso (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Well at least not much has changed since I've been away ;) Calmer Waters 04:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You were gone? Did you send me a postcard? ----moreno oso (talk) 04:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You mean you didn't get it? Now where did I place that thing .... Calmer Waters 05:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Bill, bill, new issue of Playbear, letter from Uncle Ed I may have won $1 million dollars, no. ----moreno oso (talk) 05:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Take the $1M and go to Spain.. especialmente this lovely hidden gem. Tommy! [message] 18:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Question

I know that this may sound goofy, and I probably should have gone to the help desk, but I figured I would ask you this anyway. On the article titled Richard Marx, an editor wants to put a tag which labels the artist in a certain religious category without a citation. Is it alright if I revert that edit to remove that tag? Thanks in advance for your help. Have a great weekend!  :) --Candy156sweet (talk) 23:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Goofy? Not at all. I agree with the rational you provided at the talk page and responded there. As Tnxman307 stated, this is a perfect example of utilizing the Bold, Revert, and Discuss cycle to undo an action that you do not agree with and presenting your rational for others to view and comment on whether they agree or disagree if necessary. Kindly Calmer Waters 08:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to thank you for your third-party input on the religious categorization issue on the Richard Marx article. I'm hoping that the issue will resolve itself. Unfortunately, the user that is making the edits does so from a dynamic IP and it seems like this person needs to observe the WP:RNPOV. Again, thank you for your help and I hope to work with you on other articles in the future. Have a pleasant week. --Candy156sweet (talk) 05:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It can be frustrating to work with someone that does not collaborate with others and continues to re add their edits without commentary when requested. There is; however, a way to deal with editors that do not wish to abide by Wikipedia's policies, even after polite good faith requests have been requested, and even ways to deal with dynamic IPs when they continue this behavior :) Take care and have yourself a great week. Kindly Calmer Waters 08:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

long delayed hi reply

everything's going OK, i have had a few problems, but not too many that involved admins.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Glad to here that. I feel Wikipedia should foremost be an enjoyable experience for the most part. Not everything can always be grand, but hopefully more so than not. Hope the summer treated you well, and just wanted to stop by and say hey, regarding my belated reply to your earlier post. talk to you later BN. Kindly Calmer Waters 08:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: DYK nomination of UPRM Planetarium

Hi, added a few more words, I think that puts it at over 1500, let me know if there is anything else, and thanks for the heads up.El Johnson (talk) 14:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there anything else that needs to be done? El Johnson (talk) 02:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the article, BTW would you mind reviewing my other a nomination: Template talk:Did you know#Cathedral of Mayagüez, I think this one would make a good DKY, but I am open for constructive criticism and if it does not pass then that's ok too. El Johnson (talk) 05:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I'll go ahead and take a look now. Calmer Waters 05:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

DC 100 Page Super Spectacular

Hi,

Back on November 29, 2009, you posted this on the DC 100 Page Super Spectacular article:

"(Contains no references. article requires references to be added rather than general external links. placed unreferenced tag.)"

I have made several edits to the page recently and wanted to see if the "unreferenced tag" can now be removed. Also, it appears that the person who created the page back in 2007 is also the creator of one of the pages cited in the "External Links" section. Should this link be removed as a violation of Wikipedia's policy of no original research/no self-published sources?

Mtminchi08 (talk) 05:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I have went ahead and removed the no reference tag, since it is obviously no longer the case. Please always feel free to remove such tags when they are no longer applicable. Many times, they are placed while an editor is doing medial grome work, as I was doing earlier last year. Sometimes to get a feel for different aspects of the encyclopedia, refresh on different policies, and to keep from burning out; I sometimes change the areas I work and the type of edits I do. Thanks for bringing this up. As for the external link you mentioned. It appears like a bit of the gray area of policy as it is not being utilized as a source per WP:No original research and does not appear to be benefiting the editor commercially per wp:spam, maybe possibly self promotion, but would in this case after reading the web site, I would be willing to assume that the editor was acting in good faith. As it is in the external links section, and not being used to support the article as a reference, I would leave it up to your judgment, as whether to remove the link or not. I personally would side towards removal myself, as I am sure there are other reliable published sites that can easily be found and linked that would provide the same, if not better information as contained within that particular link. Kindly Calmer Waters 10:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Hallowe'en 2010

		Halloween 2010 is Coming Up!
		Thank you for contributing to last year's Halloween-themed Did You Know effort. The 2010 Hallowe'en DYK nomination page is up, and I hope you contribute this year! - Tim1965 (talk) 02:43, 27 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 A's winner was Sturmvogel_66 (submissions). Awarded the top score overall this round, Sturmvogel_66 writes primarily on military history, favouring Naval warfare.
• 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 first wildcard was TonyTheTiger (submissions). Awarded the top score for did you knows and valued pictures this round, TonyTheTiger writes on a number of topics, including baseball, American football and Chicago.
• 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.

Signups for next year's competition are now open. Planning is ongoing, with a key discussion about judges for next year open. Discussion about how next year's scoring will work is ongoing, and thoughts are more than welcome at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring. Also, TonyTheTiger is compiling some information and statistics on the finalists here- the final eight are encouraged to add themselves to the list.

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 ed17 23:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Still busy

How is work going? I need you, one of our best editors, back at WP:DERM! ;) ---kilbad (talk) 15:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Been several months of consistent 80 - 100 hour work weeks, so I will be more than happy when is ceases and goes back to a healthy level again. I assure you I haven't deserted the task force :) I actually quite miss my 4, 6, sometimes 10 or greater hour Wiki days. I do try to "peak in" from time to time however. Hope you are doing well with everything, both on site and in RL and with luck, I'll be collaborating with you soon, as you are truly a pleasure to work with. Kindly Calmer Waters 06:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Sandra Gillette Photo

Hello. I do not have permission to make changes to a page and was wondering if you could be of assistance.

I need a photo for Sandra Gillette added to her page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gillette_(singer)

Thank you.

File:Http://i479.photobucket.com/albums/rr160/ebayapparel/164341.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keylife12 (talk • contribs) 05:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page Calmer Waters 14:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

ie. warning

Hi Waters. You sent a message about me editing the page of some Irish town, I think you have me mistaken for another IP address. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.45.121 (talk) 10:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about the warning. It looks like it is from a couple of weeks ago and someone else was probably using that dynamic IP address at the time. Kindly Calmer Waters 14:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

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.

Despite controversy, the WikiCup remains open. Signups for next year's competition are more than welcome, and suggestions for how next year's competition will work are appreciated at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring. More general comments and discussions should be directed at the WikiCup talk page. One month remains in the 2010 WikiCup, after which we will know our champion. 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 ed17 23:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 October newsletter

The 2010 WikiCup is over! It has been a long journey, but what has been achieved is impressive: combined, participants have produced over seventy featured articles, over five hundred good articles, over fifty featured lists, over one thousand one hundred "did you know" entries, in addition to various other pieces of recognised content. A full list (which has yet to be updated to reflect the scores in the final round) can be found here. Perhaps more importantly, we have our winner! The 2010 WikiCup champion is Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), with an unbelievable 4220 points in the final round. Second place goes to TonyTheTiger (submissions), with 2260, and third to Casliber (submissions), with 560. Congratulations to our other four finalists – White Shadows (submissions), William S. Saturn (submissions), Staxringold (submissions) and ThinkBlue (submissions). Also, congratulations to Sasata (submissions), who withdrew from the competition with an impressive 2685 points earlier in this round.

Prizes will also be going to those who claimed the most points for different types of content in a single round. It was decided that the prizes would be awarded for those with the highest in a round, rather than overall, so that the finalists did not have an unfair advantage. Winning the featured article prize is Casliber (submissions), for five featured articles in round 4. Winning the good article prize is Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), for eighty-one good articles in round 5. Winning the featured list prize is Staxringold (submissions), for six featured lists in round 1. Winning the picture and sound award is Jujutacular (submissions), for four featured pictures in round 3. Winning the topic award is Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), for forty-seven articles in various good topics in round 5. Winning the "did you know" award is TonyTheTiger (submissions), for over one hundred did you knows is round 5. Finally, winning the in the news award is Candlewicke (submissions), for nineteen articles in the news in round three.

The WikiCup has faced criticism in the last month – hopefully, we will take something positive from it and create a better contest for next year. Like Wikipedia itself, the Cup is a work in progress, and ideas for how it should work are more than welcome on the WikiCup talk page and on the scoring talk page. Also, people are more than welcome to sign up for next year's competition on the signup page. Well done and thank you to everyone involved – the Cup has been a pleasure to run, and we, as judges, have been proud to be a part of it. We hope that next year, however the Cup is working, and whoever is running it, it will be back, stronger and more popular than ever. Until then, goodbye and happy editing! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 03:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

DKY nom.

Hi, would you mind taking a look at my DKY nomination: my nomination's entry for Nov 5. I would really appreciate it. Thanks in advance. El Johnson (talk) 20:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Sleeping dogs

I did not edit "sleeping dogs" so please don't make accusations. I've never even heard of it so if you want to spend your free time editing a website for whatever reason please do it right. cheers.

Ummm dynamic I.P. address maybe :) Removed the last word of I.P.'s post, through I'm sure I've seen worst :) Calmer Waters 07:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

That's the second time I'm here I've done that. So embarrassing. Slightsmile (talk) 16:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

No reason to be embarrassed. I am only sorry that I have not gotten to you sooner; if that is the case. Was there something that you wanted to ask me? About the village pump thread you mentioned? I'll be happy to take a look. Kindly Calmer Waters 07:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It was purely accidental, I intended the message for another user and I was in your page and thought I was in the other user's page. Hard to explain. I did the same thing last September, I put a post in Airplaneman's page that I intended for Phantomsteve. I don't want to be accused of - I forget the term, shopping around. But yeah I would love it if you looked at my thread, I've been so alone with this issue. Slightsmile (talk) 16:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The only poll on commons, I can make out is the current discussion / vote on sexual images. Is this what you are referring to? Can you link this thread you had a concerns with? Calmer Waters 00:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

This should do it. Another way, just check my contribs there and that'll point right to it. Slightsmile (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. I can only respond as a fellow editor and need to look up what corresponding policies state in regards to these types of images being displayed on both commons and this encyclopedia. Fastily is very good on various image policies. On a personal level, I can see where you are coming from, on one side there is a need of a respect for decency (in one case a young, dead, exposed child), and on the other, a handful of non-censor-like policies and such that have become valid through ongoing debate and current consensus. I would look to see what relative policy or policies (without wikilawyering of course :) ) uphold your views and uses those to validate these. That is the best way to debate the merits of your opinions, in what can often be a emotionally charged "discussion". Sometimes these discussions are better held at those policy pages, where a greater number of different editors can weigh in. I often learn much from other editor's expertize and knowledge on different subjects. I also agree that some things just don't reach the level of making an invaluable encyclopedic contribution at the cost of a person's dignity (in this case, that child) .Calmer Waters 16:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your looking at this. Thank you. Slightsmile (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Eyes Of Munity

Thank you for all your advice about the Eyes Of Munity page :) --86.137.196.154 (talk) 17:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome and happy holidays. Calmer Waters 02:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011

Hello. You are being contacted because you have previously shown interest in the WikiCup but have not yet signed up for the 2011 WikiCup, which starts at midnight. It is not too late to sign up! The competition will remain open until at least January 31, and so it is not too late to enter. If you are interested, simply follow the instructions to add your username to the signup page, and a judge will contact you as soon as possible with an explanation of how to participate. The WikiCup is a friendly competition open to all Wikipedians, old and new, experienced and inexperienced, providing a fun and rewarding way to contribute quality content to Wikipedia. If you do not want to receive any further messages about the WikiCup, or you want to start receiving messages about the WikiCup, you may add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the WikiCup talk page or contact the judges directly. J Milburn and The ed17 06:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Copy-editing

Have you ever done copy-editing before? WAYNESLAM 23:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure, usually on articles that I review for dyk, getting qualifying articles at afc ready for the main space, and the random article I come across. Why you ask? Calmer Waters 08:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to ask you that question. WAYNESLAM 23:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

How I Killed Pluto and Why It Had It Coming

Make sure it's more than a two-line stub with nothing sourcing anything other than its existence, or I'll revert back to the redirect, and if that doesn't stick, I'll take it to afd. Corvus cornix_talk 06:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Afd it then, immediate redirects are just short of instant CSDing an article. Also don't appreciate your tone of Make sure it's more than a two-line stub with nothing sourcing anything other than its existence, or I'll revert back to the redirect. It is notable and I am currently working on it. I hope this is not how your interacting with our new editors while NPPCalmer Waters 06:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what NPP means. Existence isn't notability. Corvus cornix_talk 06:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll skip to adding the reviews from the Wall Street Journal, etc. It is usually good to do a simple Google search before redirecting, or requesting deletion on new articles. NPP = New page patrolling. Plus, indications of significance is the bench mark of warding off a quick redirect attempt. A book of literature from a person with a Wikipedia article and stated within the (yes, two line stub) to have made a largely reported and dramatic change within the scientific community, signifies importance. Calmer Waters 06:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:DERM:MA

Hey, good to see you active again. Any chance I could get your help again at WP:DERM:MA? We are more than halfway done! ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey, been a long time huh. Like the name :) Sure. I just need to dig up the old sign-in information. Calmer Waters 16:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Erroneous Warning

Hi CalmerWaters, I noticed you posted a warning about some vandalism I reverted on my talk page - specifically 405924047. Nick Wilson (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

You are right:) Facepalm Thanks so much for bringing it to my attention. I removed it. Sorry Nick. Calmer Waters 18:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries! Plenty of vandalism this morning, misclicks are inevitable. Thanks for taking care of it Nick Wilson (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

86.10.119.131

Sorry about that. I ran across the user removing content from another user's talk page. I'll try to be more careful. CarbonX (talk) 02:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

They were removing the template from their own talk page. One of the limitations of Huggle is that it is often difficult to determine the distinction between the removal of a warning template from their talk page because of a good faith error of another editor or because they are attempting to "hide" the edits, which is fine, if they are vandalizing the history will still be there to look at before evaluating if a block is warranted, and will be the reason for it rather that the blanking of their user page. Errors do happen (I unfortunately did one just yesterday ...see the tread above), and a quick correction can usually help the situation. We all just have to be diligent to keep the errors to a minimum, as you seem to be :) Kindly Calmer Waters 03:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I went back and looked at it again and think I must have just gotten a little cross-eyed. I'll try use extra caution in the future when edits involve user talk pages. Thanks for the heads up. CarbonX (talk) 04:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment

I have proposed the renaming of a category, and wanted to know if you would consider commenting on the proposed renaming over at that link. ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 04:43, 8 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 The Bushranger (submissions), who, at the time of writing, has a comfortable lead with 228 points, followed by Hurricanehink (submissions), with 144 points. Four others have over 100 points. Congratulations also go to Yellow Evan (submissions), who scored the first points in the competition, claiming for Talk:Hurricane King/GA1, Miyagawa (submissions), who scored the first non-review points in the competition, claiming for Dognapping, and Jarry1250 (submissions) who was the first in the competition to use our new "multiplier" mechanic (explanation), claiming for Grigory Potemkin, a subject covered on numerous Wikipedias. Thanks must also go to Jarry1250 for dealing with all bot work- without you, the competition wouldn't be happening!

A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round two is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 22:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 February newsletter

So begins round two of the WikiCup! We now have eight pools, each with eight random contestants. This round will continue until the end of April, when the top two of each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers of those remaining, will make it to round three. Congratulations to The Bushranger (submissions) (first, with 487 points) and Hurricanehink (submissions) (second, with 459), who stormed the first round. Casliber (submissions) finished third with 223. Twelve others finished with over 100 points- well done to all of you! The final standings in round one can be seen here. A mere 8 points were required to reach round two; competition will no doubt be much more fierce this round, so be ready for a challenge! A special thanks goes, again, to Jarry1250 (submissions) for dealing with all bot work. This year's bot, as well as running smoothly, is doing some very helpful things that last year's did not. Also, thanks to Stone (submissions) for some helpful behind-the-scenes updating and number crunching.

Some news for those who are interested- March will see a GAN backlog elimination drive, which you are still free to join. Organised by WikiProject Good articles, the drive aims to minimise the GAN backlog and offers prizes to those who help out. Of course, you may well be able to claim WikiCup points for the articles you review as part of the drive. Also ongoing is the Great Backlog Drive, looking to work on clearing all of the backlogs on Wikipedia; again, incentives are offered, and the spirit of friendly competition is alive, while helping the encyclopedia is the ultimate aim. Though unrelated to the WikiCup, these may well be of interest to some of you.

Just a reminder of the rules; if you have done significant work on content this year and it is promoted in this round, you may claim for it. Also, anything that was promoted after the end of round one but before the beginning of round two may be claimed for in round two. Details of the rules can be found on this page. For those interested in statistics, a running total of claims can be seen here, and a very interesting table of that information (along with the highest scorers in each category) can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:37, 28 February 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 ed17 00:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

List of hematologic conditions

Do we really need List of hematologic conditions, seeing that we can use categories to classify these diseases? JFW | T@lk 19:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought about that and spoke to a number of MDs, I used to work with about getting my hands on a comprehensive list of blood disorders to help develop teaching material for patients that had repeatedly asked questions about the difference between this and that. He along with others helped with good journals, literature, books, but nowhere I looked on the internet had a comprehensive list. Some better than others, but nothing that really was definitive for someone looking for information. As I looked a found a number of conditions that we don't even have articles on, no redirects for many of the synonyms. Working with My Core Competency is Competency on list of cutaneous conditions we saw just how many disorders and synonyms almost 10 years later were and are are still missing. This list haves a far ways to go to get anything near where that list has gotten so far, but I do believe that it will be more useful for a greater number of readers including those who are not in a health-care field and know the categorization of the illness they may be searching for than just a web of cats (they may or may not know how to weave through. I also do plan on having information added to each section as has been started at anemias and blood cancers, but am trying to get some of the section cleaner so I have a better idea of what to include in the section. Same issue with the header. Also as many can be in several cats depending on how one chooses to categorize it. It is early on and I'm still attempting to figure out how to section them out (using ICD10 and the verios cats as a rough starting point. Simply put I believe a well written and research list can be a far greater benefit in addition to the cats. Your thoughts are very appreciated. Calmer Waters 02:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikiprojects

Hey, I have started participating in some Wikiprojects; however, many of them are confusing as to what needed to be done. (The first Wikiproject I ever saw was a copy-edit project and I had no clue what to do) How can I learn more about Wikiprojects? I have also been referencing biographies when I have time, am I supposed to show somewhere that I am taking part in the project, or do I just continue referencing until the project is someday complete?Ryan Vesey (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, there is a vast amount of wiki-projects here. WikiProject Council/Directory is a directory of the major areas of projects. When first joining a project, it is sometimes helpful to read the associated project's talk page to get a feel of what the latest focuses have been on. It is also helpful to ask a member of the project how best to help. The WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors for example, haves a backlog elimination drive every other month, where volunteers help reduce the number of articles in the category Category:All articles needing copy edit. They also have a bit of a competition and award various barnstars at the end of each drive. If you add your name to the list of members, editors may see your work and from time to time specifically ask if you mind looking and copy editing one of their articles. There are also meta-space projects such as Article for creation where you help vet and prepare new articles from new and unregistered users for inclusion into the main space. There is Did you know where you can nominate your new article creations and those of others for the DYK section of the main page, help verify other nominations, and even help prepare how they appear on the main page. Then there are the various projects that are listed on an article discussion page's banner box. Does that help a little? There are just so many of them. Best to find one in an area that interest you and ask an active member, "Hey, how can I help?" :) Kindly Calmer Waters 22:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Weekend at Burnsie's.jpg

Feel free to WP:G7 CTJF83 01:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Ctjf83.I don't like the auto-twinkle notice that goes with these at all, quite impersonal. I understand that it is meant to give the file's up-loader a final chance to decide if the file is to be used but it is quite awful looking isn't it? Especially if just informing that a depreciated image no longer in use is finally about to be removed (deleted). Really should have just sent you a "Hey, this is no longer used, just giving the customary notice in case you still see a need for it somewhere". There is indeed a price for automation. Thanks for inadvertently reminding me of DTTR. Kindly Calmer Waters 01:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem...can't you untag the "notify if possible"? :) CTJF83 01:39, 24 April 2011 (UT

Yeah; something I'll do, just happens to be the default to notify also. Actually the default when tagging is to delete the file. The auto-messages do work pretty well for new editors, but for the likes of you, nah :) I know there are some editors that do extensive tweaking of twinkle. Something I'll probably look into. Kindly Calmer Waters 01:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible to see which images of mine are no longer on pages? I'll just G7 most or all of them, to make it easier on everyone. CTJF83 01:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

That is a good question. I'm really not sure. I was working on some file maintenance at Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused non-free files; however, it only gives the file name. Would need to look at the raw data it is pulling from to know for sure. Calmer Waters 02:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok...wish this would tell you what pages the images were on...oh well. CTJF83 02:19, 24 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 ed17 19:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you check this user?

User:HXL49 has made a personal attack on my talk page. He also appears to be arguing in his edit summaries. Finally his user talk page, specifically once you press edit, appears to attack (for lack of better words) all other users. Ryan Vesey (talk) 01:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the personal attack that he made on your talk page. I see where he went to your talk page and stated that he was not happy to have received a general templated message on his talk page, rather than a personal message as to exactly what you request be done in regards to the edits you were undoing. He used edit summaries stating why he was making his edits and his rational for reverting as you did. The template at the edit screen is nothing more than an instruction template he has inserted (many editors use these) and does not appear to be attacking in nature, rather stating he will remove such language from his page. As Hut 8.5 pointed out earlier, this is more of an etiquette issue than any thing else. Please keep in mind that long term editors and those who work in contentious areas of the encyclopaedia such as HXL49, may sometimes skip the pleasantries and boldly and plainly speak their mind. I see his coming to your talk page as an example of utilizing the wp:BRD cycle after both of your edit summaries failed to resolve the issue. Trust me, you will find that some of our greatest content editors have some pretty thick skin and say it just how they feel. I would say that if you still have issue with the edit then the talk page is really the best place to go for consensus from editors familiar with the topic. Kindly Calmer Waters 21:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Law & Order- SVU - Season 11 Cast.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Law & Order- SVU - Season 11 Cast.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 04:28, 17 May 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 ed17 23:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Calmer Waters. You have new messages at Skier Dude's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.