User talk:Steven Walling/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Explanation

The reason there wasn't an IP in the last several days was because the article only came off of semi-protection less than 24 hours before I made the request - IPs *could not* have edited. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 20:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Which is a good reason to let it stay off semi-protection for a little while. Unless there have been lots of problematic edits while it was unprotected, there is no reason to apply it again (at least according to the policy). Steven Walling 21:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Pink Taco

Pink Taco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) IP in same range block as previous has reverted your reverting of the previous one. Gerardw (talk) 01:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Dealt with. Gerardw (talk) 03:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, very much, for your comments regarding the quality improvements I have made to the article Santorum (sexual neologism). Much appreciated. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 05:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

You're most welcome. If the question is whether or not we should have a comprehensive Wikipedia article, I think the answer is pretty much obvious. Steven Walling 06:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

There have already been two (2) AFDs on this particular article. But perhaps if a user is proposing to cut a seemingly noteworthy article on a notable phenomenon down to "a two-sentence stub", then the user somehow feels it does not satisfy WP:NOTE? -- Cirt (talk) 06:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Cenote. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Only the first sentence is referenced (actually I added it myself). Everything else in this section is still not referenced. So why did you remove the template without giving an explanation in the edit line? Alfie↑↓© 08:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Steven Walling. You have new messages at Alfie66's talk page.
Message added 11:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Confusing

Confusing, here, this almost seems to be an argument for less sources and lower quality of articles and depth of referencing in articles on controversial topics? -- Cirt (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

"Notability" tag placed on Figaro Systems

I am not sure whether you placed the tag. (Sorry if I have the wrong person!) This article has been tagged as lacking notability. The tag asks for good refs. The refs (more than 20) include articles about the company and its technology from the New Mexico Business Weekly; the Albuquerque Journal; Auditoria; the United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Full-Text and Image Database; Los Alamos Laboratory; Daily News Bulletin; New York Magazine; Public Radio News and Information in Houston, Texas, KUHF 88.7 FM Houston Public Radio; Entertainment Engineering; Rocky Mountain News (Denver, Colorado); the Santa Fe Opera, Santa Fe, NM; Appliance Magazine; Los Alamos National Laboratory News, Los Alamos National Security, LLC, US Department of Energy's NNSA -- and more. I think that's a reasonable number of good references and more than adequate evidence for notability. Leoniana (talk) 14:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Domestic Pig

I moved the Food Section to the See Also section because so little is said in the Food section it hardly needs a separate section. Ditto for the Truffles Section. Neither really need a pokey little separate section if there exists a main article. See also is sufficient. Please don't blindly revert the entire article. Banners ask us to fix the thing, and that's want I'm trying to do. NYFernValley (talk) 06:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

From PaperClip777

Hi Steven, thank you very much for your message regarding helpful pages, and for letting me know that I should be signing my edits. I'm still finding my way around Wikipedia so it's great to now have a direct contact with a very experienced Wikipedia. Thanks again. PS: I hope I'm sending this message in the correct way (on your User Talk page?) Paperclip777 (talk) 03:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

iPad 2 AfD

I respect your right to vote as you please, but I'd like to point out that the very policy you cited, WP:GNG, does not work the way you think it does. Specifically, the final bullet point states that "significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article." In other words, while failing GNG is a valid reason to delete an article, meeting it is not a valid reason to keep an article (it if the presumption is challenged, which it is). With this in mind, would you care to have another look? HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 03:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not debating that it's notable. But if you read the policy carefully, snowball notable does not automatically transfer to snowball keep. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 04:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks from PaperClip777

Hi Steven, thanks for your latest message --- I'm glad you received my message just fine. I am going to be editing an article I created on Librestream so that it meets Wikipedia's notability requirement : as of yesterday, there is a message at the top of the article requesting this. After I edit the article, could you please review it for me if you have time? If it's helpful to you, I can send you another message when I complete this edit which will likely be later today, Monday, May 23, 2011. I would really appreciate your advice. Thank you very much for considering this! Paperclip777 (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Further note from PaperClip777

Hi again Steven, just a brief note to let you know that I have edited the article on Librestream to try to improve its notability and tone, and I documented these changes on the discussion page. If you have time, could you please review these for me and let me know if I'm on the right track? Also, thank you for adding two categories to the article on Mobile collaboration. I added two more as well, and added four categories to the article on Librestream. Question: I noticed that the External links section in the article on Mobile collaboration was removed. Should I remove the External links section from the article on Librestream as well? Thanks very much in advance for your advice.Paperclip777 (talk) 21:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Joseph Farah

I would appreciate administrative oversight as to the WP:BLP propriety of this edit recently added to the Joseph Farah article. This appears to be a re-introduction of inappropriate and potentially libelous content which you had previously addressed in late 2008. I have notified the contributing editor of this request.

Thanks for your consideration. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It's well-sourced and NPOV. The Jake doth protest too much, methinks. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 01:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The original slander was removed for violating the biographies of living persons policy and as vandalism. For Wikipedia to repeat it in a self-referential comment is disingenuous and not really necessary. In the big scheme of Farah's life, a feud with Wikipedia is not worth mentioning. Steven Walling 01:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Disagree, and this discussion should take place on Talk: Joseph Farah. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 01:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Dankie

(Afrikaans) Baie dankie vir die hartlike verwelkoming! Ek hoop om meermale hier te kom inloer. Met vriendelike groete.
(in English) Thank you very much for the warm welcome! I hope to drop by more often. Greetings. Suidpunt (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert notice

Hello, Steven Walling. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. For your convenience, a direct link. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 23:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Vandana Shiva

Re: Vandana Shiva Article: Ah, gotcha. I don't edit wikipedia much. What would be an appropriate section to put mention the video interview in, then? We could leave it as just mentioning it. Cutting and pasting what I'm proposing below.

Shiva has expressed support for Marie Mason, a convicted arsonist, for destroying university buildings to protest against GMOs. In a video interview, Shiva paid tribute to Mason, she said "I think it is criminal that she's being treated like a criminal." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.210.77.94 (talk) 17:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Message

Hello. You have a new message at Template_talk:Beef#Placement's talk page. 23:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

You can haz

Thanks for answering all my stupid n00b questions! Accedie (talk) 04:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

report on off wiki

Hi Steven, just a short question. In m:Wikimedia Foundation Report, October 2010#Board of Trustees Meeting I have found in the chapter Community health a notice that you should develop something like a general meta policy on the topic "off wiki harassment" in late 2010. I would need some information about this for the arbitration commitee of the german Wikipedia where I am a member. Could you help me in this question? Thanks, -jkb- (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey. I'd be happy to talk about it, though this is my personal account's talk page, FYI. My staff account is here. :) You can email me (swallingwikimedia.org) or we can chat in IRC or something. The short answer is that we did work on it, but as you can see there was not a public proposal of any specific policy, mostly because come November I began work on the 10th anniversary. Steven Walling 21:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Mail sent, thx. -jkb- (talk) 13:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi again - did you please got my email? Regards, -jkb- (talk) 23:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Ubuntu categories

Just want to say you did well to revert my edit. While I was inspecting the categories, following the links to other distros, just making sure things were properly categorized, **somehow** I must have clicked the "remove category" with the "HotCat" thing. I only realized my edit after your reversion popped up on my watchlist... Anyway, my edit was, of course, nonsense, so you did OK. Just letting you know... Cheers --SF007 (talk) 23:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

ENSCO, Inc.

Hello, Steven Walling. You have new messages at Talk:ENSCO, Inc.#What happens now.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Would you please kindly offer me some directions on how to improve my wordings on that (LibreOffice) page?

Hello Steven,

Thank you very much for your companionable 'reception', ... ... I'm much obliged!

By the way, on the 'LibreOffice' page, I have to admit that I'm not very familiar with the subject. Yet, I do hope that the readers of the page can grasp, through 1-2 sentences, the relation between the 2 document formats--Open Document Format and the OpenOffice.org XML format.

Since, in Microsoft Office, the newer file formats are called the Office Open XML format and the Microsoft Office XML formats; users of MS Office may be confused about, by the term 'XML', when they start using LibreOffice--It's probable, for some of them, to suppose that OOo XML is newer than ODF ... ....

This was the major reason why I added the sentences, 'OpenDocument Format (which is the default format for OOo v3.x & v2.x)' and 'OpenOffice.org XML (which is the default format for OOo v1.x)', onto the LibreOffice page.

I trust you have a better ground considering my 2 sentences 'unsatisfactory', but I still hope that you can comprehend my motivation ... .... Would you please kindly offer me some directions on how to improve my wordings on that page? Thanks in advance!

C. Jeremy Wong (talk) 18:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I've encountered obstacles in making the following arrangements using the tag #REDIRECT General Instrument (disambiguation) ... ...

Dear Steven,

Please be informed that I've spent the past few hours on creating the General Instrument (disambiguation) page. Yet, I've encountered obstacles in making the following arrangements using the tag #REDIRECT General Instrument (disambiguation) ... ...

1. When readers type 'General Instrument' in the 'Search Box', they will first be led to the General Instrument (disambiguation) page. 2. When readers type 'General Instruments', they will be redirected to the General Instrument (disambiguation) page. 3. The current automatic redirection from 'General Instruments' to General Instrument should be cut.

Please offer me so hints on the issues. Thanks!

By the way, if you think there are too many sentences on the page. I'll rewrite them tomorrow or later ... .... — Preceding unsigned comment added by C. Jeremy Wong (talk • contribs) 19:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

C. Jeremy Wong (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

SCYHO

Hey - as requested; here are some things I'd like you to take a look at on the article I'm working on.

At the end of the theme section there is a quote of Noel Gallagher but I cannot find any references from newspapers or websites to back it up; would you mind taking a look? All I could find is Wikipedia mirrors. Also; at the end of the section Music and Structure; the last sentance isn't really worded well IMO. I can't find a way to word it differently :-P If you listen to the audio sample; do you think that's a good portion of the song to use as a sample? In the internet leak section - do you think anything could be reworded/added/removed from it?

Other than that; if you could just skim the rest of the article and tell me if anything pops up that'd be great. Thanks! --Addihockey10 ^e-mail 21:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for putting yourself in disposition to answer questions Jemartinezt (talk) 02:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian

Just a comment,

Re. Neutral but will support if you can just unequivocally say that you're not going to delete things like schools under A7

Nothing is quite so black-and-white, and personally I object to the concept of inherent notability for things (inc schools and geo places). The examples I often quote being "Chzz's School of Wikipedia" (3 students, in my living room) and "My Kitchen" (a geographical place, but hardly worthy of an entry). Both of which could, obviously, have websites.

That's it...just a quick comment, to point out that there are dangers in assuming N just due to a subject.  Chzz  ►  12:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Schools are inherently notable. Unlike your kitchen, they are public spaces used by thousands of people for among the core functions of a modern society, and there are tons of local news stories and public records which are available as sources for even elementary or middle schools. There is already way too much willy-nilly speedy deletion happening under A7, which often boils down to one admin's judgement about what is and isn't notable. For me to trust someone with that tool, I need to know they don't think the mop is license to go around deleting articles about schools, public parks, and other really basic encyclopedic content. Steven Walling 16:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggested article;

Chzz's Wiki School is based in Chzz's living room, and started in 2011. It has an enrolment of 2 (one of which is a cat).

Imagine it had a website.

Of course, I'm playing Devil's advocate, but...I just wanted to show that nothing is as black-and-white as is implied by the term "unequivocal".

I suppose it might have to skip CSD - and perhaps that is the "cost", as it were, of our blanket ruling; for the tiny number of potential cases, I'm sure it is best to have a blanket statement that "Schools cannot be CSD'd" - but, I wouldn't object to an IAR deletion of the above either.

Please believe me that I, too, expect a high level of potential admins - but I firmly believe that a high degree of common sense is far more important than misguided trust in rules that do not, and cannot, cover everything.

Also, please note that I am not appealing on behalf of that specific candidate; my point was unrelated to that RfA - I have not even evaluated the person sufficiently to !vote yet (and don't know if I will).

I merely wished to make a small point that there is danger in claiming 'inherent notability', and common sense is the only way to cover such things.

I suspect we're actually very close to agreement on things, and the point is a quite pedantic one - in as much as, asking an admin to unequivocally say that you're not going to delete things like schools is, IMHO, unfair on the candidate as it all depends on our definition of "things like schools".

I'm very cautious in use of CSD. I didn't used to be, but after my own first RfA (when a small % of my CSD-tags were brought into question), I've been much more circumspect in its use - and in my own terms, I only use CSD for "blatant crap". If I need to ask anyone 'should this be CSD?' then I always answer the question for myself - no, it shouldn't, because I have some doubt.

In the case of the "Montydoodle" (Q8 on the RfA), I wouldn't use CSD - I'd PROD it.

Anyway - as I said, it was a small pedantic point, and I'm sure we're in agreement on the key principle.

If perchance you have spare time, I'd be grateful if you could scan over articles I've tagged for CSD, and let me know if you can spot any problems; they're in User:Chzz/CSDlog, with the most recent at the end.

Cheers,  Chzz  ►  20:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

My friend, we're getting away from the point here. The policy explicitly says that schools are exempt from A7. That's the end of the story for me. Steven Walling 21:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Which policy? Do you mean the guideline?stricken; see following comment

Semi-related, just a 'current example' of why we can't define CSD in concrete terms - what about Uriel "roch" winfree? Should that, in your opinion, be CSD'd?  Chzz  ►  22:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)Post script; It was deleted as "Patent nonsense, meaningless, or incomprehensible" - which is not actually correct  Chzz  ►  02:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I take that back; I'm sure you meant WP:CSD which is, of course, policy - and does indeed make specific mention of schools. Quite so. I know it's in there, and I of course accept it (it's policy). I find the footnote interesting, and I think it might be time to re-open that particular can-of-worms, but that isn't the point here-and-now; you're right, schools are exempted from CSD; I accept that is consensus (with caveats that I question its value, but I mean, I accept it is The Law right now). The only reason I queried your response was, so many people wrongly assume WP:N is a policy, instead of WP:V.

Whether or not Wikipedia:V#Notability 'trumps' the CSD policy re. schools is a matter for debate; we could certainly accept that common sense/IAR over-rides both.  Chzz  ►  22:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Some WikiLove for you

	The prototype patroller barnstar
	Because HerpDerp is a genius and I deserve his reverts DarTar (talk) 03:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Haha. Hey man, Howie said to create test accounts on WP:VPT. ;) Steven Walling 04:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

About Qwyrxian

I also think Qwyrxian has a speedy-deletion flaw, among others. I say this even though you might ultimately--well, I don't know for sure, to be honest--disagree with me about my contributions in the creation of the Cheney Mason article. Suffice it to say, as the creator of the article, I strongly believe the infamous incident discussed therein should have remained, and, if you agree, I would surely appreciate any support you can give. I really feel that Qwyrxian just corralled / circled his wagons of support (of a select-few colleagues) around me in an effort to oust--deny real discussion about the topic. Diligent007 (talk) 18:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The concern with that article is probably related to the policy of WP:BLP1E. You should probably familiarize yourself with it. Steven Walling 18:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Pardon me while I jump in: Diligent007, as I've told you several times, you're welcome to continue the discussion--no one stopped the discussion at all. If you don't feel like you're getting a fair shake, then we can ask somewhere else; of course, the BLP noticeboard already argued the info doesn't belong; but if you insist we can start a Request for comment which can draw all sorts of uninvolved editors to comment. At no point did I ever try to stop the discussion--in fact, I encouraged it. That is different than removal of the info from the article, which I still hold is completely necessary. If the consensus of the community eventually says I'm wrong, I will happily re-insert the information myself, and apologize. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds to me like Qwryxian is being fairly reasonable here... Steven Walling 04:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, those (and I) who created the article don't think Qwyrxian was fairly reasonable, Steven. I guess you must come to appreciate the full nature of why the subject of the article came to be so prevalent in the news recently (and his alleged obscene gesture has created a lasting impression on the conduct of officers of the court, etc., but I digress here--he is known for that). In any event, Steven, be advised that Qwyrxian has misled you, and that, my friend, should offend you or at least cause you to second guess him: Because of what Qwyrxian wrote, Steven you were misled to believe that I "canvass[ed] for support for a particular point of view in a discussion," when, in fact, that was NOT the case: To the contrary, I just made it known that an opportunity arose for others to voice their opinion--to either vote in favor or opposition of Qwyrxian: See my message on the talk page of talk ("you either oppose or support Qwyrxian in his bid to become an administrator..."). It is disgusting to me, suffice it to say. Whereas others on behalf of Qwyrxian speak on the same talk pages of the opportunity for Qwyrxian to become an administrator, Qwyrxian takes the position of manipulating my mere reciprocal informative message that there exists an opportunity for one to voice their opinion (one way or the other) on the nomination of Qwyrxian. So, that's my stance. I appreciate your input, Steven. Diligent007 (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

WP Oregon in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Oregon for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 01:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

While we generally try to avoid interviewing projects multiple times, WP:ORE was interviewed two years ago and that interview only scratched the surface on this unique project. There was a request for an interview posted by one of your members at the WikiProject Desk in January and we held off until now in order to distance the two interviews a bit. You guys are one of the most active state projects and certainly the most active off the Wiki, so I'm excited to see how things are going two years later. -Mabeenot (talk) 22:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly

	Thank you for your participation
	Thank you for your participation on my RfA. I have noted your concerns regarding CSD tagging, and absolutely intend to take them to heart and review all related policies before taking any admin actions in this field. If you ever have any concerns about my actions, or even any advice, feel free to come let me know. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

English Wikipedia issue

Hi, thanks for leaving message for me. I've checked the article Jamia Islamia Darul Uloom Madania. It is legitimate enough to be an encyclopedic article. Though this institute is not regulated by any of the education board in Bangladesh but this is one of the renown institute in the category Qawmi madrassa in Bangladesh.--Bellayet (talk) 18:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Bellayet. :) Steven Walling • talk 01:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

DevExpress

Hi Steven, I was wondering what is the notability requirements for a company to have an article in wikipedia. I was browsing our beloved encyclopaedia when I've just typed DevExpress in the search box to see what the article for the top-selling, largest, and most awarded .NET component suite vendor looks like and it has been deleted because it was not notable :-) Then I've just tried to find their biggest competitor: Telerik, the #2 in the .NET world... Not notable enough too :-) This really got me wondering if the requirements aren't too stringent, or were the articles themselves too poor? Best wishes Loudenvier (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC) (hey, It's been SOOOOOO long the last time I've signed a post on wikipedia... it feels good! :-)

I deleted DevExpress in 2009 as an article that did not assert notability, under the A7 criteria of the speedy deletion policy. The article at the time simply stated that it was a software company, and did not assert why it was notable particularly. Since it was speedy deletion, you're welcome to write a new version of the article if you think the subject is notable and can provide reliable third party sources verifying that is so. Thanks, Steven Walling • talk 17:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: Welcome

Hey! Thank you for welcoming me. You are welcome ;) I'm not really a Wikipedia-Newbie as I am editing the German Wikipedia for quite a while now (German is my mother tongue). It is very nice to see, that there are people, who appreciate my contributions, even if I do them only occasionally. --Enormator (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Continued slow-burn IP disruption at Scotch-Irish American

Perhaps you would revisit the request for semi-protection until the IPs are prepared to stop edit warring, or at least to engage constructively at TP. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 12:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I saw the re-request on my watchlist, and have actioned it. Hope you don't mind (either of you). GedUK  12:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

That's fine by me. Thanks both. RashersTierney (talk) 12:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for jumping on it Ged. :) Steven Walling • talk 16:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

76.205.225.30

3 reverts? Sounds like 5 reverts to me. He has already violated the 3RR. StormContent (talk) 03:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "76.205.225.30" since that doesn't appear in the contrib history of the page in the last 24 hours. But in any case, I only see three reverts apiece for Pmanderson and Dicklyon in the history. Steven Walling • talk 04:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

No, no, no. Not this page. The Eternal Idol page on Wikipedia. Take a look at it's revision history. What I see over there was 5 reverts instead of 3. StormContent (talk) 14:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Next step

Hi Steven. As requested, I've made a proposal at meta. What's the next step? Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 05:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey Steven, I've let Siko who is charge of the fellowships program (see wikimediafoundation.org) know. Thanks for the heads up, Steven Walling • talk 06:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I will find out via Meta, I assume? Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 06:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

She'll probably email you first. Steven Walling • talk 06:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, is she the one that you ran the initial idea by? Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 06:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Some falafel for you!

We are in Israel after all. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations

	The "Doing Better Than Jimbo" Fundraising Barnstar
	Well done on outperforming Jimmy Wales in fundraising tests. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "reads like an advertisement" tag - Hollandia Produce

Hello, Steven, The Hollandia Produce article, in my view, isn't written like an ad, is neutral and factual. There is no puffery or advertising in it. How would you rewrite it? It's been a start-class article for some time,and is about a Calif. hydroponics ag. company. Not an ad. Please help me understand. Thanks. Leoniana (talk) 04:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

typo in donation appeal

Hello. I saw your banner ad on the Second Congo War page. There is a typo in it - in the box, in the section called "People", there's a "t" missing in "invesment". It's a compelling ad, kudos. 207.134.250.140 (talk) 18:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC) http://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=L11_SW2_0811_B/en&country=CA&referrer=

Suggestion for WikiProject United States to support WikiProject Washington

It was recently suggested that WikiProject Washington might be inactive or semiactive and it might be beneficial to include it in the list of projects supported by WikiProject United States. I have started a discussion on the projects talk page soliciting the opinions of the members of the project if this project would be interested in being supported by WikiProject United States. Please feel free to comment on your opinions about this suggestion. --Kumioko (talk) 01:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Wrong Braford

Hello and sorry for editing the Braford wiht a wrong illustration. Thank you for letting me know. Both Fr. WP page and the image name should be amended as they are quite misleading, aren' t they? I will take care of the Fr. page right now but the Commons file, I dont' know. Have a nice day.--Pierre et Condat (talk) 01:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you again so very much for the reply and help.
As for Commons, I will try to follow the tutorials in case a change of file name is needed.
But concerning this Braford steers 1.jpg file, can it really not be the picture of a Braford cow (3/8 Brahman and 5/8 Hereford, hence it is very similar to bos taurus whereas the Australia Braford has fifty percent zebu)? I am just asking (which I did on the fr. article discussion page) because the distinction (specially as some Braford -known as F1- are apparently very much Australian Braford.....!) is somehow unclear to me when I compare the Spanish, Fr. and English versions of the article. --Pierre et Condat (talk) 02:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Capitalisation in headings

Prior to reverting an edit last year in 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content, you stated "It's actually normal (as in, standard across style guides) for headings to use title case. Wikimedia is actually the odd duck out in not doing so."

In my experience, that is not so (except in the specific case of book titles) and has not been for many years. I was already aware that the BBC, University of Cambridge and University of Oxford style guides require use of sentence case. (The linked documents do not all explicitly mention sentence case, but they claim to be authoritive about house style, and clearly use sentence case in their own layouts.) A quick check of other British national media websites showed that the Economist, the Guardian, the Times and the Telegraph, the Sun, the Mirror and the Daily Mail all use sentence case. So does the British Standards Institution. Their style guide forms part of 'BS0: A standard for standards', which normally costs £80. Conveniently for us, however, it is currently being revised, and the latest draft is available free of charge here.

I then checked the various international sources listed in Wikipedia's Style guide. The websites for the International Standards Organisation, the European Union's Interinstitutional Style Guide and the Australian government's style manual all use sentence case.

The Canadian Press, the University of Ottawa, the University of Saskatchewan and the University of Victoria all use sentence case. Again most style guides do not specifically mention capitalisation of headings, perhaps because they do not see them as having different rules to running text, but their intentions are obvious by reading the headings they use themselves. However, the Canadian government site is fully specific: "In major headings, capitalize only the first letter of major words. ... Capitalize only the first word of subheadings" although strangely, they then show examples of a bulleted list in title case. Perhaps the change to use of sentence case is recent, and the bulleted list is a hangover from a previous version.

Although English is widely used on the Indian subcontinent, and with a population of well over one billion their usage is very important, I didn't find any relevant style guide on the web.

The only large English speaking area which, according to my research, still largely embraces use of title case in subheadings is the USA. The Chicago Manual of Style website clearly uses title case throughout. The MLA Handbook, the American Anthropological Association and Council of Science Editors sites concur. So do Harvard University and Harvard University Press.

However, Yale University now uses sentence case for all headings on websites (I didn't find styles for printed works) and a guide to web style by IT directors at York and Dartmouth College also suggests that sentence case is more legible (amusingly, they state that main headings, as well as sub-headings, should be in sentence case, yet their own main headings are in title case; perhaps they fell foul of a sub-editor).

Finally, the US Government Printing Office appears to have changed to using sentence case for headings, except for main titles, which are to be centred and fully capitalised (see para 3.46, and usage throughout the site). Strangely however, paras 3.49 - 3.52 then give details of items using title case...which should never, according to para 3.46, be used. Perhaps I've missed something, or else it's a hangover from a previous style.

When I was at school in England in the 1960s, we were taught to use title case for headings, but by the time I went to university, in the 70s, sentence case was in vogue. One pragmatic reason given was that it saved having complex rules to define just which words should be capitalised, which tended to lead to lack of consistency, particularly where several authors were involved (look back at meta:2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content: Part Two for a typical example of the inconsistency that results; not awful, but still a little jarring).

(I should perhaps say that I found your reverting of the case correction rather more jarring, since you partially justified it by an incorrect assertion. I was turned against the whole report, assuming the authors ignorant, until I realised you were not one of them. However, that perhaps points more to my own character failings than yours, particularly as only one other person appeared to object. Anyway, both you and I now know much more about the world uses of capitalisation in headings than we did this morning.)

The USA leads the world in many things, but it seems not in typography of headings. However, you can be pleased that, along with Yale and the US government, Wikimedia is pushing the US towards a well proven international standard. We are certainly not the "odd duck out"! Enginear (talk) 23:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The wall of text you just dropped on me was honestly way too long to actually read. In any case, it seems what you're talking about was some wikifying of the controversial content study for the writers. (That was a part of my job at the Wikimedia Foundation, just to be clear. Not a volunteer action.) Steven Walling • talk 16:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Drop Stop

Hi, thank you for your AfD close. I also agree with your removal of the moralizing bit; I think I was getting tired when I added that! Bridgeplayer (talk) 03:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

No worries. :) Thanks for putting time and energy into the article. Steven Walling • talk 21:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Moorland

Your edit on Moorland leaves three images of North Pennine moorland (2 of Yorkshire and 1 of Lancashire) but not one of Wales which is noted for its moors. I understand the need for clarity of images but your choice of the one to delete has greatly reduced the diversity of geographical coverage! Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for noticing my edit to Talk:Chicken. I have a few questions, but most of them are not important for the moment. Thank you once again, none the less. Anjwalker (talk) 07:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Protecting Ideas on Crowd Funding Sites

Steven, I appreciate that the sources I used weren't the best for Wikipedia. Was it the sources or the subject matter, however, you were most concerned about? I can certainly upgrade the sources, but if you think the subject matter isn't appropriate, then perhaps we should reach consensus on that first.--Nowa (talk) 13:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker butting in) Nowa, you are talking about this edit, right? It looks identical to this edit, which is simply an essay. It isn't founded on reliable sources that are discussing it, but is synthesis to make a position. Even aside from synthesis issues, sourcing to youtube or a skeevy wordpress blog isn't sufficient. Has NYTimes or WashPost talked about the need for protection? It seems to be a "product" that Mark Nowotarski is selling, not something that has been reported in verifiable, reliable sources. tedder (talk) 18:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I found this article from Inventor's Digest and this article from Intellectual Property Magazine. They should be more suitable. I've redrafted the section and posted it to the talk page for Crowd Funding for vetting. Candid comments and edits are welcome. And for the record, Inventors Digest magazine has been in print for 26 years. The reference I cited was the cover article for the August 2011 issue. --Nowa (talk) 02:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

There's no Wikipedia article for Inventors Digest or Inventors Digest magazine, which are some yardsticks of if it might be a reliable source. I can't find "Inventors Digest magazine" listed at the Audit Bureau of Circulation, nor does it appear near the top of the results when searching Google Books for 'Investors Digest'. That's perhaps due to poor SEO, which didn't come into vogue until the magazine was old enough to buy tobacco. In any case, Investors Digest may have been around for 26 years, but that doesn't mean it's a verifiable and reliable source on Wikipedia. I'll follow up at Talk:Crowd funding#Relationship_to_Subscription_business_model on your proposal. tedder (talk) 05:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll continue the conversation on the article talk page.--Nowa (talk) 10:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

cookie for Navajo Livestock Reduction

Thanks for the cookie. I didn't realize I did that much. I have done a lot of small edits to WP. I study a lot of subjects. It usually starts with reading WP and ends with editing WP after I have learned more from other sources. I appreciated the recognition for this one which started with Navajos, but tied in with my interest in the New Deal. My latest topic is pottery. I've done some editing and additions to Pottery and List of pottery terms. I would like to expand the section on pottery history and pottery archaeology. There is a lot that can be done with these.

Since I see that you are involved with Wikimedia, I would like to ask a question. There is a lot of info in WP about pottery history and archaeology, but it is scattered in a variety of articles: some are in History of articles, like History of pottery in the Southern Levant; some is in history sections on subject related to pottery, like Tin-glazing#History; a lot is contained in articles about archaelogical periods, like Mesolithic#Ceramics or Ceramics of and pottery at major Archaeoligical sites. It would be nice to pull all of this together in one article as a guide to the History/Archaeology of pottery. I am in no way a potter, more like a putterer, but I would like to take a crack at some new article - perhaps an index or a sub-category. But I don't want to start off on the wrong foot. Can you suggest a direction or some other approach?Grapeguy (talk) 15:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

History/Archaeology of Pottery

Forgive me for shooting from the hip. Actually, before I wrote the message, I had explored a range of possible ways in which these topics were tied together in WP. However, after writing my last message to you, I tried one more approach. I found some useful categories when I opened a few of the articles I found previously mentioned. [[Category:Ancient pottery]] [[Category:History of ceramics]]

However, some others were left out of logical categories Potter's wheel#history Palestinian pottery (not categorized under pottery Korean Pottery is its own category alone.

I didn't find any way to African Pottery.

Thanks for your attention.Grapeguy (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Crowdfunding and Livestock

Steven, Wow. You have quite an interest and expertise in livestock. I see you are also active on various crowdfunding articles. Is there a connection between the two? Just curious.--Nowa (talk) 12:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

No, there isn't agriculture just had/has very bad coverage on Wikipedia, and tech stuff is my profession. Steven Walling • talk 18:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The September 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 02:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Question?

Hello Steven, I know you invited me to ask you any questions I had, so I was wondering if you could answer this one: How do you correctly format the 'Edit Summary' area when filling in the summary of your edit of an article? Thank you Anjwalker (talk) 08:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Generally the format is up to you, and there are no strict rules other than to remember that edit summaries are permanent so be sure to be polite etc. Some other tips:

• Things like wiki links also work in edit summaries, if you want to like to a talk page discussion or a guideline.
• Hitting "undo" will generate an automatic edit summary, but it's always nice to fully explain what change you made in a few words rather than just undo a change without explanation.
• When you edit a particular section usually there will be the title of the section automatically inserted into the summary which looks like /* Name */. Your edit summary should go after that so people know what part of the article you were editing.

Hope that was helpful. There is a longer explanation to wade through at Help:Edit summary. Steven Walling • talk 20:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Steven; Thanks for that explanation. That was a big help. Anjwalker (talk) 06:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Japanese link of 'Genetically modified food'

Hello Steven, thanks for leaving message for me. I created a Japanese link of 'Genetically modified food'. That Japanese page (遺伝子組み換え作物) had been link to 'Genetically modified organism'. Although 'Genetically modified crop' is direct English translation of this page (遺伝子組み換え作物), the Japanese page of 'Genetically modified food' (遺伝子組み換え食品) is redirected to this page (遺伝子組み換え作物). That is the reason why I changed the Japanese link. In addition, Japanese page of 'Genetically modified organism' (遺伝子組換え生物) exists and it was not linking to English page. So I linked 'Genetically modified organism' to '遺伝子組換え生物'. Should I have written to be bold when updating this Japanese link? Best regards, --Nt4313 (talk) 21:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for barnstar

Thank you for the barnstar. Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Newbee..

Hi, I am a bit overwhelmed by all this. Going to try to add input in very specific subject area(s) that I have experience in but not bold enough to "edit". Tough to try to back up professional experience with sources. Hope all involved will be as nice as all are supposed to be. I intend to just add to discussions especially since I do not want to breach "shameless commerce".

Fphjr (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Source Conflict About Statistics

Thank you noticing my changes to Irreligion. I have a question about the conflict between respectable sources. There is a conflict in the percentages of irreligious people in countries between Dentsu Communication Institute Inc., Research Centre for Japan and Cambridge Companion to Atheism, edited by Michael Martin, University of Cambridge Press. The data of the former are as late as 2000s while most of the data from the latter are collected around 2004. Should I include data from both in a range style (e.g. China 59-93%) or I should only include the latest data? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledge Examiner (talk • contribs) 11:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Barnstars?

Hi Steven, me again; Now I know this is a silly question, but what are these Barnstars I see on various people's user pages?

Also how do WikiProject's get started? Does one person begin them somehow or are they a kind of group project from the very beginning?

Thanks, Anjwalker (talk) 08:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey Anjwalker. So Barnstars are awards for good editing that any Wikipedian can give to another Wikipedian. (There's a list in the link that I just used.) You send them to someone on their talk page, and some people like to move them to their user page to keep. The easiest way to give that kind of thing if ever feel like it is with the heart icon in the top tab area on user talk pages (it's called "WikiLove"). As for WikiProjects: they're definitely meant to be a group project, but anyone can propose one and I don't think there is a minimum membership requirement. There's a guide here. Steven Walling • talk 17:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The Fauna Barnstar

		The Fauna Barnstar
		To commend a great editor for all their hard work on agriculture, domestic animal and other fauna articles. Know that your contributions don't go unnoticed. Anjwalker (talk) 06:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Safety of particle collisions at the Large Hadron Collider

Hi Steven, I've started a section to discuss your addition of the humour site on the article's talk page, for which I would appreciate your input. Regards ^Khukri 10:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Krishnamurti article

I recently saw your comment on the article talk page and the response by IP 65.88.88.xxx. [1] In that post they replied to both of us at once. I've reached an impasse with the IP. But I've made a proposal, which incorporates your suggestions. [2] I'm wondering whether you have any thoughts about the best way to deal with the IP who is a) arguing with all comers, and b) taken a completely hostile and challenging approach to anything I attempt to do. I requested they remove their personal attacks and subsequently removed them, but they've reverted me. I've suggested an RfC, but they've removed that. How would you suggest it be approached? Sunray (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I think filing an RFC about your proposal and generally shortening the article is a good idea. It's clear that there isn't going to be any progress made between you and the IP alone, and the only way to solve it is to bring more voices to the table. I think if you attract more attention with a request for comment about making the article conform with proper length and summary style requirements, you'll find it to be far less frustrating. But you said they "removed it"? Can you give me a diff? Someone cannot just revert an RFC request entirely. I would say you should file one, and if they remove it then let me know and I will block them for disruption. Steven Walling • talk 23:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your take on it. I didn't actually request an RfC, just said that I thought it would be a good idea, which he removed when he reverted me. [3] I will proceed with a RfC and would appreciate any assistance you can give in keeping the IP on the right side of WP policies. Sunray (talk) 00:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Research into the user pages of Wikipedians: Invitation to participate

Greetings,

My name is John-Paul and I am a student with the University of Alberta specializing in Communications and Technology.

I would like to include your Wikipedia user page in a study I am doing about how people present themselves online. I am interested in whether people see themselves in different ways, online and offline. One of the things I am looking at is how contributors to Wikipedia present themselves to each other through their user pages. Would you consider letting me include your user page in my study?

With your consent, I will read and analyze your user page, and ask you five short questions about it that will take about ten to fifteen minutes to answer. I am looking at about twenty user pages belonging to twenty different people. I will be looking at all user pages together, looking for common threads in the way people introduce themselves to other Wikipedians.

I hope that my research will help answer questions about how people collaborate, work together, and share knowledge. If you are open to participating in this study, please reply to this message, on your User Talk page or on mine. I will provide you with a complete description of my research, which you can use to decide if you want to participate.

Thank-you,

John-Paul Mcvea
University of Alberta
jmcvea@ualberta.ca

Johnpaulmcvea (talk) 21:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Movie cast plot spoiling

Dude, it shouldn't describe the outcome of the character under the cast section. I've never seen a movie page that did that and it shouldn't. Anything in regards to the plot should stay under plot. Wouldn't you agree?

- Mydaddyatemyeyes (talk) 03:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess it was my fault for not wording it the summary right in the first place, but I've fixed it. Thank you.

- Mydaddyatemyeyes (talk) 03:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

American Livestock Breeds Conservancy

Hi Steven - I'm still slowly working this towards FAC (very, veeeeerrrryyy slowly), and one of the people I asked to look over the article had a question about some of the material that you added. The material in question is in the Programs section, where it says "In cases where the US government has been unwilling or unable to conserve rare livestock, the ALBC has been instrumental in rescuing some breeds.", which is sourced to the Dohner book. The questioner is interested in more information on this statement, especially why the government was unwilling/unable to help. Would it be possible for you to provide some elaboration on this, either on the talk page or in the article itself? Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 02:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and also: We have a request for more information on how the organization came to be started. I've added a bit at the beginning of the "Organization and history" section, but if any of your sources have anything extra, it would be great to have in the article. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for taking a while to get back to you. Nikki and I think it would be great to have a few sentences (2? 3? somewhere in there) on the differences between the work of the US government and the ALBC. Also, an article, even a stub, on the SVF Foundation would be great, if for no other reason than to give a bit more context for this article. I recently started one on Rare Breeds Canada as well - don't know if this interests you or you have any source material for it, but it's out there now, at least. Thanks for you help on this so far - it is much appreciated. Dana boomer (talk) 00:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Silkie Page Proposal?

Hello Steven,

Would you mind explaining exactly what you are proposing to remove in the Silkie article? The edit summary you added for the Characteristic’s section of the article is not very informative. Anjwalker (talk) 07:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. Anjwalker (talk) 07:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

True Dat!

True Dat! :)

Victor Grigas (talk) 20:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Ram and goat horizontal.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ram and goat horizontal.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Ram and goat vertical.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ram and goat vertical.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Patent nonsense

Hi Steven, Thank you for removing all of that patent silliness from the KickStarter article. I agree that it is sensationalism and the sources are not reliable. My post is in response to this nonesense as I still have an issue. The same folks have basically eradicated entries for Brian Camelio and ArtistShare and added that patent nonesense. I have been rebuilding the ArtistShare entry but requests to unlock Brian Camelio have been denied for no good reason. I have also requested twice that it be removed from the Brian Camelio page. I feel that this is not in the spirit of Wikipedia and would like to find a way to resolve unless people agree that is is appropriate and we can repost in both places. Jamesrand (talk) 15:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Steven Walling! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hog Island sheep

I noticed somewhere that you had created "Hog Island sheep". I have since in a sense "adopted" the article as a project for my AP Biology class, with the goal of adding substantial information to it and making it into a well-written and comprehensive article. Because the Hog Island sheep is little known and would be considered insignificant by many, achieving the status of Good or Featured article would be a highly ambitious goal but would be a best-case result. Would you happen to have any insights or expertise which might help me find sources of information that I might use to serve Wikipedia's and thus the world's knowledge of of the sheep? Der Elbenkoenig (talk) 00:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I would be happy to work on it with you. If you think it would be helpful in an effort to expand it significantly (which would also make it a DYK candidate potentially), I can give you a list of sources that are relevant and areas that could be expanded on. Sound good? Steven Walling • talk 18:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Your welcome Steven. Hope that the connection leads too the article developing. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Der Elbenkoenig, I'd also be willing to help, if you'd like an extra set of eyes. I haven't done much work on farm animal breeds, but I'm quite active with horse breeds, including several breeds with feral populations, so find the topic quite interesting! Also, on an off-topic note, Steven, could I ping you for a look back at the American Livestock Breeds Conservancy article based on my latest comments above and on the talk page? Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 20:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I will definitely be able to create that stub soon. Thanks for the reminder. :) Steven Walling • talk 22:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds good. Thank you. Der Elbenkoenig (talk) 14:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

stats

Hi Steve. en.Wiki has 3,782,975 articles. Do we actually know the total number of articles that have been deleted? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not up to date since June, but then the total number of deleted articles was 2244952. See: m:Research:The Speed of Speedy Deletions#Speedy deletions. If you'd like an updated figure you can ask Stu or anyone else with Toolserver access I believe. Steven Walling • talk 20:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thaanks Steve. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Cue cat

Steven am I posting this correctly? trying to reply to Barek and AndytheGrump but get "sinebot" replies. What am I doin wrong? Was asked to explain my interest in Cue cat and here is what I sent to them. Here is my interest in Cue cat. RPX Corp is a public company. One of the old Paul Allen and groups guys collecting IP. They actually own the patents on the technology that was cuecat. Their stock is down 50%, but the cuecat stuff is their largest grouping. Microsoft, Google and others have licensed the former cuecat patents at $6.6 million each company and there seems to be 60 plus companies who have done the same. Supposedly these patents read heavily on G4 and other stuff and since I read the public filings I am very interested. The research I do is FINANCIAL in nature in Middle Eastern markets and seems this stock in RPX will take off and I want to know the facts. While investigating the facts of cuecat, I came across the wiki reference for cue cat and the record is just wrong and factually incorrect and I took it upon myself to add what I found out. Hope this helps. But there is big stuff in the financial markets going on relating to this OLD technology as you call it, but the patents are not old and are the next big thing. Comments? and you can find this is all public record, so I am not saying anything out of line or such. I own no stock in RPX corp, nor am I an investor, I am a researcher doing my required homework for getting to the heart of this technology (ProofPlus Professional Researcher 21:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC))

How am I doing this post wrong? I can't figure out the links the best. Thanks for any help (ProofPlus Professional Researcher 21:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)

WikiProject Poultry Proposal

Hello Steven, I would just like to notify you that a proposal for WikiProject Poultry has been made by myself and I wanted to see if your opinion on it, considering that you are a large contributor to poultry articles on Wikipedia. It can be found at WikiProject Council >> Proposal >> Poultry WikiProject Anjwalker (talk) 11:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to ask you about the WikiProject Poultry proposal. What do you advise I do which it since it hasn't got enough people to start. Is there something I haven't done which I should have, in order to get more support, or what? You help would be great. Thanks, Anjwalker ^Talk 03:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks For Reading My Feedback

Thanks for reading my feedback! I know wikitext pretty well but i do think it could be a little easyier. Mediawiki should really have a WYSIWYG editor built in with ALL of the features that you would normally need to know wikitext for. It would be like a Wikitext micosoft word! Wikiword! :) Noahk11 (talk) 22:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

SVF Foundation

Wonderful! Thank you so much! Now I think the only thing left on Nikki's list is a slightly expanded discussion of the differences between the techniques of the ALBC and the US government, as we discussed at the bottom (I think?) of the ALBC talk page. If you want me to quit bugging you about this, just let me know and I will try to get my hands on the source material some other way. The Dohner book seems to be a wonderful source for a lot of issues to do with rare breeds - I might have to hint someone into getting it for me for Christmas :) Dana boomer (talk) 12:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

disambiguation

Thank you for noticing my feedback.

The issue I'm having is that my seminar is in the process of editing a number of pages having to do with adolescence (they just wrote the Adolescent Development page). There are a lot of related topics and I think, as a reader, it's really confusing to figure out what the difference between adolescent development, adolescence, youth development, and child development is, for example. I merged two pages together (youth development and positive youth development) that had been tagged as problematic. Then we developed the 'adolescent development' page that had bounced over to youth development.

We put a section in the adolescent development page telling people what we saw as the difference. I also added this section on to the adolescence page.

This does not seem to be 'disambiguation' in the sense Wikipedia uses it. I see, for example, that Adolescence is both an age period and a song and a musical group in the disambiguation area.

Is there a conventional way to give people guidance to different related pages right up at the top or is it always under 'related' pages at the bottom? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.51.19.100 (talk) 03:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Petur Tryggvi

Hi Steven, you just removed the entire list of Exhibitions from the page for this silversmith, saying it was mostly uncited. Actually, it was all cited, if only to the artist's website - you wouldn't really expect anybody else (except another encyclopedia, perhaps, but that'd be a copyvio) to have such information. (The edit summary also said you were removing excess external links, but the only thing that bit the dust in that edit was the single citation supporting all the exhibitions... but I'll choose to overlook that fact.) It seems to me quite reasonable for an article on an exhibiting craftsman to indicate where he's exhibited - it's a central bit of knowledge about the sort of life he led and how accomplished he was.

If you don't mind - if I may "Be Bold" as a Wikipedian - I'll add back a select list of the exhibitions, and I'll copy the citation to show where everything came from.

I do hope that'll be OK with you. With my best wishes Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Pregnancy#RfC: Which photo should we use in the lead?

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Pregnancy#RfC: Which photo should we use in the lead?. You participated in the previous RFC on the lead image, Talk:Pregnancy/Archive 4#Lead image RfC. Nil Einne (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Editing on Wikipedia

For my class assignment I have to: - Find and revert small errors (typos, spelling errors, etc) in Wikipedia articles - Revert Wikipedia vandalism - Use the List of articles with unsourced statements to find Wikipedia articles in need of references, and locate and add the needed references using the reference tag - Add the citation needed tag to indicated unsourced information in wikipedia articles - Add new material, supported by reliable sources, on a topic you care about

I can't find any spelling mistakes and I have read a lot of articles. Also, how do you edit? What do you click? What does "revert vandalism" mean?

Not really sure how to do any of this. Please help me.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msawani626 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Since Steven is sometimes busy I will try to answer:

• You can start editing any page by clicking the edit button on the top of page
• Reverting vandalism means that you restore previous revision of an article which doesn't contain vandalism, so that if someone vandalise a page, you restore a version which was ok

in case it wasn't clear, just ask and I will try to clarify it. You can find more about vandalism at WP:Vandalism and WP:Reverting, good luck! :) Petrb (talk) 12:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Civility star

		Civility Award
		Quite impressed with your civility here - and I presume this sort of behavior reflects your actions elsewhere. Keep it up my good man, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Yeah, AFD can be a nasty place. I've done the withdrawal thing before, because frankly, there are enough stressful arguments on Wikipedia. Steven Walling • talk 21:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Contact Lens Society of America - Speedy Deletion

Hi Steven!

Thanks for your message. I just created a bunch of stub pages for Optician trade associations including the Contact Lens Society of America which you just marked for speedy deletion. (There is no content there and I have no problem with deletion.) My intent was to have a stub there for someone to build out in the future. How I might do a better job of that or are stub pages allowed?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ofazomi (talk • contribs) 22:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ofazomi. I actually didn't nominate those articles for deletion, other editors did. I just gave you the first welcome message. You can see who did so in the signatures after each message on your talk page. They appear as blue links and may be screen names rather than real names. If you want to contest their speedy deletion, go to the talk page for each article (it's the "Discussion tab" near the title of the article) and say why. The basic problem is that you can't create articles with no content. If you want to make a draft, that's ok, but not in the main space where all people can see a blank page. Thanks, and let me know here if you have any more questions. Steven Walling • talk 23:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

El Camino support

Hi Steven: Yesterday I made my first Wikipedia edit, and someone deleted it! You, however, came to my rescue and not only reinserted my edit, but made it better and sourced it! Many thanks.--Michaeldsterner (talk) 19:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Editing Q

Steven, thanks for reaching out. By what I read later, my Alternet addition was inappropriate because it neither added necessary info nor had a reference. True? Thx, TommyPaine2012 (talk) 03:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Red Maasai

Another great contribution to Wikipedia - thanks Victuallers (talk) 08:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info

Hello Steven, thank you for leaving an answer for me. as I recall, my server went off line so maybe that's why the questions weren't left. I am not by any means an expert on I.T., I was shown how to use a computer by one of my Sons, who is very far away and very busy. The questions I wanted to ask were:

How do I add a reference to a page?

The info I wanted to add is as follows:

I was in Band as a teenager, one of the first 'Rock and Roll' Bands, it was back in the '60's', I was with the band for three years, but then left due to several differences. Later on, I met someone with an unsigned Band who later became famous, I told Him about my experiences with the Band and that I had one or two friends in the buisiness and might be able to help get them a recording contract as I thought the Band was really great and had 'original' material. They got signed and the second record they made, was the name of my Band and it became a 'Hit', their first 'Hit' and still the favorite with their fans, who don't know anything about me or the connection to the Band I was in.

Could I add a reference to the Band I was in an an explanation, plus mention the songs which have my name in?

Sincerely,

Tapewound — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brasstapewound (talk • contribs) 20:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

How to upload an image

See [4], the edit summary should be self-explanatory.  Chzz  ►  09:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Steven Walling • talk 01:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

not sure how comm works here ....

Thanks for your quick response.

Thinking I should just put it out there and let more knowledgable folks guide me.

is that a reasonable way to go?

Or maybe it will sit there uncommented - and others with knowledge of Genevieve Hutchinson can add more??

Robert Frost fan (talk) 02:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC) Robert Frost fan

Rollback on Zynga

Hello,

I saw that you rolled back edits by User:Littledevilmedia on the article Zynga. That user's edits do not appear to be clear vandalism to me, so I restored them. If you would like to remove them again, please provide an explanation so that it is clearer to everyone why the edits are being reverted. Thanks, RJaguar3 | u | t 23:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 03:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I have got an idea for little donations to Wikipedia

Hi, Mr Walling

I want to contribute $5 or $10 now, so as to support en.Wikipedia. But at this time I don’t get any bank account that can allow me to order bank draft or banking transactions. I am not saving money anywhere, except for Social Security, which is a different matter.

One idea that I have for you is this. If you can set a small window with the American Embassies or the American Cultural Centres, where you find or appoint someone as representative of Wikipedia for the collection of contributions, it can be a very good thing. People like me, and other people who may have queries about the safety of their account number, will just get to the venues, make what donation they can, get recorded, and that is all. It is true, cash-in-hand-going-out-to-collection-place is less and less recommended nowadays. Yet, in case of little donations like these ones, it can work. Guess what! It works across the world to finance even presidential campaigns in very large countries.

It is an idea I try and suggest. I wish you thought it out. It can work. Thanks. AKPAGAN (talk) 12:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Deletion problem

Hi Steven Walling, I wanted to ask your advice on who I should contact about a problem that has come to my attention. On the 10th I nominated the article McGraw (chicken) for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McGraw (chicken) (2nd nomination)), and the discussion received zero comments, and then today I discovered that previously a deletion discussion (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McGraw (chicken)) had reached the conclusion that the article should be deleted, yet the admin who closed the page (User:Cirt) did not delete it and so it was left up. So I withdrew my nomination and closed the deletion discussion because of that, but now I don't know who to contact to let know about the deletion discussion and non-deletion of the page. Can you advise me? Anjwalker ^Talk 10:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Steven. Your help was appreciated. Anjwalker ^Talk 04:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Large Black (pig)

Hi Steven! I've been working on Large Black (pig) over the past few months, and am now considering taking it to GAN. Would you have a few minutes to look over the article and see if there's anything obvious that I'm missing, or any other sources that I should look at? It's the first (non-horse) livestock breed article that I've worked on with an eye towards GA, so I'd like someone else to take a look before I nominate. Thanks in advance! Dana boomer (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Ping? Dana boomer (talk) 00:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the wait, I'll take a look and leave comments tonight. :) Steven Walling • talk 19:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Erm, ping? (If you don't want to do this, please just say so - it's just that you said there were a few things you thought needed to be expanded, and so I was waiting on your comments before I nommed for GAN.) Dana boomer (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome!

I only make the occasional minor edit, but it's nice to know these are noticed and appreciated :-) Jonathan Deamer 18:55, 19 December 2011 (GMT)

Qigong article

When you get a chance could you please see how you feel the Qigong article is progressing? We have tried to provide solid structure, clean neutral text, and reputable references. Perhaps you could offer your assessment of the article's neutrality on the Talk:Qigong page. Vitalforce (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts?

Steven, I note that you have assisted User:Ejgreen77, and I'm having some concerns with her wikiproject tagging. She is putting national WP tags on most of the horse/donkey breed articles, and, aside from the ones that are simply incorrect (the Burro did not originate in the USA), I really wonder if these animal breed articles are really within the scope of the national projects, particularly as someone else recently created national breed origin subcategories. For example, it gets messy when there are multiple nations involved like this. I really don't want to get into an editing dispute over this issue, but it seems s/he is doing this across multiple animal articles (see Special:Contributions/Ejgreen77). I'm not sure if this is really the correct thing to do and wanted to touch bases with those who are involved a little more and let you sort out what seems to be the best approach. I've also asked this user to add edit summaries when s/he first started doing this and no edit summaries have been forthcoming. Anyway, that's all, just wondering if we have a problem or not. Montanabw^(talk) 05:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually I don't much have a problem with it. I think it makes sense to have a national tag as well as the obvious ones, at least compared to the use of very small country-specific categories like "Pig breeds from Ireland" etc. that exist all over the place. Steven Walling • talk 23:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'll just let it sit, then. I have to admit that I was not over-fond of the creation of those dozens of little national categories, either. The nationality of animal breeds tagging kind of bugs me in general, as political boundaries shift -- For older historic breeds of Europe, it can get complicated, particularly when a breed like the Lipizzan could reasonably go into about five separate ones and at least one nation sued another in the EU over who should use the name for the breed. (Long, heavy sigh). Oh well, if you are tracking the overall thing, I guess I'll just intervene when there is inaccuracy or a poor fit. Montanabw^(talk) 05:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really a fan of the specific country/breed combined categories for the same reason. Just more opportunity to edit war. ;) If you want to propose we get rid of them, I'd support. Steven Walling • talk 19:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Which drama board do you recommend? Montanabw^(talk) 01:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects

The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Wolfram Alpha-logo.png

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 07:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks so much for your message. It really struck a nerve, as that's something I've noticed - but after this latest episode I think I'm realising why they're so few and far between! All the best

— Pretzels ^Hii! 00:33, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello Steven

Thank you for the welcome to Wikipedia :) its a very friendly community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BurntChrome (talk • contribs) 19:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Response to Your Message about External Links

Hi Steven,

Thank you for your message, however, I must refute the charge that I am spamming Wikipedia, and I do sincerely apologize if that's what it looks like I'm doing -- that is certainly not the intent. I have not been posting "everywhere," but only on entries where we have a video that would serve well as a primary resource about the person in the entry, and that would be relevant to the entry; i.e. video of an author speaking about a specific book.

I've made sure to not post content that is too similar to other existing external links, and much of what I have posted is new, such as video of an author from the past year. For example, on the entry about Amy Chua, we had recent video of her speaking at length about her popular book "Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother." This kind of video was not duplicated in any of the other links, and as an unabridged video of her speaking on her recent book, I felt added value as an external link. If this sort of resource is not seen as a valuable contribution to the public record of this person, I would very much like to understand why.

We are a non-profit, non-commercial site, whose mission is to foster lifelong learning by archiving lectures and panels from top scholars, authors, scientists, etc, and have been doing so for ten years. We embrace the concept of open knowledge, and all our videos are available to anyone from the public free of charge and are contributed by lecture presenters, museums and universities. Unlike some other media sources, our content is unabridged -- we don't edit it for content, so you see the person speaking at length (talks of up to an hour or more), in their own words. I have no desire whatsoever to add links that are not relevant, and I am rather dismayed to see that after much work in terms of vetting content from our site that I felt would contribute new, relevant content, it appears most of my links have been removed. Many other media sources, such as Fox News, C-Span, have numerous links to their content throughout the site, which has not been removed or categorized as spam.

As advised by Wikipedia guidelines, I have disclosed my involvement with the organization in my profile in order to be transparent. As someone who works for a reputable and acclaimed educational institution, I had sincerely hoped that we could contribute to the body of knowledge for the entries for which we have relevant content. Since it's apparently not seen as relevant, I won't post anything further. I would just very much like to understand why this is the case, and why some links from similar organizations (C-Span's Book TV) are accepted, while our are not.

Thank you, Nilagia (talk) 15:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Saul Alinsky / Rules for Radicals

Hello,

I am not sure how to reference Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" dedication to Lucifer. It is viewable on the 7th preview page from Random House. It may have been removed in editions after Saul Alinsky's death in 1972. http://www.randomhouse.com/book/2085/rules-for-radicals-by-saul-alinsky — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gallitzin (talk • contribs) 07:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Giraffe spotcheck

Thanks for your contributions, would you be able to do some spotchecks and report to the FAC page? You can view some here and here and some of the cited journal article are available in full. LittleJerry (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

You really are a nice guy, and deserve to have a purring little kitten sitting in your lap right now.

Likestodraw (talk) 02:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

PTSD postpartum

You mentioned Postpartum posttraumatic stress disorder at WT:MED; I'm curious to know how it came to your attention, because if you'll glance at article talk, and then the three new editors working there, you might see my concern (is this a group editing Wikipedia to make a point?). Not one of the new editors will engage on talk, and we've now got three experienced editors cleaning up after them. Is this a class project? Is it coordinated editing? It looks very pointy, and since they won't engage on talk, they are wasting a lot of editor time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

On further examination, it appears that one of them is a university psych professor, and the other is a practicing psych in the same town. I've alerted Jbmurray (talk · contribs) in the hope that he can encourage them to engage on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I found them through Special:NewPages. I did a few minutes of patrolling after work the other night. Steven Walling • talk 18:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Steven ... I'm working through it now, have gathered more data, and it's becoming clear what's going on in there. I think we can handle it through our normal processes for dealing with POV, OR and coordinated editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I find "Maryana's" (whomever she is) characterization of "bad-faith editing" on Portuguese articles most unbecoming for a WMF employee-- I thought we assumed good faith? Now, if any WMF employee cares to look into Lecen's background at FAC-- beyond believing the non-neutral editoral positions taken in The Signpost-- they might learn something about why Lecen had difficulty getting his FACs reviewed. Seriously, I'm sure a junket to Brasil will be fun, but are there not other places where we have more editors doing good work? Perhaps you'd like to review each of Lecen's FACs to see just where the problems occurred, and if systemic bias had a single thing to do with it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I would challk any misunderstandings up to unfamiliarity with the case at hand. People drop by random staff talk pages asking us to weigh in on things we're not a part of all the time, and she was probably just trying to fulfill a request by a community member. If any toes were stepped on, no doubt it was unintentional. Steven Walling • talk 22:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Most likely, but one thing we don't do here is toss around assumptions of Bad Faith-- hope she got the message. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

DRV

A notification that the Templates for Discussion discussion (oy, repetition) has been taken to a deletion review discussion. The Article Rescue Squadron was notified, and as notifications to previous involved parties isn't normal practise, I and a few ARS members agreed that, in the interests of transparency and fairness, we should let everyone know...hence this talkpage message ;).

If anyone has an issue with me sending these out, do drop me a note on my talkpage. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 10:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ

A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 19:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Steven Walling,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Email

Hello, Steven Walling. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Breawycker public (talk) main account (talk) 20:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)