I've asked the user about unblocking his account here. Given the history of this user, I'm not sure I want to divulge my email address to him. Toddst1 ( talk) 19:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC) reply

WP:NOTTHEM appears to be too much. :) Toddst1 ( talk) 21:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC) reply

It seems that way. Thank you for looking into this.-- William S. Saturn ( talk) 22:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC) reply

I am not sure what the procedure is in this project for discussing global-type changes to pages. Specifically, I was looking at the Primary pages (e.g. Democratic Party presidential primaries, 1976) and the maps used to show the results. I appreciate the effort put into creating them by the user who did so, but personally I find them hard to view since the colors selected are very hard to distinguish from each other. I added a section to Talk:Democratic Party presidential primaries, 1976#map colors to show a suggested change to this particular map which was especially hard to view for me. Can you provide some guidance on how we can proceed on discussing this on the project? Thanks.

I will add myself as a member, but have made no edits in this project yet. Censorwolf ( talk) 01:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Click here to add a new section to the project talk page.-- William S. Saturn ( talk) 00:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi William S. Saturn,

You are receiving this message because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout without specifying a preference between a full blackout or soft blackout. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI.   —  C M B J   00:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Nominations for the " Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D ( talk) and Ed  ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject. reply

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) 18:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:Buddyroemer12.gif. 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 Dude2 ( talk) 22:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC) reply

WikiCup 2012 is off to a flying start. At the time of writing, we have 112 contestants; comparable to last year, but slightly fewer than 2010. Signups will remain open for another week, after which time they will be closed for this year. Our currrent far-away leader is Grapple X ( submissions), due mostly to his work on a slew of good articles about The X-Files; there remain many such articles waiting to be reviewed at good article candidates. Second place is currently held by Ruby2010 ( submissions), whose points come mostly from good articles about television episodes, although good article reviews, did you knows and an article about a baroness round out the score. In third place is Jivesh boodhun ( submissions), who has scored 200 points for his work on a single featured article, as well as points for work on others, mostly in the area of pop music. In all, nine users have 100 or more points. However, at the other end of the scale, there are still dozens of participants who are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly!

The 64 highest scoring participants will advance to round 2 in a month's time. There, they will be split into eight random groups of eight. The score needed to reach the next round is not at all clear; last year, 8 points guaranteed a place. The year before, 20.

A few participants and their work warrant a mention for achieving "firsts" in this competition.

• 12george1 ( submissions) was the first to score, with his good article review of Illinois v. McArthur.
• 12george1 ( submissions) was also the first to score points for an article, thanks to his work on Hurricane Debby (1982)- now a good article. Tropical storms have featured heavily in the Cup, and good articles currently have a relatively fast turnaround time for reviews.
• Sp33dyphil ( submissions) was the first to score points for a did you know, with Russian submarine K-114 Tula. Military history is another subject which has seen a lot of Cup activity.
• Sp33dyphil ( submissions) is also the first person to successfully claim bonus points. Terminator 2: Judgment Day is now a good article, and was eligible for bonus points because the subject was covered on more than 20 other Wikipedias at the start of the competition. It is fantastic to see bonus points being claimed so early!
• Speciate ( submissions) was the first to score points for an In the News entry, with Paedophryne amauensis. The lead image from the article was also used on the main page for a time, and it's certainly eye-catching!
• Jivesh boodhun ( submissions) was the first to score points for a featured article, and is, at the moment, the only competitor to claim for one. The article, "Halo" (Beyoncé Knowles song), was also worth double points because of its wide coverage. While this is an article that Jivesh and others have worked on for some time, it is undeniable that he has put considerable work into it this year, pushing it over the edge.

We are yet to see any featured lists, featured topics or good topics, but this is unsurprising; firstly, the nomination processes with each of these can take some time, and, secondly, it can take a considerable amount of time to work content to this level. In a similar vein, we have seen only one featured article. The requirement that content must have been worked on this year to be eligible means that we did not expect to see these at the start of the competition. No points have been claimed for featured portals or pictures, but these are not content types which are often claimed; the former has never made a big impact on the WikiCup, while the latter has not done so since 2009's competition.

A quick rules clarification before the regular notices: If you are concerned that another user is claiming points inappropriately, please contact a judge to take a look at the article. Competitors policing one another can create a bad atmosphere, and may lead to inconsistencies and mistakes. Rest assured that we, the judges, are making an effort to check submissions, but it is possible that we will miss something. On a loosely related note: If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:GeorgeRomney1968.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk) 19:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC) reply

I DID indeed put sources on the Jim Rogers stuff and you know it. !!!!

Where is the source that he is running for president as a Democrat?-- William S. Saturn ( talk) 19:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Well, there's this, and here. why do you believe I would make this stuff up? Ericl ( talk)

These sources must be provided in the article. However, Rogers can only be added if he has a wikipedia article. If you feel he is a notable individual then create a wiki page for him and see if it survives.-- William S. Saturn ( talk) 19:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Then what about the 2010 Oklahoma US Senate Race? he's all over the place in that, so should we remove the article? Ericl ( talk) 19:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC) reply

That has nothing to do with this.-- William S. Saturn ( talk) 20:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC) reply

An article that you have been involved in editing, Republican Party presidential candidates, 2012, has been proposed for a merge with Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Jack Bornholm ( talk) 16:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Round 1 is already over! The 64 highest scorers have progressed to round 2. Our highest scorer was Grapple X ( submissions), again thanks mostly to a swathe of good articles on The X-Files. In second place was Tigerboy1966 ( submissions), thanks an impressive list of did you knows about racehorses. Both scored over 400 points. Following behind with over 300 points were Ruby2010 ( submissions), Cwmhiraeth ( submissions), Miyagawa ( submissions) and Casliber ( submissions). February also saw the competition's first featured list: List of colleges and universities in North Dakota, from Ruby2010 ( submissions). At the other end of the scale, 11 points was enough to secure a place in this round, and some contestants with 10 points made it into the round on a tiebreaker. This is higher than the 8 points that were needed last year, but lower than the 20 points required the year before. The number of points required to progress to round 3 will be significantly higher.

The remaining contestants have been split into 8 pools of 8, named A through H. Round two will finish in two months time on 28 April, when the two highest scorers in each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers, will progress to round 3. The pools were entirely random, so while some pools may end up being more competitive than others, this is by chance rather than design.

The judges would like to point out two quick rules reminders. First, any content promoted during the interim period (that is, on or after 27 February) is eligible for points in round 2. Second, any content worked on significantly this year is eligible for points if promoted in this round. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which would otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk • email) and The ed17 ( talk • email) 00:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply

I just took the rare peek at my watchlist. I'm glad this finally got sorted -- [1]. Cheers! -- Kendrick7 ^talk 02:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Glad to see you on here.-- William S. Saturn ( talk) 07:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC) reply

We are over half way through the second round of this year's WikiCup and things are going well! Grapple X ( submissions), of Pool B, is our highest overall scorer thanks to his prolific writings on television and film. In second place is Pool H's Cwmhiraeth ( submissions), thanks primarily to work on biological articles, especially in marine biology and herpetology. Third place goes to Pool E's Casliber ( submissions), who also writes primarily on biology (including ornithology and botany) and has already submitted two featured articles this round. Of the 63 contestants remaining, 15 (just under a quarter) have over 100 points this round. However, 25 are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly. 32 contestants, the top two from each pool and the 16 next-highest scorers, will advance to round 3.

Congratulations to Matthewedwards ( submissions), whose impressive File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg became the competition's first featured picture. Also, congratulations to 12george1 ( submissions), who claimed good topic points, our first contestant this year to do so, for his work on Wikipedia:Featured topics/1982 Atlantic hurricane season. This leaves featured topics and featured portals as the only sources of points not yet utilised. However, as recent statistics from Miyagawa ( submissions) show, no source has yet been utilised this competition to the same extent it has been previously!

It has been observed that the backlogs at good article candidates are building up again. While the points for good article reviews will be remaining constant, any help that can be offered keeping the backlog down would be appreciated. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk • email) and The ed17 ( talk • email) 23:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Congratulations! Quite an interesting article. The review is at Talk:Thaddeus McCotter presidential campaign, 2012/GA1. Feel free to revert my edits. Best wishes, MathewTownsend ( talk) 22:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the review.-- William S. Saturn ( talk) 17:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC) reply

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Secretary hodel.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. Cloudbound ( talk) 20:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC) reply

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Secretary oleary.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. Cloudbound ( talk) 20:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC) reply

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Secretary pena.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. Cloudbound ( talk) 20:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC) reply

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Secretary schlesinger.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. Cloudbound ( talk) 20:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC) reply

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Secretary watkins.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. Cloudbound ( talk) 20:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Re your message: I have restored the article. Fastily has indeed gone on a break. If you need another article restored in the future and the deleting admin is not available, you can ask for a undelete at WP:REFUND. -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 06:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Round 2 of this year's WikiCup is over, and so we are down to our final 32, in what could be called our quarter-finals. The two highest scorers from each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers overall, have entered round 3, while 30 participants have been eliminated. Pool B's Grapple X ( submissions) remains our top scorer with over 700 points; he continues to gain high numbers of points for his good articles on The X-Files, but also Millennium and other subjects. He has also gained points for a good topic, a featured list, multiple good article reviews and several did you knows. Pool E's Casliber ( submissions) was second, thanks primarily to his biology articles, with Pool H's Muboshgu ( submissions) coming in third, with an impressive 46 did you knows, mostly on the subject of baseball. Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both scored over 600 points. Pools E and H proved our most successful, with each seeing 5 members qualify for round 3, while Pools C and D were the least, with each seeing only 3 reach round 3. However, it was Pool G which saw the lowest scoring, with a little under 400 points combined; Pool H, the highest scoring group, saw over triple that score.

65 points was the lowest qualifying score for round 3; significantly higher than the 11 required to enter round 2, and also higher than the 41 required to reach round 3 last year. However, in 2010, 100 points were needed to secure a place in round 3. 16 will progress to round 4. In round 3, 150 points was the 16th highest score, though, statistically, people tend to up their game a little in later rounds. Last year, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 points were needed. Guessing how many points will be required is not easy. We still have not seen any featured portals or topics this year, but, on the subject of less common content types, a small correction needs to be made to the previous newsletter: File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg, our first featured picture, was the work of both Matthewedwards ( submissions) and Grandiose ( submissions), the latter of whom has also gone on to score with File:Map of the Battle of Guam, 1944.svg. Bonus points also continue to roll in; this round, Ealdgyth ( submissions) earned triple points for her good articles on William the Conqueror and the Middle Ages, Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both earned triple points for their work on Western Jackdaw, now a good article, Dana Boomer ( submissions) earned triple points for her work on lettuce and work by Stone ( submissions) to ready antimony for good article status earned him triple points. Jarry1250 ( submissions) managed to expand Vitus Bering far enough for a did you know, which was also worth triple points. All of these highly important topics featured on 50 or more Wikipedias at the start of the year.

An article on the WikiCup in the Wikimedia Blog, " Improving Wikipedia with friendly competition", was posted at the end of April. This may be of interest to those who are signed up to this newsletter, as well as serving as another way to draw attention to our project. Also, we would again like to thank Jarry1250 ( submissions) and Stone ( submissions), for continued help behind the scenes. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk • email) and The ed17 ( talk • email) 23:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC) reply

I would happy to join, but I am not sure how to add myself into that list. I am assuming I need to be confirmed, or something along those lines? -- Ariostos ( talk) 19:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Took a second to figure out that it would not appear in the Page Edit, but only in the Paragraph Edit. Anyway I'm in there now. Out of curiosity are the Republican Primary pages linked up? It just seemed to me that some of then may have been, but very loosely. At the very least some of their catergorizations seemed off. -- Ariostos ( talk) 19:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Different editors edited the different state pages so the styles likely don't match perfectly. It would be beneficial to make them uniform.-- William S. Saturn ( talk) 19:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Prodding Keith Russell Judd? He is shaping up to be a great statesman. :) Ah, just an excuse to say hi, good to see you around. -- Kendrick7 ^talk 03:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC) Ah never mind me, I see above that you had already redeemed yourself [2] -- Kendrick7 ^talk 03:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Good foresight on my part, wasn't it? -- William S. Saturn ( talk) 20:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Hey, William, thanks for coming to my defense after the unjust block I was given (and had overturned). Much appreciation for the support.-- JayJasper ( talk) 23:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC) reply

No problem.-- William S. Saturn ( talk) 00:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Template:WikiProject United States presidential elections/editintro has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Kumioko ( talk) 01:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC) reply

We're halfway through round 3 (or the quarter finals, if you prefer) and things are running smoothly. We're seeing very high scoring; as of the time of writing, the top 16 all have over 90 points. This has already proved to be more competative than this time last year- in 2011, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 was the lowest qualifying score. People have also upped their game slightly from last round, which is to be expected as we approach the end of the competition. Leading Pool A is Cwmhiraeth ( submissions), whose points have mostly come from a large number of did you knows on marine biology. Pool B's leader, Grapple X ( submissions), is for the first time not our highest scorer at the time of newsletter publication, but his good articles on The X-Files and Millenium keep him in second place overall. Miyagawa ( submissions) leads Pool C, our quietest pool, with content in a variety of areas on a variety of topics. Pool D is led by Casliber ( submissions), our current overall leader. Nearly half of Casliber's points come from his triple-scored Western Jackdaw, which is now a featured article.

This round has seen an unusually high number of featured lists, with nearly one in five remaining participants claiming one, and one user, Muboshgu ( submissions), claiming two. Miyagawa's featured list, 1936 Summer Olympics medal table, was even awarded double points. By comparison, good article reviews seem to be playing a smaller part, and featured topics portals remain two content-types still unutilised in this competition. Other than that, there isn't much to say! Things are coming along smoothly. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk • email) and The ed17 ( talk • email) 23:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello! Your submission of Bob Ely at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! A. Parrot ( talk) 18:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC) reply

On 8 June 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bob Ely, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that U.S. 2012 presidential candidate Bob Ely refers to himself as a "jerk" and lists 24 reasons to not vote for him? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bob Ely. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber ( talk · contribs) 16:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,
the wub ( talk) 18:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery) reply

I just wanted to comment that, looking at his talk page over there, it's quite clear that it's just attack after attack being directed at him by Brian McNeil. It does give the impression that Wikinews is a very unwelcoming community that no one should join (perhaps why no one is?). Silver seren ^C 19:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Apparently you're not looking at it objectively since he was welcomed twice and explained the process before he decided to start attacking other editors. If you have a problem with Brian McNeil's reaction under fire then take that up with him, I don't speak for him.-- William S. Saturn ( talk) 19:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Why don't you look at Viriditas's reaction to a review? Is this acceptable?-- William S. Saturn ( talk) 19:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC) reply

The issue is that McNeil's first comment to him included untoward, insinuating remarks. Along with every comment he made afterwards. As for the review, I see an amount of frustration and i'm certainly confused why he took it so personally, but none of the comments are that bad at all in comparison to the McNeil thing. His worst response is the one in reply to the "POV intent" insinuation, which was also uncivil in the first place. Since you're a WIkinews person, can you explain to me why Viriditas was banned for civility violation, while McNeil was not, when the latter made far worse remarks? Silver seren ^C 20:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Honestly I don't see anything wrong with McNeil's first comments there. Understandably, he gets angry once Viriditas starts attacking Pizero. In fact, McNeil actually reduced the initial block to give Viriditas a second chance, but he continued to be disruptive. The ultimate ban was not for incivility but for incompetence and disruption-- William S. Saturn ( talk) 21:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC) reply

I don't want to bother with going through each of McNeil's comments and pointing out the issues with them because, as you said, you aren't McNeil, so there's no real point. Let me just say that that sort of response from him kinda makes me never want to be a part of Wikinews. And that must be true for others as well, considering how Wikinews has dwindled to pretty much 5 people involved and that's it. Silver seren ^C 21:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC) reply

You're entitled to your opinion, but I disagree. The first editor that most new users come in contact with is Pizero, who is very patient with reviews and does excellent work on them. However, if an editor is too thin-skinned to take simple advice on how the site works and decides to go on with the mindset that everyone is out to get them, then they lack the propensity to be constructive on the site. Wikinews is much more peer-review-based than wikipedia, so I'm sure egos get hurt in the process. I would be weary to judge the experience of the site based on the rants of a banned user who refused to cooperate. Additionally, the number of editors there has naught to do with the quality of work and what the site offers; anyone that wants to be a citizen journalist and have their works published for the world to see on Google News, can do this just by joining the site, following the guidelines, and maintaining journalistic integrity. The problem is that not everyone can do that.-- William S. Saturn ( talk) 21:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC) reply

One last comment. The issue isn't the difficulty of using Wikinews, in my opinion, but the community itself. While old, I think this is the perfect example of what's wrong with Wikinews, along with the sad fact that it doesn't seem to have evolved or gotten any better since then. Silver seren ^C 00:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC) reply

The community disapproved of the move and the user is no longer blocked. Again, if you have a problem with things that McNeil did, then speak to him about it.-- William S. Saturn ( talk) 03:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC) reply

The problem is not so much McNeil as that everyone else in the community immediately agreed and went along with it without even questioning what was going on. One would think the minimum response would be to wait until the user in question is around to respond to the allegations. I know that's what we do here at least. Silver seren ^C 05:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC) reply

I've been blocked on wikipedia indefinitely twice; I know personally that that's not how it works here, or at least it didn't four years ago. Ultimately the wrong was righted here for me as it was for that particular user on wikinews. The difference is that I chose to stay. One bad experience should not deter anyone that truly believes in an organization's mission and potential. People make mistakes, but since anyone can edit, there's no reason to hold that instance against the organization itself. -- William S. Saturn ( talk) 06:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC) reply

I think things are quite a bit different from four years ago. And, from what I can tell, the user did come back, though months later. Not sure if he is still active however. Silver seren ^C 06:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Apologies for the lateness of this letter; our usual bot wasn't working. We are now entering round 4, our semi-finals, and have our final 16. A score of 243 was required to reach this round; significantly more than 2011's 76 points, and only a little behind 2010's 250 points. By comparison, last year, 150 points in round 4 secured a place in the final; in 2010, 430 were needed. Commiserations to Pool A's igordebraga ( submissions), who scored 242 points, missing out on a place in the round by a whisker. However, congratulations to Pool B's Grapple X ( submissions), whose television articles have brought him another round victory. Pool A's Cwmhiraeth ( submissions) came second overall, with an impressive list of biological did you knows, good articles and featured articles. Third overall was Pool D's Muboshgu ( submissions), with a long list of contibutions, mostly relating to baseball. Of course, with the points resetting every round, the playing field has been levelled. The most successful Pool was Pool D, which saw seven into the final round. Pool B saw four, C saw three and Pool A saw only the two round leaders.

A quick note about other competitions taking place on Wikipedia which may be of interest. There are 13 days remaining in the June-July GAN backlog elimination drive, but it is not too late to take part. August will also see the return of The Core Contest- a one month long competition first run in 2007. While the WikiCup awards points for audited content on any subject, The Core Contest about is raw article improvement, focussing heavily on the most important articles on Wikipedia. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk • email) and The ed17 ( talk • email) 11:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC) reply

By your own admission, consensus is against you. Please accept this and move on. Continuing to disrupt WP:RSN will lead to a suspension of your editing privileges. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 22:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

It is not disruption is a request for discussion. The mob mentality on that page is troubling.-- William S. Saturn ( talk) 23:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

I'd prefer not to edit a closed discussion...and see no reason for it to be opened again. It's Village Pump territory if anything, but you'll get shot down there too I'm sure.

It's not generated from a user; it's generated from a source itself. - My response to that is that we should quote the source itself. There is absolutely no reason to use WikiNews as a source. None. No reason. I wish I could think of more ways to say that there is no reason to use it as a source. USE THE ORIGINAL SOURCE. That may or not be an acceptable source, but that's a completely different argument. Give it up. This is an incredible waste of time for far too many people. -- Onorem ♠ Dil 23:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

You can't use e-mails, phone calls, etc. in an article.-- William S. Saturn ( talk) 23:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

And? -- Onorem ♠ Dil 23:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

"USE THE ORIGINAL SOURCE" is not applicable. This is just a continued misunderstanding of what is being discussed.-- William S. Saturn ( talk) 23:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

But that's not a reason to call a source based on anon users approving anon users reliable. Congrats on your phone call. PROVE IT. -- Onorem ♠ Dil 23:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Everything that is done is easily verifiable and transparent because works are posted on talk pages as journalist notes and/or primary materials sent to scoop, which is reviewed by trusted users, not "anons". Scoop can easily compare to OTRS, and if material is challenged, it can easily be provided. But we're talking about non-contentious items, holes in articles.-- William S. Saturn ( talk) 23:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Whatever. Enjoy banging your head against the wall. I'm out of here. -- Onorem ♠ Dil 23:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Typical response from a user that cannot defend the mob actions and so says "whatever" without disputing points.-- William S. Saturn ( talk) 23:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Fine. I'm not out of here yet. What is a 'Trusted' user? I'm not wading through history to find the definition. Are 'Trusted' users given their position by known (actually known) users with a background in journalism or is there some other method of filtering out reliability? 'Trusted' users review phone calls that they haven't heard and emails they haven't seen and say they are good sources?

"What is a 'Trusted' user?" A user that passed the accreditation process. As in my analogy, it is akin to an OTRS manager. "Are 'Trusted' users given their position by known (actually known) users with a background in journalism or is there some other method of filtering out reliability?" Irrelevant. There is no analysis, only reporting, so only an honest/ competent group of people is necessary to verify the accuracy of the facts reported. "'Trusted' users review phone calls that they haven't heard and emails they haven't seen and say they are good sources?" No. Everything can be viewed through the scoop e-mail which is available to all accredited reporters.-- William S. Saturn ( talk) 00:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC) reply

If material is challenged, it can easily be provided - How? And if it's so easily proven, why not use the proof as the source? -- Onorem ♠ Dil 00:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Like I said, e-mails, phone calls, and other primary sources cannot be used as wikipedia sources.-- William S. Saturn ( talk) 00:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Side Note: My whatever is my comment. It's not proof of anything...so please feel free to shut the fuck up instead of using my one comment as commentary on the situation. You've made no new points. You've simply restated over and over and over and over arguing against pretty much everyone your position without accepting their position. This time, I am out of here. Have a happy fucking holiday. I've wasted far too much time here today. (I guess I need one last edit before you use my words against me again. Agreeing with the majority doesn't automatically mean mob mentality is in play. As much as you might not like it, sometimes the majority are actually correct...) -- Onorem ♠ Dil 00:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC) reply

When a debate seems particularly contentious, that is not a synonym for disruptive. The contention seems to have followed William to his talk page here. I know I never appreciate threats when I'm making a good faith effort to debate, so let's assume good faith, before we assume deliberate disruption, and let's work on simply being more reasonable in our arguments. Thanks. -- Avanu ( talk) 00:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Thank you for that comment.-- William S. Saturn ( talk) 00:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC) reply

I edited the 2012 election as a joke, obviously I understand that O'Reily is not the republican nominee (we aren't that lucky), I simply did that for the lol's. Peace out buzzkill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.153.119 ( talk) 05:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC) reply

It wasn't funny. If you want to be funny go here.-- William S. Saturn ( talk) 05:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC) reply

For checking over my DYK on John R. Tunis. It's only me second DYK, so I still get a bit of a kick out of watching it progress. Thanks for taking the time to keep it moving. Tlqk56 ( talk) 00:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply

No problem. I'm glad to help.-- William S. Saturn ( talk) 04:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Check your Wikipedia email:

• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 00:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC) reply

We're approaching the beginning of 2012's final round. Pool A sees Cwmhiraeth ( submissions) as the leader, with 300 points being awarded for the featured article Bivalvia, and Pool B sees Grapple X ( submissions) in the lead, with 10 good articles, and over 35 articles eligible for good topic points. Pool A sees Muboshgu ( submissions) in second place with a number of articles relating to baseball, while Pool B's Ruby2010 ( submissions) follows Grapple X, with a variety of contributions including the high-scoring, high-importance featured article on the 2010 film Pride & Prejudice. Ruby2010, like Grapple X, also claimed a number of good topic points; despite this, not a single point has been claimed for featured topics in the contest so far. The same is true for featured portals.

Currently, the eighth-place competitor (and so the lowest scorer who would reach the final round right now) has scored 332, more than double the 150 needed to reach the final round last year. In 2010, however, 430 was the lowest qualifying score. In this competition, we have generally seen scores closer to those in 2010 than those in 2011. Let's see what kind of benchmark we can set for future competitions! As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk • email) and The ed17 ( talk • email) 22:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC) reply

On 6 August 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Virgil Goode presidential campaign, 2012, which you created or substantially expanded. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Virgil Goode presidential campaign, 2012. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Allen3  ^talk 16:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Your last edit comment [3] doesn't really explain anything except that you don't like my edit. Could you explain why you disagree with it?

Peter ^Isotalo 22:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC) reply

You caught me at a bad time, and I did not understand the refusal to observe BRD. The fact is that the election year is included in the title, not for disambiguation of the candidate, but for the "presidential campaign" aspect. If it's not defined in the title, then it may cause confusion.-- William S. Saturn ( talk) 23:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC) reply

I was going by standard disambiguation practices, ie not adding anything to article titles that isn't necessary for disambiguation. Wherein the possible confusion lies is unclear to me. I wasn't aware that at some point it had been decided that titles of presidential campaign articles had a purpose other than disambiguation.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC) reply

I'd like to commend you on the care and effort you've been putting into those articles on political campaigns. Ideally, all our articles would be as well-cited as yours.

I'd give you a barnstar, but I'm not really clear on which one would be most appropriate in this context. <INSERT MOST SUITABLE BARNSTAR HERE>: for William S. Saturn, in honor of all the hard work he does on political articles. DS ( talk) 13:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Yeah, the intro as I first wrote it was either not entirely fair or too fair by half. If you register as a social welfare group with the IRS, and then simply run ads calling the President vain in order to tip the election... am I not doing you a favor by explaining that you promote social welfare by calling the President vain in battleground states? I mean, when sooner or later you are keel-hauled in front of the IRS, wouldn't you like to point to your Wikipedia page as a defense? I'm presuming a lot to think the IP had a vested interest, but at least in my mind, no good deed goes unpunished. ;) -- Kendrick7 ^talk 03:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC) reply

The final is upon us! We are down to our final 8. A massive 573 was our lowest qualifying score; this is higher than the 150 points needed last year and the 430 needed in 2010. Even in 2009, when points were acquired for mainspace edit count in addition to audited content, 417 points secured a place. That leaves this year's WikiCup, by one measure at least, our most competitive ever. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:

1. Grapple X ( submissions) once again finishes the round in first place, leading Pool B. Grapple X writes articles about television, and especially The X-Files and Millenium, with good articles making up the bulk of the score.
2. Miyagawa ( submissions) led Pool A this round. Fourth-place finalist last year, Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, and has reached the final primarily off the back of his massive number of did you knows.
3. Ruby2010 ( submissions) was second in Pool B. Ruby2010 writes primarily on television and film, and scores primarily from good articles.
4. Casliber ( submissions) finished third in Pool B. Casliber is something of a WikiCup veteran, having finished sixth in 2011 and fourth in 2010. Casliber writes on the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. Over half of Casliber's points this round were bonus points from the high-importance articles he has worked on.
5. Cwmhiraeth ( submissions) came second in Pool A. Also writing on biology, especially marine biology, Cwmhiraeth received 390 points for one featured article ( Bivalvia) and one good article ( pelican), topping up with a large number of did you knows.
6. Muboshgu ( submissions) was third in Pool A. Muboshgu writes primarily on baseball, and this round saw Muboshgu's first featured article, Derek Jeter, promoted on its fourth attempt at FAC.
7. Dana Boomer ( submissions) was fourth in Pool A. She writes on a variety of topics, including horses, but this round also saw the high-importance lettuce reach featured article status.
8. Sasata ( submissions) is another WikiCup veteran, having been a finalist in 2009 and 2010. He writes mostly on mycology.

However, we must also say goodbye to the eight who did not make the final, having fallen at the last hurdle: GreatOrangePumpkin ( submissions), Ealdgyth ( submissions), Calvin999 ( submissions), Piotrus ( submissions), Toa Nidhiki05 ( submissions), 12george1 ( submissions), The Bushranger ( submissions) and 1111tomica ( submissions). We hope to see you all next year.

On the subject of next year, a discussion has been opened here. Come and have your say about the competition, and how you'd like it to run in the future. This brainstorming will go on for some time before more focused discussions/polls are opened. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk • email) and The ed17 ( talk • email) 00:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I just discovered that Creativemind15 sneaked in the VP candidates into the presidential candidates sections of the 2008 and 2012 election articles. In the 2008 article, he did it within the past 24 hours, adding Biden and Palin, and their pics. And he added the words subtitles "Nominees" and "Withdrew" in both articles, even though those sections are just to list the presidential candidates. For example, see the Republican candidates sections in the 2012 article. [4] I just reverted what Creativemind did in the 2008 article and put in the edit comments that that section is for presidential candidates only; and that the VP nominees are only in the infobox. In the 2012 article, he started sneaking in the content at: 22:02, 14 August 2012‎ and apparently no one noticed. I can't revert it because the article is protected. He added Biden and Ryan, and their pics into the candidates section. I also notice he sneaks in changes of pics with comments like "I like this one better" or "This one is better", etc. Anyway, I fixed 2008, but I can't fix 2012 because it's protected. Here's the starting point in each article where he started added the VPs and their pics into the presidential candidates sections in the two articles: [5] (2008) and [6] (2012). Here's what the candidates photo gallery sections looked like in the 2012 article before Creativemind started changing them. [7] Thanks. -- 76.189.126.159 ( talk) 20:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC) reply

I posted this edit request because I'm not sure if you can fix it or if it requires and edit request. :) -- 76.189.126.159 ( talk) 22:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Update: Jack Bornholm fixed it and then Creativemind posted this explanation. So it looks like the matter is resolved. :) But I still can't believe that no editors noticed that such a major, inappropriate change went overlooked for three weeks. Haha. -- 76.189.126.159 ( talk) 23:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC) reply

The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators ( about the project • what coordinators do) 09:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

We're over half way through the final, and so it is less than a month until we know for certain our 2012 WikiCup champion. Grapple X ( submissions) currently leads, followed by Sasata ( submissions), Cwmhiraeth ( submissions) and Casliber ( submissions). However, we have no one resembling a breakaway leader, and so the competition is a long way from over. Next month's newsletter will feature a list of our winners (who are not necessarily only the finalists) and keep your eyes open for an article on the WikiCup in a future edition of The Signpost. The leaders are already on a par with last year's winners, but a long way from the huge scores seen in 2010. That said, a repeat of the competition from 2010 seems unlikely.

It is good to see that three-quarters of our finalists have already scored bonus points this round. This shows that, contrary to criticism that the WikiCup has received in the past, the competition does not merely incentivise the writing of trivial articles; instead, our top competitors are still spending their time contributing to high-importance articles, and bringing them to a high standard. This does a great service to the encyclopedia and its readers. Thank you, and good work!

The planning for next year's WikiCup is ongoing. Some straw polls have been opened concerning the scoring, and you can now sign up for next year's competition. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk • email) and The ed17 ( talk • email) J Milburn ( talk) 20:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC) reply

The 2012 WikiCup has come to a close; congratulations to Cwmhiraeth ( submissions), our 2012 champion! Cwmhiraeth joins our exclusive club of previous winners: Dreamafter (2007), jj137 (2008), Durova (2009), Sturmvogel 66 (2010) and Hurricanehink (2011). Our final standings were as follows:

1. Cwmhiraeth ( submissions)
2. Sasata ( submissions)
3. Grapple X ( submissions)
4. Casliber ( submissions)
5. Muboshgu ( submissions)
6. Miyagawa ( submissions)
7. Ruby2010 ( submissions)
8. Dana Boomer ( submissions)

Prizes for first, second, third and fourth will be awarded, as will prizes for all those who reached the final eight. Every participant who scored in the competition will receive a ribbon of participation. In addition to the prizes based on placement, the following special prizes will be awarded based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, the prize is awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round.

• The featured article award goes to Grapple X ( submissions), for four featured articles in the final round.
• The good article award also goes to Grapple X ( submissions), for 19 good articles in the second round.
• The list award goes to Muboshgu ( submissions), for three featured lists in the final round.
• The topic award goes to Grapple X ( submissions), for three good topics (with around 40 articles) in round 4.
• The did you know award goes to Cwmhiraeth ( submissions), for well over 100 DYKs in the final round.
• The news award goes to ThaddeusB ( submissions), for 10 in the news items in round 3.
• The picture award goes to Grandiose ( submissions), for two featured pictures in round 2.
• The reviewer award goes to both Ruby2010 ( submissions) (14 reviews in round 1) and Grandiose ( submissions) (14 reviews in round 3).
• Finally, for achieving an incredible bonus point total in the final round, and for bringing the top-importance article frog to featured status, a biostar has been awarded to Cwmhiraeth ( submissions).

Awards will be handed out in the coming days; please bear with us! This year's competition also saw fantastic contributions in all rounds, from newer Wikipedians contributing their first good or featured articles, right up to highly experienced Wikipedians chasing high scores and contributing to topics outside of their usual comfort zones. It would be impossible to name all of the participants who have achieved things to be proud of, but well done to all of you, and thanks! Wikipedia has certainly benefited from the work of this year's WikiCup participants.

Next year's WikiCup will begin in January. Currently, discussions and polls are open, and all contributions are welcome. You can also sign up for next year's competition. There will be no further newsletters this year, although brief notes may be sent out in December to remind everyone about the upcoming competition. It's been a pleasure to work with you all, and we hope to see you all in January! J Milburn ( talk • email) and The ed17 ( talk • email) 00:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC) reply

I can assure you that the ballot access maps for Hoefling, Anderson, and Goode are accurate, based off their own press releases as to which states they are active in and in what capacity; same for all the other candidates. I had used Politics1 previously, but they have since fallen behind, nor have they been active the last week or so. As for changing the colors around, I did just that as requested, so the states where they are on the ballots are now more prominent. -- Ariostos ( talk) 23:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Thank you for that.-- William S. Saturn ( talk) 23:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Just doing what needs doing. Your welcome though. -- Ariostos ( talk) 00:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Darn it, I just read the Article. William, sorry, but I was still in the middle of updating the boxes themselves when you must have posted them into the article; the colors for the three boxes you put up should be reversed regarding which states are Write-In, and which states they are on the Ballot itself. Again, sorry. -- Ariostos ( talk) 00:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Thanks for letting me know. I have fixed it now.-- William S. Saturn ( talk) 00:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Warning Just a friendly reminder, keep the side remarks down. No personal attacks. United States presidential election, 2012 is subject to sanctions, see Wikipedia:General sanctions/2012 Presidential Campaign/Log.

I don't give a shit.-- William S. Saturn ( talk) 22:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply

But I also want to thank you for taking an interest in helping to improve WP. I could have made that more clear. I have been collecting comments about WP, and the most recent was "no one believes what Wikipedia says anyway" (and that was from a WP admin). Apteva ( talk) 22:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Decemmber 8 - Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited

Date Saturday, December 8, 2012 Time 10 a.m. – 3 p.m. Location Seattle Public Library Meeting Room 1 on Level 4, Central Library, 1000 4th Avenue, Seattle WA, 98104 Event An editathon on Seattle-related Wikipedia articles with Wikipedia tutorials and Librarian assistance on hand. Hashtag #wikiloveslib or #glamwiki. Registration http://wll-seattle.eventbrite.com or use on-wiki regsistration. Yours, Maximilianklein ( talk) 03:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi there; you're receiving this message because you have previously shown interest in the WikiCup. This is just to remind you that the 2013 WikiCup will be starting on 1 January, and that signups will remain open throughout January. Old and new Wikipedians and WikiCup participants are warmly invited to take part in this year's competition. (Though, as a note to the more experienced participants, there have been a few small rules changes in the last few months.) If you have already signed up, let this be a reminder; you will receive a message with your submissions' page soon. Please direct any questions to the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! J Milburn 19:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC) reply