I have removed the prod you placed on this article because, as reflected in additional sources that have been added, it is clearly not a hoax as you suspected. I haven't looked at notability or any other issues, so I suppose you can re-prod on that basis if you care to; but this is a new editor's first article, so please be gentle and you might want to discuss your concerns with him or directly. Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 14:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC) reply

No, that looks okay now. Thanks for letting me know. ---- Jack | ^{talk page} 20:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Hope all is well with you. Just looking on the article on the variations in first-class stats and noticed that it currently concentrates on the differences between the Wisden list and the ACS list. Not sure if you think it's worth mentioning the ICC list, which is identical to the ACS list but excludes the "Tests" played on the rebel tours of South Africa. (though the ICC's List A stats do include the "ODIs" played on those tours!) There is also a slight difference on Cricinfo with regards to a match between Namibia and Nepal in 2006 which Cricinfo have as first-class, though the ICC ruled it not to be. Whether this is an error or deliberate is unknown though - I suspect the prior. Andrew nixon ( talk) 23:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Done. Replied to Andrew on his talk page. ---- Jack | ^{talk page} 17:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Didn't take him long to become disruptive then. I thought I'd leave it until he did, you never know he might have reformed... clearly not. AssociateAffiliate ( talk) 17:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Wonder what he'll come back as next time! AssociateAffiliate ( talk) 21:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC) reply

vote to this could you Jack? AssociateAffiliate ( talk) 14:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC) reply

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello BlackJack/Archive10! 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

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wiki Media Foundation at 11:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC). reply

Survey was completed yesterday, although I have only occasionally ventured into the new page patrol. :-) ---- Jack | ^{talk page} 13:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC) reply

I received my copy of Ian Maun's researches from 1700 to 1750 and have by now discussed it with two people whose opinions I value. We are all agreed that Ian has done an excellent job and his data will be useful to me both on CRIC and on my own site. We are especially impressed by the amount of "new" data he has found (i.e., lost data that he has rediscovered) but it remains to be seen to what extent he corrects errors in the existing sources, although there is no doubt he enhances their work because he has rendered the contemporary reports in full, whereas Buckley and Waghorn abbreviated or summarised them. To be honest, I thought Buckley at least had reproduced the reports verbatim, but evidently not.

It will take me several weeks to work through Ian's book and update the two sites as I don't have anything like as much time now as I used to, but I will make a careful note anytime I find existing content that has to be significantly updated or corrected. This will be an interesting test of the work done by Haygarth, Ashley-Cooper, Waghorn, Buckley, the ACS and other recent writers, myself included. However, something that has to be remembered is that Ian has provided hardly any narrative, other than occasional explanatory notes, and his analysis is minimal. It is a work of research which provides the reader with raw data for analysis and subsequent inclusion, where appropriate, in narrative histories and articles. ---- Jack | ^{talk page} 08:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm beginning to think that Daft might be a schizophrenic, what with the "We've had another good laugh at your comedy turn". We've or just youself? Nutter! Well I guess as I'm a "dog" it's "woof woof" aka have a good weekend!!! AssociateAffiliate ( talk) 10:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC) reply

LOL! ---- Jack | ^{talk page} 13:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks, that is really useful for some background information and some opinion, and I will get to adding it this week. Much appreciated. Is there a location for the publication, by the way? (And I removed the extract from the talk page in case there are any copyright issues, in case you were wondering!) -- Sarastro1 ( talk) 20:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks again! -- Sarastro1 ( talk) 20:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC) reply

And thank you for removing the slightly odd post from our friend, who seems to have really gone off the deep end this time. I've added some of the Mold stuff, but I left out some of the more speculative stuff. I'm not too sure about the County Captains meeting as I've seen 16 votes to 1 elsewhere and seen it said that MacLaren was the only opposer. But that may be speculation as well! Otherwise, it is a very good little article. Last question on it, did the journal it came from have a more precise issue date, or was it just for 2005? Cheers. (Nice to see old WG moving forward, too!) -- Sarastro1 ( talk) 21:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC) reply

See my talk page. AssociateAffiliate ( talk) 14:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC) reply

• I've blocked him. Please add that incarnation to the appropriate SPI--I'm not clever enough to put that in the right place. Thanks! Drmies ( talk) 15:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC) reply

I wonder what the record for the most sock accounts is? AssociateAffiliate ( talk) 16:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC) reply

"Not clever enough": see Alexandria's comment, below--I don't know these particulars well enough. Drmies ( talk) 16:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Do you want your talk page semi-protected? Drmies ( talk) 20:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC) reply

I came to ask the same. Could be time. Moondyne ( talk) 23:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Done. Moondyne ( talk) 10:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Just a heads up: there's no need to log all the socks on a master's SPI page. They're usually logged in categories of the master. Thanks though =] Alexandria (talk) 15:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Nah, if they're blocked already for being socks there's no need to report them to SPI unless you want a sleeper check. Still file them under the master though like you did today. Alexandria (talk) 15:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi Jack. I just came across one of your creations, Codrington (MCC cricketer), and was about to move it to Christopher Bethell-Codrington per CricketArchive, but thought I'd check with you first. Cheers, Jenks24 ( talk) 23:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Same with Drew (Kent cricketer) --> J. Drew (Kent cricketer). Jenks24 ( talk) 00:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC) reply

And W. Harbord (MCC cricketer) --> William Harbord (cricketer born 1766) William Harbord, 2nd Baron Suffield, which would also require William Harbord (cricketer) --> William Harbord (cricketer born 1908) (can't use MCC in the dab because the both played for MCC). Jenks24 ( talk) 00:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Apparently Reynolds (MCC cricketer) is the same guy as Frederick Reynolds. Jenks24 ( talk) 00:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC) reply

And Stone (1790 Kent cricketer) --> Robert Stone (cricketer). Jenks24 ( talk) 00:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the explanation on my talk and the kind words. Just letting you know that I've now moved all these articles, except Frederick Reynolds because that one will require a merge. Cheers, Jenks24 ( talk) 20:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Please be more careful when you amend the categories section of an article. Dif: [1]
You removed all original categories and left one new one behind, "Childrens' games", and it's obvious you didn't check "Children's games" to determine whether or not it was an accurate place for this particular article. The article has a broad topic, and you drilled all the way down to a category that holds specific individual children's games' articles, like Hopscotch and Blind man's buff. The article Girls' games and toys includes toys as well as games, for starters, and it also isn't just a list of specific toys/games -- it discusses the toy business itself (under the Toy industry category), the development of child behaviour and learning (filed under Play), gender differences in particular (Gender studies is an appropriate category if you look at it -- there is nothing to drill down to beyond that where an article regarding children would fit); and it discusses the historical aspect of girl-specific pastimes (filed under Toy culture). If you want to discuss further, let me know. Thanks! OttawaAC ( talk) 21:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Noted. Replied direct to OttawaAC. ---- Jack | ^{talk page} 09:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Which in English means I'm on holiday. I'll be away from 5 November till the end of the month and, as I'm going to be very busy today, I'm signing off now.

If you have a question about a cricket article, please also raise it at WT:CRIC as someone there might be able to help you. ---- Jack | ^{talk page} 08:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC) reply

CU uncovered quite a few socks of Daft. Amusing one seems to have dedicated a now deleted article to you! AssociateAffiliate ( talk) 23:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Unfortunately not Jack, it was the one called John Leach (MP) by User:Fullersomething. I came across it because it was the only sock account which had anything on its talk page, which was a warning for creating the said article. Asquith is an odd one, seems to be confusing you for the MP for West Surrey from 1832!!!! AssociateAffiliate ( talk)

Here and here indicates Mr Asquith needs a new hobby, one perhaps more constructive and more successful than trolling! AssociateAffiliate ( talk) 22:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC) reply

I know that it's the standard theory that cricket began in the Weald, but I wonder just how soundly based that theory really is, since there seems to be a lack of any hard evidence to support it. Given that the first definite evidence that we have is of the game being played in Guildford around 1550, and that two other very early references feature Wanborough and West Horsley, both within five miles or so of Guildford, it seems to me that rather than the Weald the true origin might have been in west Surrey. Since I'm a Surrey man myself, that idea appeals to me. JH ( talk page) 20:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC) reply

This guy doesn't appear to have an entry on here, let you have first dibs! AssociateAffiliate ( talk) 19:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Note. Created Thomas Lloyd and replied to AA on his page. ---- Jack | ^{talk page} 14:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply

He's back again evading his block. SPI here. AssociateAffiliate ( talk) 12:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC) reply

That was my initial point to him. No matter how much you explain something to Daft, he seems to think he and he alone is the master of all knowledge! My main motivation with categories is to help people find articles, they do that well! Daft's moving to personal attacks on myself as I'm one of the 25% of under 24s not in work - I guess I should give him some more ammo: Daft, I'm potentially entering a man point reducing career in nursing, please mock me! Daft by name and Daft by nature! Take care Jack. AssociateAffiliate ( talk) 20:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi Jack; I'm working on an article, and want to mention the fact that there was no definition of first-class cricket during the period he played. The information on First-class cricket is useful, but has no references. Do you have any sources for it being defined, and then being retroactively applied to matches prior to then? Regards, Harrias ^talk 10:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Note. Variations has the sources. Replied to Harrias on his page. ---- Jack | ^{talk page} 14:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply

I note your latest edit to this article which you have summarised thus: "no certainties about origin; the Weald is a possibility only". You have categorised the change as minor and, true, you have amended only two words, but an article is about more than its volume. It is a question of the message and in this key aspect you have made changes that present a whole sea shift. In electoral terms, such a change would result in a new government being formed. Whereas the article previously asserted with some certainty that cricket originated before 1550, it is now only a probability; and while the Weald was formerly a strong probability it is now a mere possibility. Can you not see the immense implication you have asserted?

I know that you are the author of From Lads to Lord's which, if you will forgive me, is a worthy though incomplete effort on your part and I see that a similar sentiment prevails therein. I would put it you, however, that there is a consensus among those interested in the subject which supports certainty re pre-1550 and strong probability re Kent and Sussex, especially the Weald. It so happens that I was acquainted with the late Professor Underdown and I note that his work, Start of Play, provides the first citation in the article. I can tell you with absolute certainty that he was convinced of cricket's origin as a children's game well before 1550 and very probably in the Weald. I do not have a copy of his book to hand but I believe he makes his view clear in the first dozen or so pages, perhaps on page 6 as the citation would suggest.

You may feel that I am putting too much emphasis on the use of certain words and that the words are interchangeable. Let me ask you this. If the Weald is only a possibility, what are the other possibilities? Surrey must be one. Do you consider Flanders to be a possibility; or Hampshire? What about the Home Counties north of London and particularly Essex which is coastal? Do you think it is possible that cricket came to the south-east from elsewhere in England or even from elsewhere in the British Isles? If the Weald is only a possibility, you must state the alternatives. Again, if it is only probable and not almost or virtually certain that the sport originated before 1550, then are you saying that there is a case for the origin of cricket among the Guildford schoolboys?

You may feel that you have only changed two words but you have changed the whole tenor of the article. My advice, for what it is worth, would be to revert the change unless you can present solid evidence supporting alternative theories.

Still on the subject of early cricket but moving to other articles, I have looked at your recent edits which evidently centre on a dispute with another editor, though I acknowledge that the person concerned may well be a so-called "internet troll". However, some of the points raised by this individual (I do not defend him as he may deserve his reputation) are valid. For example, his version of the 1709 match is sound and frankly preferable to the one you have restored. No one knows if William Bedle was a "great player" but he was significant. Although he was a player, how do you know his fame as such did not rest on his ability as, for example, an administrator or promoter? You have insisted upon emphasising the contradiction towards "evidence of patronage and high stakes", but apart from one isolated instance there is no such evidence before 1709. It is speculation and a point better not made. Assuredly, you will not find a satisfactory citation to support it.

I do not wish to criticise as you have built the site's store of early cricket almost single-handedly, but I have to say those recent edits create an impression of "ownership". Having said that, I do not know what damage has been done by the alleged troublemaker and you may be justified. But it would seem that your opponent has knowledge of the subject and perhaps access to additional sources. Could you not try to work together?

-- Jim Hardie ( talk) 07:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Category:Seasons in English cricket, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 00:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Not sure if I'll catch you before you disappear, but I can recommend McKinstry. His research is pretty good and he uses Arlott and Mason quite extensively to be honest. But there is quite a lot of background and context which is missing from the other two. And he's good for gossip, too. To be honest, I find the Arlott book a touch disappointing in terms of detail and analysis. Mason is rather better, but I think McKinstry surpasses 'em both. There's a few bits that jar, but good overall and one of the better recent biographies of England cricketers I think. I've no problems with McKinstry as an author, but I have to admit that I am finding Hobbs a little... dull, to be honest! Not enough scandal or bitterness for my liking. Sarastro1 ( talk) 21:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Thought I'd take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft/Archive and noticed he has been busy of late. I feel almost left-out that he didn't attack me with one of his socks! I wonder if the ACS are aware of his immature conduct? Howzat?Out!Out!Out! ( talk) 11:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Haha yes indeed! Have some odd picture of Daft in a pram throwing Wisdens!!! I don't think I've ever come across someone as obsessed as this guy. 4 years and he keeps on coming back?!?! I have this week off work too, so I'm trying to get some more of the players on Bobo's lists done, which has made me consider starting a county cricket taskforce. Though in cricketing terms, this isn't a great week, what with poor Tom Maynard. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! ( talk) 12:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC) reply

A few mugshots of Daft. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! ( talk) 13:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Another one bites the dust. Wonder how long it is before the next Daft appears? Howzat?Out!Out!Out! ( talk) 15:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Evanh2008 ^{( talk| contribs)} 08:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC) reply

See my talkpage for his latest bile. I'm editing during the day, so must be unemployed... what a arschgeige. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! ( talk) 14:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC) reply

"He's got me on one, though. Who's Albert? Perhaps that one isn't me. An imposter! Shock, horror!" Albert??? Which user is Daft referring to here? Howzat?Out!Out!Out! ( talk) 21:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Check User over at Daft's SPI page has dug up some more socks, such as User:Woggawaggawigga. According to Daft, you're Aftab Ahmed, the Danish cricketer. Look on the bright side, at least you hold the seventh best figures in T20! Howzat?Out!Out!Out! ( talk) 20:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC) reply

A fascinating article. Though it's obviously of great significance to cricket historians, I'm not sure about ranking its importance as "High" in the context of Wikipedia, though. I'd have said "Medium". "3d: A Ball caught, cloathed or not cloathed, the Striker is out." If what "cloathed or not cloathed" means is known, then an explanatory note would be helpful. "Articles of Agreement" is a phrase that I imagine must be used for many purposes beyond cricket, so I wonder if the article title should be "Articles of Agreement (cricket)" to avoid ambiguity? JH ( talk page) 20:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC) reply

I too thought of "clothed" for "cloathed", but it clearly must have had some alternative meaning to the ordinary one if it's to make sense. What really intrigues me about the Articles is the implication that in some other games of cricket not using them the ad hoc rules must have been very different from what we are familar with today. For example it looks as though in some games catches behind the wicket didn't count! Otherwises they wouldn't have needed specifically to point out in the Articles that they would count. JH ( talk page) 08:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Looking at the examples here, "cloathed" does seem to be an archaic spelling of "clothed", but can also mean "covered". Could it be that gloves of a sort were allowed? Andrew nixon ( talk) 09:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Well, I'm caught out (cloathed or not cloathed) because I can't find anything in my books which attempts to explain the term. The writers do comment on certain items in the rules as I've described in the article but it looks like they've all steered clear of "cloathed". I think Andrew is very near the mark as it does suggest that gloves were in use although, looking at the 1743 painting of the Artillery Ground, no one including batsman and keeper is wearing gloves.

Perhaps some fielders were nude? ---- Jack | ^{talk page} 16:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC) reply

I've noticed that Category:Former first-class cricket clubs has Suffolk County Cricket Club and Norfolk County Cricket Club populated in it. This of course is incorrect, as the current county clubs never existed back in the 1820s, 1830s and 1840s. Perhaps we need a Suffolk county cricket teams and Norfolk county cricket teams to differentiate between the two??? Howzat?Out!Out!Out! ( talk) 17:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC) reply

You're right. The same applies to Berkshire. I'll keep this and have a look at it. ---- Jack | ^{talk page} 19:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi Jack. Further to the discussion on protecting 1700s cricket pages that you initiated on my talkpage. Can I suggest you immediately email me or leave me a talkpage message as soon as you see it happen, I should be able to deal with any stupidity within a few minutes. All the best. The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Will do, TRM. Thanks very much. ---- Jack | ^{talk page} 18:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Unless, of course, I'm watching the tractor boys slump to another inglorious defeat, then I'll be forced to ignore all online pleas. But that only happens........ every so often... The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Perhaps not as bad a result as it looks. Ian Holloway has got Blackpool really fired up and they could start running away with the division. Interesting that the promoted clubs are again doing well and it does pose questions about the overall quality of the Championship. It's certainly an easier division to break into than the Premier League tends to be. I think Ipswich will come good again but it takes time. ---- Jack | ^{talk page} 18:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello Jack. See the project talk page for what I suspect might be another Daft. What do you think? Howzat?Out!Out!Out! ( talk) 17:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi AA. I agree. Suggest Twinkle rollback to rectify. See my ACS extract on the CRIC page which you might find useful. ---- Jack | ^{talk page} 08:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC) reply

I know you're provoked from time to time, but re-reading WP:DENY is worthwhile. -- Dweller ( talk) 10:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Agreed. ---- Jack | ^{talk page} 10:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC) reply

I've finally had enough of Daft's harassment and the uncomfortable feeling that my every edit is being watched by him. Therefore, I have decided enough is enough and so have decided to retire from editing. It's been good editing with you and I wish you all the best. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! ( talk) 21:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi, thanks for assessing the article. Doesn't it look like a list? — Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 06:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi Vensatry. I've changed it to class=list. I was doing 90-odd in one batch so a couple might have got the wrong class. Thanks very much. ---- Jack | ^{talk page} 07:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC) reply

That's fine and thanks for reassessing :) — Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 11:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Frederic Carter ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Bowler, Newnham and Hurlingham

George Wyatt (cricketer) ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Clifton and Bowler

Thomas Lang (cricketer) ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Bowler and Selkirk

Alfred Pontifex ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bath

Charles Gordon (cricketer) ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bowler

Francis Monkland ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bowler

Frederic Price ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bowler

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Thanks for those, I'll keep a look out for them. Also, AfD here which has been up for some time, input welcome. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! ( talk) 15:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC) reply

That's good and I've visited the AfD. Hope you enjoyed your double, even though one part of it was at our expense! ---- Jack | ^{talk page} 19:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Well, what a busy day that has turned out to be. See my contribs. I'm definitely shutting down now because my annual holiday has already begun and I'm flying away tomorrow (Sunday) for three weeks. On my own? Nah, my imaginary missus is tagging along and my imaginary family (including my dogs!) are looking after my imaginary house while my imaginary colleagues are coping with the imaginary handover I gave them so that they can hopefully cover my imaginary job without too many imaginary (no, oh too real) problems.

Imagination running wild? Nah, I like a bloody good laugh just before I go on holiday. It's all a bit daft, innit?

Tell you what, though. WP:TWINKLE. Marvellous tool that for dealing with inane idiots who have just spent an hour pissing about like some moronic teenage mouthbreather. You spot the telltale IP and click on that to list its, er, contributions. Without even looking at any of the, er, contributions, you simply click the "rollback vandalism" feature and, hey presto, a couple of clicks and they're all gone, never to be read by anyone. Yet you get some really daft trolls who continue to waste their time and their time only.

Bye now. ---- Jack | ^{talk page} 22:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC) reply

You should make the above a wiki essay! Be good to get a few more English fc player redlinks down. At the moment I'm trying to expand articles on Danish cricket, which shouldn't be too hard: two notable grounds, 49 player articles. Have a good holiday.

PS: Good to see the ACS don't approve of Daft behaviour. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! ( talk) 17:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello, you are receiving this message because you are currently a participant of WikiProject Good articles. Since the creation of the WikiProject, over 200 user's have joined to help review good article nominations and contribute to other sections of the WikiProject. Over the years, several of these users have stopped reviewing articles and/or have become inactive with the project but are still listed as participates. In order to improve communications with other participants and get newsletters sent out faster (newsletters will begin to be sent out monthly starting in October) all participants that are no longer active with the WikiProject will be removed from the participants list.

If you are still interested in being a participant for this WikiProject, please sign your user name here and please help review some articles so we can reduce the size of the backlog. If you are no longer interested, you do not need to sign your name anywhere and your name will be removed from the participants list after the deadline. Remember that even if you are not interested at this time, you can always re-add your name to the list whenever you want. The deadline to sign your name on the page above will be November 1, 2012. Thank-you. 13:22, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for having to send out a second message but a user has brought to my attention that a point mentioned in the first message should be clarified. If user's don't sign on this page, they will be moved to an "Inactive Participants" list rather then be being removed from the entire WikiProject. Sorry for any confusion.-- Dom497 ( talk) 15:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC) reply

The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter
The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter Volume III, No. 1 – October 2012 September-December 2008, 2009, 2010, January-April 2011 | November 2012