User talk:KimChee

I am preoccupied due to recent events in Asia and will be limited in my presence here for the foreseeable future.

This is KimChee's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Gordon Brown's favourite cookie. Since you had some involvement with the Gordon Brown's favourite cookie redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Diego Grez (EMSIUB) (talk) 14:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Joseph Mitchell Parsons you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 10 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Lord Roem (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time. I have responded to your comments in the GA review. KimChee (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I did some research with the help from a friend which wrote the page number for me. I cant personally verify those as I wasnt present but I do trust my friend. I guess its up to DYK standard now.Thanks for the help.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And sorry if I didnt format it right. Im not 100% into that field of the Wikipedia yet Thanks for doing it.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine. For future reference, you do not need to repeat full publication data for every citation if the complete literary information is included at the bottom. KimChee (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks again.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note on the DYK page so it can be evaluated. But I dont see any problems for it not to pass for DYK.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to the question about the references on the article's talk page. KimChee (talk) 04:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps read WP:POINT.  狐 FOX  01:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. You have my apologies. KimChee (talk) 01:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the by, thanks for being understanding about this whole issue. Sorry that it's been dragged out like this.  狐 FOX  13:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, this process has been an interesting new experience to me. KimChee (talk) 13:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to give you a advice if you are in the mood to make a new crime article, ten days ago DNA evidence finally officially freed Cornelius Dupree who had been in jail for 30 years for a crime that he didnt commit, he was already out when the DNA answers came. He has also been the subject of tv-documentaries because he was known to be innocent of the crime he was in prison for but the district attorney didnt want it to got to court etc etc etc.. Perhaps an interesting case. Just a suggestion.--BabbaQ (talk) 02:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I started a stub if you would like to add to it. KimChee (talk) 03:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering if you could make a comment on DYK so that the DYK nomination of the Fran Otto Erikssons gets moving and evaluated? Or that is perhaps not needed, just asking.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Frans Otto Eriksson article appears to be verified now. I added my name to the nom if that is okay with you. Also, I think the Cornelius Dupree article has cleared minimum length. If you can add some more edits to expand the article further, then I will go ahead and include your name in the DYK nom for this one, too. KimChee (talk) 08:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the issue you brought up.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also the Afd on Joanna Yeates has been closed as Keep, not that I expected anything else ofcourse. Anyway now the DYK nomination can be completed and I have left a comment confirming that the Afd has been closed. If you feel like it leave a comment to.;)--BabbaQ (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, I made DYK nomination for Cornelius Dupree, on the January 4 section. Feel free to change anything as you created the article.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Dupree article and the hook I suggested has now been OK:ed. So congratulations is in order for us, three DYK-ready articles in a matter of days.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KimChee. In answer to your query on my talk page, I found Dupree's date of birth on the Writ of Habeus Corpus, available as the first link at the bottom of the Innocence Project webpage that you cite as your second external link.--198.145.102.216 (talk) 01:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday Cornelius Duprees article was viewed 16.600 times and the day before that about 9.000 times. I find it strange that it suddenly get that mutch views..hmm.. it only got around 2.000 views when it was a DYK. Haha.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm embarrassed I left so many errors, thought I checked it but I must be too tired. --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up (small world!), I've now responded with an alt. Thanks :)  狐 FOX  00:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muchas gracias. ;D  狐 FOX  00:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 6 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Murder of Joanna Yeates, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the inquiry into the murder of Joanna Yeates, dubbed "Operation Braid", has become one of the largest police investigations in Bristol, England? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it 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.

Thanks from me and the DYK project Victuallers (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations is in order, You have done a great job on this article. Anyway, now it has been placed on DYK, I guess it wont be removed before midnight tonight so I guess we have to count in the views for January 6 and January 7. Just like the John and Sarah Makin article for a correct view figure..--BabbaQ (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now the DYK for Joanna Yeates has ended so in about 50 minutes we will be able to see how many checked it out during January 6.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

9.900 views... so close to the 10.000 view treshold but anyway impressive amount of views for Murder of Joanna Yeates.--BabbaQ (talk) 01:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 9 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Frans Otto Eriksson, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Frans Otto Eriksson was a Swedish baker who committed a double murder in 1909? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it 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.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems that after the story has developed, that the weapon was indeed a Glock 19, not a Glock 17. I understand the confusion of the media at first as they are basically the same gun; with interchangeable parts. Also the assailant had two 33 round 9x19mm magazines for his weapon, which are interchangeable with all 9mm Glock weapons even the Glock 36 (Baby Glock). I assume that this further added to the confusion.

Thanks for correcting my error and keeping Wiki a friendly place for the exchange of information and cross checking. I truly appreciate it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonanaggie (talk • contribs) 02:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, your edit was specific enough that I presumed it was done in good faith. KimChee (talk) 02:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with a 30 round magazine is that it conflicts with CNN reports that there were 31 9mm rounds left in his magazine, and the fact that Glock Magazines are not made in 30 round capacity. Glock 19 high-capacity magazines are made in 33 rounds as you can see here: http://www.topglock.com/item/42680_Glock_High_Capacity_Magazine_Glock_MF17033_G17_Magazin.aspx. If you search around you will see that this is the only high-capacity magazine for the Glock 19 for a 9mm Parabellum round.

According to reports his second magazine jammed due to a spring failure, thankfully!

Jasonanaggie (talk) 08:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 11 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cornelius Dupree, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Cornelius Dupree was cleared by DNA profiling of committing a robbery for which he served 30 years in prison, longer than any other exonerated inmate in Texas? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it 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.

The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I think 'reactions' still covers it all o.k , but 'political debate' is better than the other subsection heading - the tag could go for all I can see. Sayerslle (talk) 07:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KimChee,

I noticed that you re-created (and perhaps originally created) the subsection "Recovery" in the section regarding Gifford's assassination attempt. While we are all certainly hopeful she will only continue to improve from here, that is not a factual guarantee. Doctors have repeatedly stressed that the 3rd and 4th days are especially critical, because that is when the swelling is at its worst. In other words, awful as it is to say in the midst of optimistic results on her current condition, she may still not survive this, nor is she certain to retain this level of response. For this reason, it is still too early to create a "Recovery" subsection - we need to be sure that our edits are made from a historical perspective whenever possible, and this is a superficial change that is honestly premature. If you still disagree, I would appreciate hearing why - you appear to be a much more senior editor than I, and it's certainly possibly I'm viewing this the wrong way. Thank you.

- DrLight11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drlight11 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is not my term. That is the term used by her attending doctors. If you feel this is premature, I am happy to wait until a later date. KimChee (talk) 21:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The web site is msnbc.com, not MSNBC. The publisher of the web site is MSN.

You arbitrarily reverted changes that were correct and ones that included corrections to the incorrect date formats, added fields, and the name of the victim for no benefit. Whywhenwhohow (talk) 05:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One size does not fit all, it may be beneficial to check if an item is a specific program or publication vs. a network or news agency. Hence, why various fields are provided by the various citation templates. KimChee (talk) 05:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We obviously disagree. I know what end users will see. I have been editing Wikipedia for several years. You are quick with undo and wiped out other needed corrections and updates. Whywhenwhohow (talk) 05:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Outside of the reference formatting, can you identify an edit conflict that should be fixed? Your account looks relatively new and Jack Merridew has been here a very long time with a focus on reference formatting. I trust his judgement. KimChee (talk) 05:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jack agreed with my changes. He wrote "saw your edit summary, which makes sense. Sorry for the bump." I suggest you review the differences between MSNBC and msnbc.com and the brand confusion that is described on the msnbc.com page. Whywhenwhohow (talk) 05:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jack is very friendly about edit conflicts, but I would stick with the guidelines presented in the {{cite news}} template -- make sure you distinguish between a publication such as The New York Times vs. an organization such as The McClatchy Company vs. an agency such as Associated Press. KimChee (talk) 05:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, KimChee. The Quinones ref doesn't say Randy is a retired truck driver. It says the neighbor is a retired gasoline truck driver. --Kenatipo (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good eye! KimChee (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is RL really a retired truck driver or is this just a wikimistake? --Kenatipo (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The L.A. Times says "stay-at-home dad", but that sounded a little too informal to include as-is in the article. KimChee (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have followed a criminal case involving a Las Vegas show dancer who disappeared in December 2010 and whos body was found this saturday in a quite bizzarre manor. If you feel like it then do a stub for this case, as you are so good at doing those if you find time and interest for it ofcourse. The case has recived alot of coverage from american media as you can see here.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in my opinion, Jared Lee Loughner would be acceptable for DYK if the hook doesn't have to do with current events. - PM800 (talk) 05:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please check out the Death of Linda Norgrove GA nomination.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little preoccupied right now, but I will be happy to help if it does not pass by this weekend. KimChee (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I can inform you that it passed the GA review moments ago, after just a few hours;). I asked the reviewer about a possible GA nomination for Joanna Yeates. The user answered, At first glance it looks detailed enough to have a good shot - maybe try expanding the 'Background' section. I dont know your stand in this KimChee but it would certainly be a good way to keep the article away from possible future second time Afd requests if it passes GA. Which the user in my opinion thought would be very possible. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. I think the Yeates article may be a good candidate in the future, but will likely be too unstable to meet GA criteria for a while. KimChee (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Photograph of Jared Lee Loughner by Pima County Sheriff's Office.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Active Banana (^bananaphone 21:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not upload this file, I am the one who asked about its status in WP:MCQ. KimChee (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I just wanted to add the picture from talk. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 17 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Federal Correctional Institution, Phoenix, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Cris Kirkwood of the Meat Puppets and Jerry Posin of Steppenwolf teamed up to perform music while both were imprisoned at the Federal Correctional Institution in Phoenix, Arizona? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it 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.

Thank you for this contribution to our second decade of wikipedia Victuallers (talk) 06:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I noticed your activity as a Good Article reviewer, and wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors in the coming term. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 03:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Vein matching 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! Otherwise a very interesting article and hook. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article might interest you, Murder of Anni Dewani.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the time, this article might interest you too. Carlina White kidnapping.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I will take a look at it this weekend. KimChee (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 22 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ajmer Dargah attack, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the 2007 Ajmer Dargah attack was carried out by explosives hidden in a Tiffin carrier? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it 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.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For your improvements to the article Carlina White kidnapping. Edison (talk) 02:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, another editor suggested I look at this. I hope it looks good for DYK. KimChee (talk) 10:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits have greatly improved the article. Edison (talk) 05:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was just commenting on the plot/references issue :D

But yeah, even though the rules seem to discourage it, DYK does approve nominations for films that haven't been released. Don't ask me why. - PM800 (talk) 13:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting caveat. I will wait to hear back from the nominator, but I guess I will go easy on this one. Thanks. :) KimChee (talk) 13:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the 2011 WikiCup! Your submissions' page can be found here and instructions of how to update the page can be found here and on the submissions' page itself. From the submissions' page, a bot will update the main scoresheet. Our rules have been very slightly updated from last year; the full rules can be found here. Please remember that you can only receive points for content on which you have done significant work in 2011; nominations of work from last year and "drive-by" nominations will not be awarded points. Signups are going to remain open through January, so if you know of anyone who would like to take part, please direct them to Wikipedia:WikiCup/2011 signups. The judges can be contacted on the WikiCup talk page, on their respective talk pages, or by email. Other than that, we will be in contact at the end of every month with the newsletter. If you want to stop or start receiving newsletters, please remove your name from or add your name to this list. Good luck! J Milburn and The ed17 21:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - As far as I know, it's not really necessary to include the date in every ref name - the idea is just that there be an easy to reproduce nickname for each reference, so anything unique works. Sometimes the date's a good idea when many refs are coming in from the same publication or with similar titles, but I find it's most useful and least prone to error when the ref name is kept relatively short and memorable, so the date doesn't have to be embedded there. Cheers. Tvoz/talk 09:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and tend to use simpler name tags for refs in smaller articles. That said, I prefer using dates in naming news citations, especially in large articles that have bursts of activity during cycles of breaking news as there will be a literal avalanche of incoming information, often from a recurring pool of sources in a short period of time. I have seen other users cut and paste more difficult-to-remember numbers and data from URLs as ref names, so I find dates to be the most practical to use ... and perhaps a memorable word from the headline if the same source publishes multiple articles on the same day. KimChee (talk) 11:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just try to keep it as simple as possible, but yeah. Meanwhile, I think the work we've done on Giffords has improved it significantly. Tvoz/talk 17:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merci! Comte0 (talk) 08:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 26 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Vein matching, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the FBI and CIA used vein matching as evidence that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed of al-Qaeda had killed journalist Daniel Pearl? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it 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.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently reviewed your nomination of Neoregelia 'Dr. Who' at Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know and have found that there are still outstanding issues. Please review the new comment underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for helping this years April Fools be funny! --Found5dollar (talk) 02:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 27 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jared Lee Loughner, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Jared Lee Loughner was detained at the Federal Correctional Institution at Phoenix after the 2011 Tucson shooting? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it 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.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime! I knew he had to be on the BOP database, so I used some variations of his name WhisperToMe (talk) 13:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I was wondering if you could help me by checking out Bright Lights, Bigger City I have nominated it for DYK but I could need some pro help as I got this message Alt 1 will be fine once the all-caps reference titles in the article are fixed.--BabbaQ (talk) 05:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made a couple passes through the article to clean up the references. Let me know if you need more help. KimChee (talk) 09:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very mutch:). I have followed a missing persons case this week from Michigan concerning two women who was found buried and shot today. Did a search for the victims names and found a quite large number of hits, this story has been a top news in American media for the entire week. See here for information, maybe just maybe we could start a stub perhaps Amy Sue Henslee and Tonya Howarth murders or similar. I wanted to hear your opinion first as you are better aware of what can survive on Wikipedia.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the Murder of Anni Dewani article that became DYK has reached 5,100 views during its time as DYK yesterday could you help me by adding it to the DYK stats. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. I have noticed that the GimmeBot is removing Afd results and DYKs on the talk pages of articles. Is that really good? I would assume that if an article ever have gone trough a Afd process that would be something useful to know for people who is perhpas willing to put it up for deletion again. And the DYKs like the one on Anni Dewani for example would be something that I for example dont want removed. The bot had removed the Afd on Death of Linda Norgrove recently which I restored. What is your opinion?.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I think Im starting to get it now. After your edits. Its ofcourse shown on the articles milestones. Oh my apologies;).--BabbaQ (talk) 12:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question, I was thinking of doing a total re-write on an article which is about a Swedish person. Anyway my question is if I do this complete re-write and the length and hook and everything is OK then would it pass trough the DYK process?.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If an article is not new (less than 5 days old), then the expanded prose (text minus headers, captions, infoboxes, tables, etc.) of the rewritten article must be 5x longer to qualify for DYK. For biographical articles that previously lacked references or citations, the article must be expanded 2x to qualify. All other rules are the same (i.e. work must have been done within the last 5 days). I hope this answers your question. KimChee (talk) 00:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Star Is Born (2012 film) has gained over 10,500 views during its DYK: Please add it to DYK stats as no one has done it. Thanks--BabbaQ (talk) 13:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've found some time to look again at this article which I peer reviewed in Deceember. You appear to have addressed the points I raised, and the article is clearly better for this. One point that I missed in my earlier review is the use of cites in the lead. Normally, material that is cited in the text does not need to be also cited in the lead, so I wonder how many of these cites are necessary. If your intention is to take the article to FAC, it might be as well to have a brief second peer review with someone else's eyes on it, though I would watch it and comment if necessary. My problem at the moment is that I am extremely short of time for detailed reviews, a situation likely to continue for another two or three weks at least. Brianboulton (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply, I really do appreciate it! KimChee (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Article 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! — Rod ^talk 13:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. Signups are now closed, and we have 129 listed competitors, 64 of whom will make it to round two. Congratulations to The Bushranger (submissions), who, at the time of writing, has a comfortable lead with 228 points, followed by Hurricanehink (submissions), with 144 points. Four others have over 100 points. Congratulations also go to Yellow Evan (submissions), who scored the first points in the competition, claiming for Talk:Hurricane King/GA1, Miyagawa (submissions), who scored the first non-review points in the competition, claiming for Dognapping, and Jarry1250 (submissions) who was the first in the competition to use our new "multiplier" mechanic (explanation), claiming for Grigory Potemkin, a subject covered on numerous Wikipedias. Thanks must also go to Jarry1250 for dealing with all bot work- without you, the competition wouldn't be happening!

A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round two is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 22:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 1 February 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article ROKS Choi Young (DDH-981), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the South Korean naval vessel Choi Young (pictured) launched a rescue operation that freed the tanker Samho Jewelry from Somali pirates with only one hostage injured? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it 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.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 1 February 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article MV Samho Jewelry, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the South Korean naval vessel Choi Young (pictured) launched a rescue operation that freed the tanker Samho Jewelry from Somali pirates with only one hostage injured? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it 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.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently reviewed your nomination of USCGC Alexander Hamilton (WPG-34) at Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know and have found that there are still outstanding issues. Please review the new comment underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for helping this years April Fools be funny!--Found5dollar (talk) 14:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was thinking of putting Joanna yeates article up for GA. Now I personally think that the article has reached stability. Not another court date until May 4, not trial until October this year. And those event wont I guess have a huge effect on the overall article prose, and even so those events are months away and those changes will be quite few and made properly. I just want to know your opinion. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Her funeral has not even been held yet. The article has developed in a piecemeal fashion and is still at C-class. I would recommend waiting until the plea hearing in May. KimChee (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah,.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I'm afraid I've removed your GA, as the article was nominated last year. Hope you understand. J Milburn (talk) 12:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I had presumed it was okay since the first GA entry was reviewed before mine, but I get it now. KimChee (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's ambiguous and doesn't tell us whether Joran or Radio Nederlands was seeking the interview.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I took another pass at clarification. I am flattered you are still following this. :) KimChee (talk) 13:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Altez who?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 8 February 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Peter M. Rhee, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Peter M. Rhee, one of the first American battlefield surgeons in Afghanistan, was the attending physician of U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords after the shooting in Tucson? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it 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.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 8 February 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cheonghae Unit, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that a South Korean naval unit defended a North Korean ship against Somali pirates? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it 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.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 8 February 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John David Duty, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that John David Duty is the first person to be executed in the United States with pentobarbital, which is commonly used for animal euthanasia? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it 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.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		You've popped up in my watchlist an awful lot... what can I say? You deserve this Egg Centric (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

감사합니다! KimChee (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in this stub, suggested by me and started by user ErrantX. Schenecker double murders.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 12 February 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sugar House Prison (Utah), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that much of the demolition of Sugar House Prison in Utah had to be carried out stone by stone, because dynamite had little effect on its heavy walls? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it 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.

Orlady (talk) 06:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing the hook for Richard Smith (silent film director). I have responded to your comment, at T:TDYK. Please see Template_talk:Did_you_know#Richard_Smith_.28silent_film_director.29. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 07:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 07:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My own Zen garden. Thank you! — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 February 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sugar house prisons (New York), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the British Army used sugar houses in New York City to hold prisoners during the American Revolutionary War? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will help out where I can but unfortunately, I am swamped with work in the real life so I may not be able to do much. You are doing a great job nonetheless, I will try to help out where I can. Remember (talk) 17:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tvoz/talk 19:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi maybe you want to participate in the Afd put on my latest stub for Emilia Carr. I find it strange that it was put on just hours after and for a policy that isnt even relevant ONEEVENT as Emilia Carr is notable in many aspects (in my personal opinion) which I have stated on the afd.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for all the help with the Emilia Carr article. Thanks!--BabbaQ (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The 50 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal
		The D.Y.K. Project thanks you for your many contributions to the Encyclopedia. The Interior (Talk) 17:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! KimChee (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your first post-PR note but failed to reply quickly, then forgot. I looked at the PR just now, and all looks fine. "Overshadowed" is just right. The subtle mention of Condit's wife is just right. The revised "Sentencing and appeals" section looks fine with one possible exception: Susan Levy responded, "Did you really take her life? Look me in my eyes and tell me." before being reminded by Judge Gerald Fisher to address the court and not Guandique directly. The double terminal-period problem arises here because of the nested complete sentences. When this sort of thing pops up in my writing, I usually opt for a work-around. Maybe: Before Judge Gerald Fisher reminded her to address the court and not Grandique directly, Susan Levy responded, "Did you really take her life? Look me in my eyes and tell me." Please let me know when you take this to FAC. I think it's ready. Finetooth (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Just a reminder of the rules; if you have done significant work on content this year and it is promoted in this round, you may claim for it. Also, anything that was promoted after the end of round one but before the beginning of round two may be claimed for in round two. Details of the rules can be found on this page. For those interested in statistics, a running total of claims can be seen here, and a very interesting table of that information (along with the highest scorers in each category) can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Daniel Hernandez Jr. is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Hernandez Jr. until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in joining the current talk page discussion on the Joanna Yeates article as a user has removed all information on Chris Jeffries. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the Afd on Emilia Carr was closed as No Consensus. However I think that the article could need a change in focus and perhaps a namechange as suggested in the Afd. If you feel like it and have the time and interest perhaps you could take a look. To minimize the risk of future re-nominations of the article.Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Joran van der Sloot you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Joran van der Sloot for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment here. Materialscientist (talk) 07:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 15 March 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Emilia Carr, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Emilia Carr is the first woman from Marion County, Florida to be sentenced to death since Aileen Wournos in 1992? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it 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.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, the DYK on Emilia Carr recieved 8,900 views. Could you please add that to the DYKstats. Great.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the time, please check out this article that I have made.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will look when I have a chance, but it may take me a while under present circumstances. KimChee (talk) 10:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my DYK for Linni Meister recieved 13.300 views. Please add to DYKstats, thanks. Really good.--BabbaQ (talk) 05:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have been helped by another user. Thanks anyway.:)--BabbaQ (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are half way through round two of the WikiCup, which will end on 28 April. Of the 64 current contestants, 32 will make it through to the next round; the two highest in each pool, and the 16 next highest scorers. At the time of writing, our current overall leader is Hurricanehink (submissions) with 231 points, who leads Pool H. Piotrus (submissions) (Pool G) also has over 200 points, while 9 others (three of whom are in Pool D) have over 100 points. Remember that certain content (specifically, articles/portals included in at least 20 Wikipedias as of 31 December 2010 or articles which are considered "vital") is worth double points if promoted to good or featured status, or if it appears on the main page in the Did You Know column. There were some articles last round which were eligible for double points, but which were not claimed for. For more details, see Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring.

A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round three is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 01:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 1 April 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Neoregelia 'Dr. Who', which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Dr. Who's parents are Brazilians from a family known for pineapples? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it 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.

The DYK project (nominate) 08:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi,I had to put Colin Hatch first AFD result up for deletion review and it was established that the result somewat wasnt Delete when closed and it was closed prematurely. I have to tell you that I am personally a bit suspicious over the AFD result of the second Colin Hatch AFD result today. First of all it was closed by the same user that closed the first one prematurely and also I am still personally not convinced that the actual "result" should be delete. In my opinion a closing of this AFD should have been handled by someone else than this user once again for the second time, pone could question that users bias or non-bias in the direction of delete or keep. I want your opinion before taking it back to Deletion review. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colin Hatch--BabbaQ (talk) 17:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Round 2 of the 2011 WikiCup is over, and the new round will begin on 1 May. Note that any points scored in the interim (that is, for content promoted or reviews completed on 29-30 April) can be claimed in the next round, but please do not start updating your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. Fewer than a quarter of our original contestants remain; 32 enter round 3, and, in two months' time, only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. Casliber (submissions), who led Pool F, was our round champion, with 411 points, while 7 contestants scored between 200 and 300 points. At the other end of the scale, a score of 41 was high enough to reach round 3; more than five times the score required to reach round 2, and competition will no doubt become tighter now we're approaching the later rounds. Those progressing to round 3 were spread fairly evenly across the pools; 4 progressed from each of pools A, B, E and H, while 3 progressed from both pools C and F. Pools D and G were the most successful; each had 5 contestants advancing.

This round saw our first good topic points this year; congratulations to Hurricanehink (submissions) and Nergaal (submissions) who also led pool H and pool B respectively. However, there remain content types for which no points have yet been scored; featured sounds, featured portals and featured topics. In addition to prizes for leaderboard positions, the WikiCup awards other prizes; for instance, last year, a prize was awarded to Candlewicke (submissions) (who has been eliminated) for his work on In The News. For this reason, working on more unusual content could be even more rewarding than usual!

Sorry this newsletter is going out a little earlier than expected- there is a busy weekend coming up! A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 19:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're half way through round 3 of the 2011 WikiCup. There are currently 32 remaining in the competition, but only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. Casliber (submissions), of pool D, is our overall leader with nearly 200 points, while pools A, B and C are led by Racepacket (submissions), Hurricanehink (submissions) and Canada Hky (submissions) respectively. The score required to reach the next round is 35, though this will no doubt go up significantly as the round progresses. We have a good number of high scorers, but also a considerable number who are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. Also, an important note concerning nominations at featured article candidates: if you are nominating content for which you intend to claim WikiCup points, please make this clear in the nomination statement so that the FAC director and his delegates are aware of the fact.

A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are half way through 2011, and entering the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; the semi-finals are upon us! Points scored in the interim (29/30 June) may be counted towards next round, but please do not update your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. 16 contestants remain, and all have shown dedication to the project to reach this far. Our round leader was Casliber (submissions) who, among other things, successfully passed three articles through featured article candidates and claimed an impressive 29 articles at Did You Know, scoring 555 points. Casliber led pool D. Pool A was led by Wizardman (submissions), claiming points for a featured article, a featured list and seven good article reviews, while pool C was led by Eisfbnore (submissions), who claimed for two good articles, ten articles at Did You Know and four good article reviews. They scored 154 and 118 respectively. Pool B was by far our most competitive pool; six of the eight competitors made it through to round 4, with all of them scoring over 100 points. The pool was led by Hurricanehink (submissions), who claimed for, among other things, three featured articles and five good articles. In addition to the four pool leaders, 12 others (the four second places, and the 8 next highest overall) make up our final 16. The lowest scorer who reached round 4 scored 76 points; a significant increase on the 41 needed to reach round 3. Eight of our semi-finalists scored at least twice as much as this.

No points were awarded this round for featured pictures, good topics or In the News, and no points have been awarded in the whole competition for featured topics, featured portals or featured sounds. Instead, the highest percentage of points has come from good articles. Featured articles, despite their high point cost, are low in number, and so, overall, share a comparable number of points with Did You Know, which are high in number but low in cost. A comparatively small but still considerable number of points come from featured lists and good article reviews, rounding out this round's overall scores.

We would again like to thank Jarry1250 (submissions) and Stone (submissions) for invaluable background work, as well as all of those helping to provide reviews for the articles listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Please do keep using it, and please do help by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup.

Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here, for those interested, though it appears that neither are completely accurate at this time. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Murder on a Horse Trail is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder on a Horse Trail until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:MurderOnAHorseTrail cover.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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 07:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I have nominated 2011 Kosovo–Serbia border clashes for ITN. Please join the discussion.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are half way through the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; there is less than a month to go before we have our final 8. Our pool leaders are Adabow (submissions) (Pool A, 189 points) and PresN (submissions) (Pool B, 165 points). The number of points required to reach the next round is not clear at this time; there are some users who still do not have any recorded points. Please remember to update your submissions' pages promptly. In addition, congratulations to PresN, who scored the first featured topic points in the competition for his work on Thatgamecompany related articles. Most points this round generally have, so far, come from good articles, with only one featured article (White-bellied Sea Eagle, from Casliber (submissions)) and two featured lists (Hugo Award for Best Graphic Story, from PresN and Grammy Award for Best Native American Music Album, from Another Believer (submissions)). Points for Did You Know and good article reviews round out the scoring. No points have been awarded for In the News, good topics or featured pictures this round, and no points for featured sounds or portals have been awarded in the entire competition. On an unrelated note, preparation will be beginning soon for next year's WikiCup- watch this space!

There is little else to be said beyond the usual. Please list anything you need reviewing on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, so others following the WikiCup can help, and please do help if you can by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup- points are, of course, offered for reviews at GAC. Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 11:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		A beer on me!
		Here's a beer for your fine efforts on improving Wikipedia! Cheers! --BabbaQ (talk) 11:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Hyland Edgar Driver has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable organisation.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Christopher Connor (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Hyland Edgar Driver requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about it should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you can assert the notability of the subject, . Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the article's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

See the guidelines for specific types of articles: biographies, websites, bands, or companies. 88.104.39.209 (talk) 13:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your contributions at Talk:Jared_Lee_Loughner/Archive_2#Fair_use_status_of_Pima_County_photo, you may be interested in commenting at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_August_29#File:Jared Loughner sheriff's office.jpg. Thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The finals are upon us; we're down to the last few. One of the eight remaining contestants will be this year's WikiCup champion! 150 was the score needed to progress to the final; just under double the 76 required to reach round 4, and more than triple the 41 required to reach round 3. Our eight finalists are:

• Casliber (submissions), Pool A's winner. Casliber has the highest total score in the competition, with 1528, the bulk of which is made up of 8 featured articles. He has the highest number of total featured articles (8, 1 of which was eligible for double points) and total did you knows (72) of any finalist. Casliber writes mostly on biology, including ornithology, botany and mycology.
• PresN (submissions), Pool B's winner and the highest scorer this round. PresN is the only finalist who has scored featured topic points, and he has gathered an impressive 330, but most of his points come from his 4 featured articles, one of which scored double. PresN writes mostly on video games and the Hugo Awards.
• Hurricanehink (submissions), Pool A's runner-up. Hurricanehink's points are mostly from his 30 good articles, more than any other finalist, and he is also the only finalist to score good topic points. Hurricanehink, as his name suggests, writes mostly on meteorology.
• Wizardman (submissions), Pool B's runner-up. Wizardman has completed 86 good article reviews, more than any other finalist, but most of his points come from his 2 featured articles. Wizardman writes mostly on American sport, especially baseball.
• Miyagawa (submissions), the "fastest loser" (Pool A). Miyagawa has written 3 featured lists, one of which was awarded double points, more than any other finalist, but he was awarded points mostly for his 68 did you knows. Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, including dogs, military history and sport.
• Resolute (submissions), the second "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Resolute's points come from his 9 good articles. He writes mostly on Canadian topics, including ice hockey.
• Yellow Evan (submissions), who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool A). Most of Evan's points come from his 10 good articles, and he writes mostly on meteorology.
• Sp33dyphil (submissions), who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Phil's points come from his 9 good articles, 4 of which (more than any other finalist) were eligible for double points. He writes mostly on aeronautics.

We say goodbye to our seven other semi-finalists, Another Believer (submissions), Piotrus (submissions), Grandiose (submissions), Stone (submissions), Eisfbnore (submissions), Canada Hky (submissions) and MuZemike (submissions). Everyone still in the competition at this stage has done fantastically well, and contributed greatly to Wikipedia. We're on the home straight now, and we will know our winner in two months.

In other news, preparations for next year's competition have begun with a brainstorming thread. Please, feel free to drop by and share any thoughts you have about how the competition should work next year. Sign ups are not yet open, but will be opened in due course. Watch this space. Further, there has been a discussion about the rule whereby those in the WikiCup must delcare their participation when nominating articles at featured article candidates. This has resulted in a bot being created by new featured article delegate Ucucha (talk · contribs). The bot will leave a message on FAC pages if the nominator is a participant in the WikiCup.

A reminder of the rules: any points scored after August 29 may be claimed for the final round, and please remember to update submission pages promptly. If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are on this year's home straight, with less than a month to go until the winner of the 2011 WikiCup will be decided. The fight for first place is currently being contested by Miyagawa (submissions), Hurricanehink (submissions) and Sp33dyphil (submissions), all of whom have over 200 points. This round has already seen multiple featured articles (1991 Atlantic hurricane season from Hurricanehink and Northrop YF-23 from Sp33dyphil) and a double-scoring featured list (Miyagawa's 1948 Summer Olympics medal table). The scores will likely increase far further before the end of the round on October 31 as everyone ups their pace. There is not much more to say- thoughts about next year's competition are welcome on the WikiCup talk page or the scoring talk page, and signups will open once a few things have been sorted out.

If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 12:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello KimChee! 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

The 2011 WikiCup is now over, and our new champion is Hurricanehink (submissions), who joins the exclusive club of the previous winners: Dreamafter (2007), jj137 (2008), Durova (2009) and Sturmvogel_66 (2010). The final standings were as follows:

1. Hurricanehink (submissions)
2. Sp33dyphil (submissions)
3. Yellow Evan (submissions)
4. Miyagawa (submissions)
5. Wizardman (submissions)
6. Casliber (submissions)
7. Resolute (submissions)
8. PresN (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: Casliber (submissions), for his performance in round 2. Hurricanehink (submissions) matched the score, but Casliber won the tiebreaker.
• The Good Article Award: Yellow Evan (submissions), for his performance in round 4.
• The Featured List Award: Miyagawa (submissions), for his performance in round 4. PresN (submissions) matched the score, but Miyagawa won the tiebreaker.
• The Recognised Topic Award (for good and featured topics): PresN (submissions), for his performance in round 3.
• The Did You Know Award: The Bushranger (submissions), for his performance in round 1.
• The In the News Award: Candlewicke (submissions), for his performance in round 1.
• The Reviewer Award (for good article reviews): Wizardman (submissions), for his performance in round 3.

No prize was awarded for featured pictures, sounds or portals, as none were claimed throughout the competition. The awards will be handed out over the next few days. Congratulations to all our participants, and especially our winners; we've all had fun, and Wikipedia has benefitted massively from our content work.

Preparation for next year's WikiCup is ongoing. Interested parties are invited to sign up and participate in our straw polls. It's been a pleasure to work with you all this year, and, whoever's taking part in and running the competition in 2012, we hope to see you all in January! J Milburn and The ed17 00:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was good to have you on board this time around- we hope you enjoyed the competition! In case you are interested, signups for next year are open. Thanks, J Milburn and The ed17 20:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to this and I have been told to submit references. Natassia whos real name is Dominique asked to to write this page for her. If I send you her contact info is that verification? Or can I submit something from her stating she asked me to do tjis? Write this page for her? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rit56 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I responded on your talk page. KimChee (talk) 13:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have userfied the page for you to User:KimChee/Hyland Edgar Driver where you can work on it. The reference you gave is probably enough to get it past the WP:CSD#A7 threshold, but if it is to be kept you will need more to establish notability - see WP:CORP, WP:42, and WP:BFAQ for advice. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! KimChee (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 30 November 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Stan Case, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that CNN Radio news anchor Stan Case was also a licensed attorney in the U.S. state of Georgia? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Stan Case.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it 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.

Orlady (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC) 16:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		★*★*★*★*★*★*★*★* Merry Christmas And Happy New Year 2012 *★*★*★*★*★*★*★*★
		I Wish You And Your Family A Merry Christmas And A Happy New Year 2012. May The New Year Bring Much Happiness, Prosperity, Peace, And Success In Your Life. I Am Very Happy To be Part of Wikipedia And To Have Great Friends Like You. Cheers. - --BabbaQ (talk) 16:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! As you've previously expressed interest in the competition, I'm just letting you know that the 2012 WikiCup is due to start in less than 24 hours. Signups are open, and will remain so for a few weeks after the beginning of the competition. The competition itself will follow basically the same format as last year, with a few small tweaks to point costs to reflect the opinions of the community. If you're interested in taking part, you're more than welcome, and if you know anyone who might be, please let them know too- the more the merrier! To join, simply add your name to Wikipedia:WikiCup/2012 signups, and we will be in touch. Please feel free to direct any questions to me, or leave a note on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! You are receiving this note as you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Please feel free to add or remove yourself. EdwardsBot (talk) 01:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you find any improvements that need to be done on the Oba Chandler article, now after some expansion because of his execution please make them :) Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:07, 15 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 00:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, If you have some time to check out my stub on the Murder of Jane Bashara please do.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:01, 5 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