User talk:Steve Smith/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Re:Advance congrats

Thanks very much! It was actually a lot more fun than I thought it would be. And thanks for your help in the earlier stages of the process! Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 21:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry/vandalism accusations

Hello, Steve. Someone tagged my talk page with a sockpuppetry tag and is making other accusations. Can you help? -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. Someone helped me; thanks anyway. BTW, re: your 2007 edits that concern you, Wikipedia is a learning process. You have learned how to use sources correctly now, and you have examined your old articles to fix any problems. So, I don't see why there should be any further restrictions. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Alison Redford page vandalism

Hi Steve, I understand that you worked with Imparo to set up the original wikipedia pages for Alberta Government MLA's, and I am hoping you can help me out with Alison Redford's page. Someone when to a lot of trouble to post a large amount of slanderous information that simply is libel and innuendo, and none of it is sourced. I have no idea how to report this as vandalism, or change it without wikipedia automatically changing it back? How can we go about getting this information reported as vandalism and changed to what it was before? --Thanks --Eldonm (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC).

Creating new Wiki pages

Hi Steve-

Have a quick question for you. If in the future I wanted to create a new wiki page from scratch, how do I go about doing that since there would be no site editor assigned yet? Let me know, thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julianyc (talk • contribs) 18:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Advice on getting format consensus?

Care to give me some advice here? Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Derek Smart request

Sorry for the late reply. I just responded to your question at the amendment forum. Cla68 (talk) 00:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Pedro II of Brazil

If you have time, we are looking for peer reviews of the Pedro II of Brazil article. Looking to take this to FA, and would appreciate suggestions. • Astynax ^talk 09:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Derek Smart Request for Amendment case

Hello there! I was reading your exchange with Bill Huffman in the Derek Smart amendment case, and I found myself struck curious. Might I ask, when you mention comments about unaccredited post-secondary institutions being neither here nor there, the comment seems to be focused on Bill Huffman, but his only comments in that regard were to Cla68, and not the council, if my reading is correct. Were you perhaps talking to Cla68? I believe I now understand your reference! Pardon, just didn't click until after I hit save here. :) I left a related comment on the amendment page! 72.192.46.9 (talk) 10:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Recuse: why?

I'm sure you have a good reason for [1] but I've no idea what it is. Is is supposed to be public knowledge? If you care to explain, I for one would be interested to know why William M. Connolley (talk) 22:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I find myself wondering the same thing. I think you should reconsider, Steve. Your perspective will be helpful. ++Lar: t/c 16:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

AN

Sigh. I agree with your comment that the community should be able to figure out how to tag AN's page; unfortunately those who jumped into the fray with the most zeal were perhaps not the ideal ones to do so. As an uninvolved observer, I tried to help out a bit hamhandedly (note on talk page) but don't seem to have accomplished much. While it should be unnecessary, I wonder if you, someone else on Arbcom, or an Arbcom clerk might want to impose an officially-sanctioned neutrally worded solution. My own personal read would be that it's also time to close off discussion on the noticeboard talk page as well, but I'm sure opinions vary on that. All the best, Martinp (talk) 03:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement on plagiarism

Some time ago, I learned that my article work, along with that of other arbitrators, was becoming the subject of scrutiny. In my case, this scrutiny apparently took the form of an automated comparison of some of my articles to the online sources they cited. This analysis was prone to false positives, and indeed the article of mine that it highlighted as a concern - Ken Allred - was one. However, this prompted me to look at some of other early article work, much of it consisting of biographies of municipal councillors of dubious notability, usually for the first time in years. I was shocked by what I found: I had engaged in rampant plagirarism, and in a few cases had even copied content so exactly that I believe that I was violating the source's copyright. For an example of the problem, compare the second paragraph of this revision to the source material here.

I have trouble putting myself in my 2007 shoes. I was certainly not deliberately plagiarising, but I'm not sure whether I did not notice the extent to which I was copying the source material or whether I did notice but did not see it as problematic; both possibilities seem equally implausible to me, but the question may well be immaterial.

My reaction upon discovering this was that I no longer had the moral authority to serve as as arbitrator, and I immediately announced my resignation to the Committee. Since then, I have been persuaded that this is not necessarily the case; I overcame a problem that I didn't realize that I had, and this is now in the relatively distant past. I have checked my more recent work, including my featured content work, against the (mostly offline) sources, and I am confident that the problem did not persist.

I would welcome discussion on the subject and very open to having my mind changed back (whether by weight of argument or weight of sentiment), but currently plan to resume activity as an arbitrator in short order (concurrent with fixing my old articles).

My sincerest apologies. Steve Smith (talk) 23:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

You are admitting a problem and attempting to rectify it. Further, have acknowledged it is a serious issue. And also, appropriately noted that it is something from 2007. The response seems adequate. -- Cirt (talk) 23:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

We all make mistakes, and if you've noticed yours and are committed to fixing them, I don't see what the issue is :) I know I've had to take another look at old articles of mine and clean them up for various problems (this in the FAs, even.) It happens. (but if you want to go back in time and stop younger you from plagiarizing, I've got a sentient computer that could make it happen). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism is a very serious matter, and in as much as it can amount to copyright violation, places the encyclopædia in legal peril. That said, you have taken action to identify, admit, and correct the problem, and that is highly commendable and to be encouraged. I would, however, suggest that until you and others are confident that any outstanding articles are fixed, you voluntarily refrain from using admin tools, or acting in Arbcom cases, where suggestions of plagiarism are involved - simply as a matter of "good form". Well done for taking the initiative to review your own contributions. DuncanHill (talk) 23:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

DuncanHill (talk · contribs) makes a good point here. -- Cirt (talk) 23:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this serves as a good object lesson in the value of going back and checking over our past works, as I doubt you are unique in being placed in this situation. I know my early work is crap compared to what I can do now, and while I have never knowingly plagiarized a work, there have been a couple of occasions where I have been alerted to the fact that I might have inadvertently paraphrased a source too closely. In some cases, I disagreed with the assessment, in one (at least), I agreed and corrected myself.

You could have quietly fixed this yourself, and likely nobody would know. That you are willing to stand up, admit to it and work to fix it reveals a moral character that is much higher than most here, I think. You were a fine candidate to sit on ArbCom when elected, and just as fine one today, imnsho. Resolute 01:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Your statement makes me more confident in you now than ever. Sole Soul (talk) 04:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

This kind of behavior is expected of Steve Smith, and I mean the acknowledgment of an error and immediately stating so. This is an editor, administrator and an arbitrator with the best ethics I've seen in quite some time. I think the suggestions above are good but I applaud you for your brave announcement and your honorable and ethical behavior. You still have my support. --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Well that is all well and good but a similar situation arose with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations/FlyingToaster and she gave up her Adminship and later requester it back and was refused and she also requested the investigation be removed and that was also refused. Just saying it looks like a very similar case. Off2riorob (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, there's a large difference between current and ongoing efforts, and things from three years ago. not to mention the fact that Steve is fixing his own mistake (from a day where we weren't so hypersensitive to plagarism) without being forced to by the community. If he had just gone on and fixed the requisite articles quietly without saying something, would anyone have really noticed? SirFozzie (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps not, editors in positions of power here are under the utmost scrutiny. As it has been highlighted, it is not a major issue imo, why not start a RFC to see how much support there is for replacing the Arb status. Off2riorob (talk) 22:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Just by way of interim response (by all means continue this discussion): thanks for the kind words. I think that Duncan's point regarding plagiarism is an excellent one, and will not participate in any findings regarding plagiarism for the remainder I term (but will participate in cases where plagiarism is an issue, provided that it is not the primary one). Rob's comment is also well-taken; I will need to familiarize myself with the Flying Toaster case before commenting further on it. Steve Smith (talk) 22:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I've familiarized myself with the FlyingToaster incident, and I think there are some strong parallels. I think both of us engaged in comparable levels of plagiarism. The two differences I see are that i. FlyingToaster cited her articles in support of her RFA, when the only articles I cited in support of my ArbCom election were my (non-plagiarized) FAs, ii. at the time of her RFA, her plagiarism was recent, where at the time of my ArbCom election my plagiarism was not. Take those for what they're worth; if there's a strong sentiment that I should resign from ArbCom over this (and if you feel that my single post on WP:AN did not draw sufficient attention to this, please do post elsewhere—I'll waive the co-certifier requirement for an WP:RFC/U—I'll do so cheerfully enough. Steve Smith (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, my limited understanding is that Steve is fixed his and FlyingToaster left without fixing the problem. Maurreen (talk) 19:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

"Is fixing" would be more accurate. But when you're writing very short articles from a single, very short, source, as I was then, it is very difficult to do anything but engage in plagiarism of a sort. For example, here is the article on Colin Strang as I wrote it in June 2007. Compare the first paragraph of the "Biography" section (itself rather a silly thing, since the whole article's supposed to be a biography) to Strang's entry here, and you'll see pretty flagrant plagiarism. Here is what I did yesterday to fix it up. The direct copying of passages is gone, but can I really say with any honesty that that paragraph is now my own work? Not really. The lesson, I think, is that WP:N requirement for significant coverage multiple reliable third party sources ought to be taken seriously (wherever one sets that threshold) because if it is not met, it is practically impossible to produce an article that is anything but thinly disguised theft from the original source. Steve Smith (talk) 19:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Add me to those who feel that this is not a big deal; I understand and agree that they should be fixed, but your open response and general character history indicate that this wasn't deliberate or with malign intent. Lacking either of those, identifying the problem, admitting it, and working to fix it are all we should ask of active Wikipedians. Standards have changed and everyone gets a better and wider understanding of copyright and plagiarism the more they work.

Thank you for being open about it; it gives the community a good example of responsible behavior, and a model to encourage others to look at their own contributions, and what to do if we detect goofs.

I don't think you should resign from Arbcom or undergo a RFC/U. You haven't abused our trust; you've strengthened it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

As long as you are cleansing the soul, when can we expect a statement on your being an Oilers fan? ;o) Resolute 02:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's any point in any RFC for the sake of an RFC. This is serving the same purpose. Maurreen (talk) 06:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The earlier plagarisms disturb me but I agree that you are being forthright and this shouldn't need to become a major issue. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

ugh

Ctrl+Alt+Del (webcomic) has been recreated using offline sources to bypass G4, I went to restore the talk page history but it looks like there's a metric tonne of junk in there according to the deletion log. Since you appear to be the man-with-the-plan on this one, can you take a look and get the good talk where it needs to be? –xeno^talk 11:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Note re Lar/Polargeo

The situation between Lar and Polargeo, similar to the situation between Lar and Stephen Shultz is escalating. Here is the sequence of events:

1. Polargeo adds some views to the uninvolved admin section.
2. Lar moves these and adds one of his own views.
3. Polargeo reverts this, accidentally removing Lar's view.
4. Hipocrite returns Lar's view.
5. Lar move's polargeo's view again, and threatens to block Polargeo if he returns his view.

Lar was asked to stop removing views on his talk page and instead take a lower-drama action of noting his problems on the page by me, seconded by Thparkth.

This is rapidly spiriling out of control and needs emergy Arbcom intervention to prevent further disruption. I have asked both Lar and Polargeo to stop. Perhaps the individual who choses to stop first should be rewarded, as opposed to losing by default. Just a thought. Hipocrite (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Kennedy Knott Birthdate

I believe I've solved out little mystery of birth/death dates on Daniel Kennedy Knott. I've found a source [2] stating he was born in 1879 (search up "KNOTT, Daniel Kennedy"). I could be wrong, but this seems likely, as it is an Ontario Birth Record (where Knott was born) and it lists him from Grey County, Ontario (where his hometown, Collingwood used to be in). i've gone ahead and made the change, citing the article above, I was just wondering if you have any particular thoughts on this? Thanks. Connormah (talk | contribs) 04:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've contacted EPL about this and they've corrected it accordingly on their website biography. Thanks again, I'll (hopefully) see you around. Connormah (talk | contribs) 00:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Request that you discuss your rationale at an Arbcom motion

Could you please explain your !vote here? [3] I'm not confortable with your one-word support. Don't remember now what you said about responsiveness during your campaign; you may not have made any sort of pledge to talk more about your actions than previous arbitrators had. Maybe you feel discussion is not necessary in this case; that your vote's merits are obvious. I would still appreciate some talk about it. At its talk page. Novickas (talk) 23:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: R&I workshop

Just a suggestion, but you might want to use a different phrasing than "those adversarial towards Ludwigs2" - maybe just ask for commentary, or single out a few people ask their opinions by name. Mikemikev and Occam are most likely to object on content grounds (this tends to minimize their POV - I don't think the genetic approach is inherently fringe the way Mathsci does, but it is not a position with strong support or strong supporting evidence in the scientific community). Mathsci won't have any real complaints about content, but will likely refuse to acknowledge it simply on the grounds that I wrote it. He may surprise me, but based on past experience I'd predict that he will write and post his own version of the breakdown, with some commentary to the effect that his is superior to mine, and maybe even that it was his idea in the first place (that's happened a good four or five times already - lol).

I swear, I can't win for losing on this article. --Ludwigs2 22:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I think there are enough editors involved that the R&I article will steer its way through choppy waters. I'm still trying to figure out Occam's block with no diffs provided, that seems like an unnecessary escalation someone prompted. Personally I don't care who, there was no current disruption to warrant it and it should be undone. Nothing to do with supporting (or not) anyone's editorial position, just looking to neutralize the adversarial aspects.

   And, personally, the whole mediation thing with Ludwigs2 is a lot of unnecessary wailing and gnashing of teeth. I think it was (in retrospect!) ill-advised to construct such a huge collection of content around which to attempt to gain consensus. Agreeing on anything "large" at R&I is inherently doomed to fail—anyone who steps up to get things organized in this sort of affair inevitably gets shot in the cross-fire. (Been there, done that, at Jogaila no Jagiełło no Jogaila...) Changes are best handled like eating an elephant, a bite at a time. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 14:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Good article reassessment of Ellen Roberts

Ellen Roberts has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. I hope that this is the proper place to note this. I am almost entirely new to Wiki-land, so please let me know if this is an incorrect placement. Thanks.Grassrootsgirl (talk) 04:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Question.

How long does it take for arb to vote on amending a case? Just curious haven't been through this part before. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

We seem to only have three arbs now? Sorry just impatient to see something happen Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Richardson family murders

Kindly refrain from violating the policy against deleting other users' comments without cogent reason. The laws of Canada are irrelevant to my edits because I am not located in Canada, and nor is the Wikimedia Foundation, which is incorporated in the United States. Qemist (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Virginia State Lottery

Many thanks for agreeing to do a GA review of the Virginia State Lottery. I have added more cites to the Virginia Code, and to various newspaper accounts of the executive director's appointment and two lawsuits. However, 9 out of 22 references are to the lottery's website. It appears to be the practice that state lottery articles include a description of each game, so I added the references to the website rather than leave these descriptions unreferenced. One could read WP:SELFPUB #5 as arising out of self-published books or blogs rather than a concern for the official website of a government agency. While I admit that both the Virginia Code and the lottery website are primary sources, I am citing them to support background information rather than "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." I have raised the issue at WP:NORN in the hope of getting more guidance. Again, thank you for all that you do for Wikipedia. Racepacket (talk) 13:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

We are up to 33 footnotes, but I have retained the references to the official website. Racepacket (talk) 08:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Userfy page on Flypp

Hi I had created a page on Flypp which has been deleted. Please userfy this page or send me a copy of it. Thanks Manu.agl (talk) 14:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the help Steve! Since you asked, can you help me put a page on Flypp with unbiased content - just a request - you may choose not to take this any further.

Thanks in advance. Regards, Manu.agl (talk) 07:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Liberal Party of Australia leadership election, 2009/GA1

Hi there - just dropping a note to say I've finished making the changes you have suggested in your GA review for this article. As I've said over on my talk page, thank you very much for such a comprehensive and detailed review. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

PAA Images

Yeah, I've noticed. Probably our fault too. I've had success at WP:GL/PHOTO at removing watermarks, but it's not always easy. I guess they really don't want them used. By the way, did you get a response to that email? Sigh. Connormah (talk | contribs) 14:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured it was that also. That's a damn shame, there are some very encyclopedic images that we can use there. Connormah (talk | contribs) 20:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Need help with another policy violator

Hi. I'm having some difficulty with an editor exhibiting behavior similar to Asgardian. Although his behavior doesn't extend to nearly the level/depth of Asgardian's, the individual behaviors (article ownership, refusal to talk on the talk page, fabricating false accusations and then refusing to provide evidence when asked, distortion and dismissal of others' words and statements, and outright contempt for basic polices) are the same. I don't believe a ban is necessary, but rather, having someone politely inform him that his behavior is unacceptable, would suffice. I just wasn't sure where to make the case. I'm loathe to start a formal ArbCom case on it, but I don't want to go to the Admin Noticeboard either, since I've repeatedly observed in the past that the people there are ineffectual. If I outline the case on the talk page of the disputed article in question, and then invite members of the ArbCom to participate, would that be okay? Please let me know. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 03:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

What is the relationship between that and Wikiquette alerts? Is one better than the other? Nightscream (talk) 01:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Don Murphy

Steve, I see that you have protected Don Murphy. The two accounts who have been reverting it appear to be sockpuppets - the matter is being discussed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ColScott. I don't think the article should be fully protected (certainly not on the current version which wiped out numerous edits made over the last six months); if you can help to resolve the sockpuppet issue speedily that would be helpful. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be an edit war as we'd ordinarily count it. Take a look at the editing history of Jean Santeuil (talk · contribs) and Dave Chaparral (talk · contribs). They were both created during a period of intense disruption of the article, they've both been inactive for a substantial period and judging from the behaviour and edit summaries they're clearly being operated by the same person. The other accounts are just regular editors who have presumably got the article on their watchlists. I know it's kind of a "wrong version" complaint but unfortunately you seem to have given the sockpuppets what they wanted. If you want to protect it while the sockpuppet investigation is underway, might I suggest reverting the last edit? -- ChrisO (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know that the two accounts mentioned above have been blocked as sockpuppets. Could you please unprotect the article per your comment on my talk page? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the very prompt response. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI, another sockpuppet has appeared - Ludwig Beethoven (talk · contribs). I expect it's the same person, and he will probably try to edit war again. The socks are getting past semi-protection by making just enough edits to qualify for autoconfirmation. I've raised a request at WP:RPP for the article to be put under pending changes protection - now that we have that feature it might be worth trying it on this article. Are you able to implement PCP yourself? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocking of User:MacDaid

I hope the blocking of MacDaid was a typo-like mistake. I see no information about this, apart from the "edit"-comment. Nothing on the talk-page or user-page. MacDaid is a very productive and cooperating signature, as far as I can see exactly the kind of editor we want to attract and keep. --Ettrig (talk) 06:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes... what in the world is this? EEng (talk) 22:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Omar al-Bashir Peer Review

Sir,

I am contacting you via the volunteers list to ask for your assistance reviewing this article. al-Bashir, having been recently indicted by the ICC on three counts of genocide, has had his page undergo a flurry of updating and editing and I believe that this article now has the potential to meet the WP:FA criteria. I figured that this article would be of interest to you given your stated focus of political history/theory as well as social science. Thank you in advance for your time, and if for any reason you are unable to participate, I understand. Feel free to contact me at any time and for any reason and I will do my best to respond promptly and in the affirmative. Thank you sir. Cwill151 (talk) 23:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

If you so choose here is a link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwill151 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Dick Ebersol photo

Hi Steve-

There is currently no picture up for Dick's page. Would you like me to send one to you and add? Let me know, would be happy to. Thanks.

Julianyc (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello again- I definitely have a photo you can use... how do we go about this then? Shall I send to you somehow, what kind of file works? Let me know what is the easiest and we can get a photo up there! Thanks.

Julianyc (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Steve- Don't have all of that info handy, do you need it in order to put a photo up? Let me know, if so, I'll ask around... thanks!

Julianyc (talk) 20:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The photo was taken by an NBC photographer, and NBC holds the rights to it. Will that suffice? Let me know and I can send on over, or I'll try uploading it. Thanks!

Julianyc (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Steve- Never heard back from you about the above. Let me know, thanks!

Julianyc (talk) 20:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Your FAC

I see the Brownlee FAC is short on reviewers. You might try reviewing Kentucky gubernatorial election, 1899 (also at FAC) and see if User:Acdixon will do the same for you. Just a thought. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 00:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Replying to your message on my talk page, can you look at my suggestions? RIPGC (talk) 05:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

RfC

If you could drop by and comment at the RfC here, regarding date styles, it'd be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Connormah^talk 00:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Niagara Parks Butterfly Conservatory

Here's a new article I created. Please help improve it. It's also up for DYK for 24 July. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Decision on clarification issue is stalled

Although you have expressed an opinion on the matter, as has Carcharoth, this question of clarification appears to be stalled. Without a decision on this matter, my appeal cannot proceed, as Sandstein has made this a precondition for progress.

Do you anticipate framing a motion to bring this clarification to a conclusion? Thanks for your attention. Brews ohare (talk) 20:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Harrassment

This is a prime example why we get upset over the speed of light issue. [[4]] is a rosey example of hounding and persecution. Kinda funny how he can block when he is knee deep in the. Itas hard to say I'm assuming bad faith when there is multiple statements like [[5]]. In the past Brews advocaters have been blbamed for brews issues but here is what happens when someone doesn't say something. Can you please comment on this? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Need an arbitration hand

Hi. Unfortunately I can't yet edit this page, so I'm asking you for a help in resolving a dispute. I nominated the article for second the time, but the case was closed way too fast (one hour), without even letting anyone to object on such a controversial matter (there are people who are against, it was nominated already so it can be considered as controversial already), and it was closed by the same wikipedian who closed the previous nomination. So I want at least to keep the nomination for another time, so there would enough time to make an objection (I'm myself was late to make it as it was closed already, damn). And it seems that interested persons so immediately took part in it, thus were biased. The previous nominator was warned by me. Dramadeur (talk) 21:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparent SPA, and quacks loudly. Dram -- out of curiosity, given your nom which has been closed as POINTy, and the nature of your five edits, have you ever edited under a prior name or IP address?--Epeefleche (talk) 03:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you stalking me? Why are you asking it in front of an arbitrary? You should have asked it in my page, it's not relevant to ask it here. Anyway, yes this ip belonged to me, when I had gone trough procedures it was revealed that I need an account to leave my "thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page." Dramadeur (talk) 22:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I've indef blocked that account. Fences&Windows 13:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. Kudos.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Note

You seem to be online, so I am making you aware of these procedural notes I made at the appeal. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

As I said in another venue, Jehochman is clearly obsessed with the outcome of the appeal but that's not what I'm concerned about right now - my concern is that an editor, any editor, even the worst/best of editors, should be able to make an appeal to the community without difficulty and excess bureaucracy. While J continues to bully editors (be it below, or when he insists appeals should go directly/only to ArbCom), more heat than light emerges. He's advocated in nearly every discussion concerning Brews on the matter [6] [7] [8] [9] [10], he encouraged an admin to misuse their tools [11], he failed to discuss concerns about this behavior [12], and he responds with unrelated+condescending commentary in response to my active concerns [13] [14]. There are plenty of editors who can identify problem conduct that the subject may be exhibiting, and have done so on important occasions (myself included), and that isn't going to change. However, I don't think his participation is beneficial when it goes towards intimidating editors or making them feel that they are being treated unfairly, especially when contrary to what he or Stifle insists, appeals in this are not limited to ArbCom. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC) P.S. I may have misinterpreted a bit of your response on my talk earlier - I apologise for the occasions where that is apparent. It's sometimes not easy to convey that one is trying to argue for keeping the principles in tact.

Camel's nose

In my experience, one sign of a disruptive editor is that if you give any leniency, they take full advantage of it to resume their agenda. You may need to rethink the matter of Brews, Count Iblis, and Hell in a Bucket. I see no signs of comprehension or compromise. They have an agenda, and are taking full advantage of whatever cover anybody provides. Now Ncmvocalist has gotten into the picture, which inevitably will complicate the dispute. Jehochman ^Talk 10:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

i'm very much interested in what is problematic by the questions Iblis or myself have made. Iblis is always civil from what I've seen, I'm not but in this case I have not cursed at anyone, called them nazis or the like. All Iblis and myself have done is question Jehochmans invovled sts and asked him to step aside from making blocking decisions because he has a clear and announced belief what should happen and does not seem willing to agf in the slightest. I again call upon Jehochman to back up his claims we are disrupting things, I've asked four or five times and he refuses to answer. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

unable to engage with Wikipedia as it is, rather than as he believes it should be

Hi Steve:

The header is your comment about my capacities on WP as stated in the Speed of light appeal. I'd like you to explore this matter further, to see whether you really see things differently than I do.

My view is that I talked about matters beyond the willingness of other editors to continue, so they sought administrative action to terminate discussion. One might sympathize with their view. If so, the question is what to do about it.

I think an effective remedy is a sanction to govern my Talk page behavior. The idea is to propose that when a thread is prolonged beyond endurance, the engaged editors can simply tell me that they are going to invoke this sanction unless I pack it up.

That seems to me to be a perfectly effective approach to the problem. I'd say that I'd be nuts not to accept that motion on the part of the involved editors, and desist.

The remedies proposed instead appear to me to miss the point that this is about behavior control, not about technical exchanges on a particular topic. What is worse, they open the door to a type of generalized harassment that I have experienced before that, frankly, I do not wish to operate under. The "uninvolved administrator" approach simply doesn't work, and leads to crazy actions that cannot be overturned.

What do you think about this? Brews ohare (talk) 18:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure that I understand what you're proposing. In crude terms, is it that editors discussing something with you on a talk page can require you to shut up at any time? If so, what would be the effect on subsequent article editing? If your participation in the D of WP:BRD is curtailed, surely that would remove you entirely from the editorial process on whatever issue was under contention? Some elaboration would be helpful, including, for additional clarity, your proposed wording of such a sanction, if you have one. For what it's worth, I do agree that the uninvolved administrator approach is not ideal; I have been sort of waiting for a test case to replace "uninvolved administrators" with "the following X administrators:", who would be chosen in consultation with the parties. Among other advantages, that would provide some amount of accountability (one of the issues with current arbitration enforcement is that it is necessarily the more sanction-happy admins who impose sanctions) as well as a built in appeal route (if X=3, then sanctions issued by one of the admins would be appealable to the other two, for example).

So I'm certainly open to alternative approaches. But I remain concerned that your view of Wikipedia is in many respects at odds with what Wikipedia actually is. One of the things that persuaded me of that actually has nothing to do with physics: in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator abuse on Wikipedia proposed a course of action that, in my view, is so far outside of Wikipedia's role that I had to reread it several times to make sure I was understanding it right.

You've provided your real life identity and credentials, which I admire (I've emulated this approach so far as I am able, but I basically don't have any credentials). If everybody did that, then perhaps it would be more feasible for people to throw their own analyses into articles, subject to the review and critique of others - sort of the way things work in genuine scholarship. Wikipedia is not genuine scholarship, and as long as we have anonymous nobodies editing articles, a strict reliance on secondary sources is vital if for no other reason than as a dispute resolution mechanism, and an easy means to end debate when anonymous nobodies (or, for that matter, nobodies who are open about their identities, a category in which I place myself) add patent nonsense to articles. Steve Smith (talk) 03:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Steve: You have understood me correctly: for example, in the Centrifugal force article, DVdm and Balckburne could say simply (as they did): We think that your contribution is WP:OR and we don't want to discuss it. If you do, we will exercise the existing remedy and ask that you be banned from this article for a week (or whatever the penalty is). I would be shut out of all discussion simply because they felt that way, whether they had any reason or not.

I would prefer that approach because my experience is that this is what happens anyway, only after a prolonged ArbCom or AN/I hearing that never gets anything straight anyhow.

I get the idea that you think I am intruding my own analyses into WP. Perhaps you think the Speed of light and the Centrifugal force pages are examples of this. I don't think so. I think the dropping bird, for example, is not one that I've found in a text, but it is so very, very obviously an illustration of the principles cited that some editors called it wordy, some called it obvious and some called it tedious. DVdm and Blackburne called it WP:OR. Obviously they are all wet. However, to avoid this kind of stupid back and forth I am proposing that I just get cut off at the knees rather than let me indulge my fantasies that the obvious can be driven home if only the right question or the right words or the right source be found.

It may be that DVdm and Blackburne will follow me about and shut me up whenever I appear. If that happens, of course I will simply depart WP altogether. I am on the verge of that anyway. Brews ohare (talk) 07:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Matthew McCauley

I'm looking to maybe do an expansion of Matthew McCauley maybe sometime before the end of this year - do you possibly have any sources that could help out? I'm ultimately looking to achieve GA status (if possible) - but I don't really have any sufficient sources. Out of curiosity, what is your current FA drive? Could McCauley be the first Edmonton mayor to make FA? :) McDougall could also be another to consider improvements, I'll see what I can do. BTW, Bryan Anderson (politician) is currently at AfD, FWIW. comments added 00:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC) Thanks. Connormah 18:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Possible evasion of ban by User:NYScholar

I have started a thread at Possible evasion of ban by User:NYScholar, which you may be interested in. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Consensus building

I know I'm not seen as the most co-operative Wikipedian. However, I'm beginning to wonder if there's any possibility of exploring common ground and seeing if there's any way to build coalition behind some modest agreements. I've set out my thoughts at User:Scott MacDonald/Pragmatic BLP. I'm thinking to invite some thinking people who radically disagree with me, and see what's possible. Do you think this has any merit?--Scott Mac 10:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

You're so unpredictable

;-)

Best of luck wherever life is taking you. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

My first thought is "congratulations on your escape". :-) Really, I'm sorry to see you go, but respect your decision. Do more good stuff for Wikipedia when you can! Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for the time and effort you spent with ArbCom this past year. Cla68 (talk) 12:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

You're not leaving the project for good, are you? :( /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Independent Greens of Virginia

You have a previous edit on this article or its discussion, so FYI: Talk:Independent Greens of Virginia#Material by editor "PonchoChet". Let's try to make the article better. -Colfer2 (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Steve Smith,
in case you are passing by, please check your upload File:Don Iveson cropped.JPG as it has been tagged for deletion due to missing source and permission. --Túrelio (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on February 10, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 10, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 20:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Herbert Greenfield (1869–1949) was a Canadian politician who served as the fourth Premier of Alberta from 1921 until 1925. Born in Winchester, England, he emigrated to Canada in his late twenties, settling first in Ontario and then in Alberta, where he farmed. He soon became involved in the United Farmers of Alberta (UFA), a farmers' lobby organization that was in the process of becoming a political party, eventually becoming the organization's first vice president. Though he did not run in the 1921 provincial election, the first in which the UFA fielded candidates, Greenfield was the party's eventual choice to serve as Premier when the UFA won a majority of the seats that year. Like most of the UFA caucus, Greenfield had no experience in government and he struggled in the position. Despite this, his time as Premier saw the eventual elimination of the provincial deficit, substantial progress in negotiating the transfer of natural resource rights from the federal government, and the creation of the Alberta Wheat Pool. By 1924, many UFA Members of the Legislative Assembly wanted to see Greenfield leave office, both because they were frustrated with his failings and because they thought it likely that a Greenfield-led government would be defeated in the next election. In 1925, they persuaded Greenfield to resign in favor of John E. Brownlee. He died in 1949 at the age of 79. (more...)

Deletion review for Michael Crook

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Michael Crook. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Afterthetruth (talk) 20:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Overdue

		The Featured Article Medal
		Steve, given the number of featured articles you have created. This appears to be overdue. Well done. MrMedal (talk) 15:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance (2)

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on July 1, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 1, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article directors Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

John Edward Brownlee served as Attorney-General of the province of Alberta in western Canada from 1921 until 1926, in the United Farmers of Alberta (UFA) government of Herbert Greenfield. As Brownlee was the only lawyer in a caucus formed almost entirely of farmers, his role extended beyond the traditional expectations of an attorney-general; he became the government's de facto leader in the Legislative Assembly of Alberta. Brownlee quickly became identified with the government's conservative faction. He opposed radical changes to the structure of government and urged thrift in public spending. As part of the government's attempts to balance its budget, Brownlee favoured selling its money-losing railways and concluding an agreement with the federal government to give Alberta control over its natural resources; he was unsuccessful at both while Attorney-General. UFA Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) began to see Brownlee as a better leader than the indecisive Greenfield. A group of them attempted to force Greenfield to resign in Brownlee's favour. Though Brownlee opposed these attempts, he was eventually persuaded to accept the premiership if Greenfield willingly relinquished it. Brownlee became premier on November 23, 1925. (more...)

Great stuff, on all the Brownlee articles. I'd suggest you might even consider nominating the four articles you've written for Wikipedia:Featured topics. While somewhat pointless, it's a way to acknowledge that indeed a whole series of related articles are up to such a high standard. -- Zanimum (talk) 00:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Congrats on yet another featured article! DemonicPartyHat(contact) 07:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harold Pinter/archive1

Hi Steve, as someone who has previously been involved in this article, I would appreciate comments on the prose, timriley is about to check verifiability of sourcing. Cheers. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

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

SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Recovery of Jana Irrova article

I saw you removed in two times the article on Jana Irrova for the "lack of significance" which looks strange to me. Just look to this document. Can you please send me the backup of the article. I would like to review it for a possible reposting once we clean the issues. Many thanks. HectorBalzac (talk) 05:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back

Nice to see you back again. – Connormah (talk) 17:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Was waiting for this :) - don't really have time to death with the GA stuff now, school is making me crazy busy. – Connormah (talk) 03:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh good! I won't be the only one writing Alberta-related GAs and FAs anymore! Welcome back! Resolute 03:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

So, how long until our (ugh) new premier Alison Redford's article gets some upgrades? ;) – Connormah (talk) 05:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Charles Stewart (Canadian politician)

This is a note to let the main editors of Charles Stewart (Canadian politician) know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on December 30, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 30, 2011. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Charles Stewart (1868–1946) was a Canadian politician who served as the third Premier of Alberta from 1917 until 1921. As Premier, Stewart tried to hold together his Liberal Party, which was divided by the Conscription Crisis of 1917. He endeavored to enforce prohibition, which had been enshrined in law by a referendum during Sifton's premiership, but found that the law was not widely enough supported to be effectively policed. His government took over several of the province's financially troubled railroads, and guaranteed bonds sold to fund irrigation projects. Several of these policies were the result of lobbying by the United Farmers of Alberta (UFA), with which Stewart enjoyed good relations; even so, the UFA was politicized during Stewart's premiership and ran candidates in the 1921 election. Unable to match the UFA's appeal to rural voters, Stewart's government was defeated at the polls and he resigned as premier. After leaving provincial politics, Stewart was invited to join the federal cabinet of William Lyon Mackenzie King, in which he served as Minister of the Interior and Mines. He served in King's cabinet until 1930, when the King government was defeated; in 1935, so too was Stewart. He died in December 1946 in Ottawa. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Steve Smith,

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

So a few things about the interviews:

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

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

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

MSU Interview

Dear Steve Smith,

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

So a few things about the interviews:

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.9.115.210 (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Princess Theatre (Edmonton)

Thanks for taking the time to rate Princess Theatre (Edmonton)! As someone with an interest in this subject, I was wondering whether you could elucidate what specific areas you thought needed improvement in order to reach GA or A status, as I will be working on the article in the future.

When gathering the original material, I took great pains to make sure the images used were properly licensed, and that the facts were properly cited and verifiable, and I see that even since publishing last night, several edits have been made to clean up minor details of style such as caption and heading formatting.

Thanks again for your help,

--Rawlangs (talk) 14:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Albert Fee

Would you happen to have The social credit movement in Alberta (1959), by John A. Irving [15]? I have a strange urge to possibly expand the article on Fee and this seems to be the only bio out there. – Connormah (talk) 03:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Would you happen to have a copier handy? Maybe you could copy/scan the pages it and send them to me? I'm really busy with school now so I probably can't come and pick it up. Let me know what works best (by the way, does the include a date of death?). Thanks! – Connormah (talk) 04:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. No DOD I guess rules out my assumption of a 1957 death date based on an obituary listing...I'll have to check that obit out to see if it is him along with gather some more sources from the Legislature Library/Edmonton Archives for this, I guess. You can send the to cmahh@shaw.ca. Thanks so much. – Connormah (talk) 04:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Does the book happen to reference Isaac McCune, Herbert Ingrey or Herbert Ash (all 1935 Socred elected MLAs) also? I'd also possibly be interested if there's any bios on these too if I decide to do some writing. Thanks. – Connormah (talk) 04:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Could you also scan the Ingrey pages as well? Thanks. – Connormah (talk) 13:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

If you like correcting prose......

Welcome back - FAC is suffering from lack of prose-groomers, so any finessing of wordcraft of any FAC that piques your interest to read will be much appreciated. I only notice as you've slotted in yer FAC after mine. Interesting user page dialogue..... (chuckle) Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Steve Smith. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 22:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Spotchecking Bankers' Toadies incident

Hi, could you email me some scans, particularly of Elliot and Barr (perhaps some of Mallory, too) so I can perform spotchecks on this article? I read it through and it seems like excellent writing, but I'm no expert at that and thus feel unqualified in supporting without doing my part; namely, aformentioned spotchecks. Thank you, Clay^Clay_Clay 05:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure, how about Barr 109-110; Elliott 198, 274, and 276; and Mallory 82-83? I'll send you my email address through email. Clay^Clay_Clay 06:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Diego von Bergen/GA1

Hi, no comments since 8 April. Do you plan to continue this review? Jezhotwells (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

If Steve can't finish, or doesn't respond in a day or two, ping me. I'll pick up the review in his stead. Resolute 20:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Peer review request

Hi Steve:

You're probably busy with your day job, but I was wondering if I could get your feedback on the Alexa McDonough article. I've listed this article for peer review because the article is stable, seems to be stuck at B-level, and I would like to get it to at least a Good-level article, in preparation for a Feature-level article. Looking for comments on tone, style, and anything else that needs fixing. Thanks, Abebenjoe (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. It is regarding unvanishing ScienceApologist. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:LYNCH listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:LYNCH. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:LYNCH redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Freedom of speech = New WikiProject

• WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech

Hi there, I'm notifying you as I noticed your excellent work on the Featured Quality article, Accurate News and Information Act. I've recently gone ahead and created WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:

1. List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech#Participants.
2. Add userbox {{User Freedom of speech}} to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
3. Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}}.
4. Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
5. Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Alberta Liberal Party/meta/shortname

A tag has been placed on Template:Alberta Liberal Party/meta/shortname requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Better Education Association/row

A tag has been placed on Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Better Education Association/row requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Better Education Association

A tag has been placed on Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Better Education Association requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Quality Education Council/row

A tag has been placed on Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Quality Education Council/row requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Quality Education Council

A tag has been placed on Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Quality Education Council requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Citizens Council/row

A tag has been placed on Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Citizens Council/row requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Citizens Council

A tag has been placed on Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Citizens Council requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Edmonton League for Socialist Action/row

A tag has been placed on Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Edmonton League for Socialist Action/row requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Edmonton League for Socialist Action

A tag has been placed on Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Edmonton League for Socialist Action requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Revolutionary Workers League/row

A tag has been placed on Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Revolutionary Workers League/row requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Revolutionary Workers League

A tag has been placed on Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Revolutionary Workers League requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Better Civic Government Committee/row

A tag has been placed on Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Better Civic Government Committee/row requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Better Civic Government Committee

A tag has been placed on Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Better Civic Government Committee requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Civic Reform Association (Edmonton)/row

A tag has been placed on Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Civic Reform Association (Edmonton)/row requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Civic Reform Association (Edmonton)

A tag has been placed on Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Civic Reform Association (Edmonton) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Civic Rights Protective Association/row

A tag has been placed on Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Civic Rights Protective Association/row requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Civic Rights Protective Association

A tag has been placed on Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Civic Rights Protective Association requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Civil Rights Association/row

A tag has been placed on Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Civil Rights Association/row requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Civil Rights Association

A tag has been placed on Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Civil Rights Association requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Edmonton Civic Government Association

A tag has been placed on Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Edmonton Civic Government Association requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Urban Reform Group Edmonton/row

A tag has been placed on Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Urban Reform Group Edmonton/row requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Urban Reform Group Edmonton

A tag has been placed on Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Urban Reform Group Edmonton requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Canadian politics/party colours/League of Edmonton Electors/row

A tag has been placed on Template:Canadian politics/party colours/League of Edmonton Electors/row requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Canadian politics/party colours/League of Edmonton Electors

A tag has been placed on Template:Canadian politics/party colours/League of Edmonton Electors requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Separate Schools Voters Association/row

A tag has been placed on Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Separate Schools Voters Association/row requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Separate Schools Voters Association

A tag has been placed on Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Separate Schools Voters Association requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Citizens' Committee (Edmonton)/row

A tag has been placed on Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Citizens' Committee (Edmonton)/row requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Citizens' Committee (Edmonton)

A tag has been placed on Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Citizens' Committee (Edmonton) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Civic Government Association/row

A tag has been placed on Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Civic Government Association/row requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Civic Government Association

A tag has been placed on Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Civic Government Association requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Responsible Citizens Committee

A tag has been placed on Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Responsible Citizens Committee requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Civic Reform Committee (Edmonton)

A tag has been placed on Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Civic Reform Committee (Edmonton) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Civic Reform Committee (Edmonton)/row

A tag has been placed on Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Civic Reform Committee (Edmonton)/row requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Edmonton Property Owners Association/row

A tag has been placed on Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Edmonton Property Owners Association/row requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Edmonton Property Owners Association

A tag has been placed on Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Edmonton Property Owners Association requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Edmonton Voters Association/row

A tag has been placed on Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Edmonton Voters Association/row requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Edmonton Voters Association

A tag has been placed on Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Edmonton Voters Association requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Canadian politics/party colours/United Voters Association/row

A tag has been placed on Template:Canadian politics/party colours/United Voters Association/row requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Canadian politics/party colours/United Voters Association

A tag has been placed on Template:Canadian politics/party colours/United Voters Association requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre

Hello! Now, some of you might have already received a similar message a little while ago regarding the Recruitment Centre, so if you have, there is no need to read the rest of this. This message is directed to users who have reviewed over 15 Good article nominations and are not part of WikiProject Good articles (the first message I sent out went to only WikiProject members). So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers: Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with (at the time this message was sent out, 2 recruiters have volunteered), the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available". Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497). Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along. A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk) This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 14:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Francis Nash FAC

Steve, I believe I have responded in full to your comments over at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Francis Nash/archive1. If you wouldn't mind stopping by and letting me know if you see anything left to correct or giving me further comments, I would sincerely appreciate it! Cdtew (talk) 16:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Having just come off editing a couple of things around Social Credit, I just wanted to say I've seen your work with articles like the ones on Strom and the backbenchers' revolt. In fact, I can see you've done an awful lot of great work on Alberta political history. Just wanted to pop by and say thank you. I've really found alot of them great reads and really interesting. In fact, here's a barnstar in recognition of your work:

		The Original Barnstar
		For your sterling work on developing articles about Alberta political history, including getting several to FA Redverton (talk) 16:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Btw, have you ever thought about developing the article on Ernest Manning? I only ask because I've just got off reading Brian Brennan's biography of him. Redverton (talk) 16:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I hope one day you'll be able to complete the article on Aberhart - looking at what you've done so far, it would certainly make a fascinating read. In an ideal world, I'd really be looking forward to the articles on Lougheed and Klein, but I suppose that would really take you getting back into Wikipedia in a big way. Since you seem to be whizz on publications on Alberta political history, even if you say you're not so well-versed on what's come out lately, I was wondering if you have any recommendations for reading material on Lougheed? I'm really eager to learn more about him. You'd certainly hope that if Manning could get someone to write a biography on him, Lougheed is surely as deserving. Redverton (talk) 00:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Sesame Workshop FAC

Hi Steve, I'm engaged your comments at this FAC [16], and you said that you'd review more, so I'm pinging you here. I've had a lot of experience at FAC, and this it the first time I've heard it stated thus. I like it, though, and may use it mineself! At any rate, thanks for your review thus far. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Steve, no response from you, but I'm still interested in getting more feedback at this FAC before it fails from lack of response. So I will ping you again: Ping! ;) Hope all is well. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Alexander Cameron Rutherford

This is a note to let the main editors of Alexander Cameron Rutherford know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on July 8, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at present, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 8, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Alexander Cameron Rutherford (1857–1941) was a Canadian lawyer and politician who served as the first Premier of Alberta from 1905 to 1910. He began his political career in the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories. When the province of Alberta was created, Rutherford was asked to form its first government, and then won the 1905 election. The apparatus of provincial government was established under Rutherford, and Edmonton was controversially selected as Alberta's capital over Calgary. The government faced labour unrest in the coal mining industry, and established a commission to examine the problem. It also tried to encourage the development of new railways. Early in 1910, William Henry Cushing's resignation as Minister of Public Works precipitated the Alberta and Great Waterways Railway scandal, which turned many of Rutherford's Liberals against his government. He was forced to resign. He later became chancellor of the University of Alberta, whose earlier founding had been a personal project. A University of Alberta library, an Edmonton elementary school, and Mount Rutherford are named in his honour. His home, Rutherford House, is now a museum. (Full article...)

You (and your talk-page stalkers) may also be interested to hear that there have been some changes at the TFA requests page recently. Nominators no longer need to calculate how many "points" an article has, the instructions have been simplified, and there's a new nomination system using templates based on those used for DYK suggestions. Please consider nominating another article, or commenting on an existing nomination, and leaving some feedback on your experience. Thank you. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Precious

Alberta politicians
Thank you, Steve, practising the law of expending a "great deal of intellectual energy" on (almost) nothing but content, for quality articles on Alberta politicians such as Alexander Cameron Rutherford and Premiership of John Edward Brownlee, for replacing red links by stubs and creating articles on historic Edmonton elections, for "I can safely say that this article isn't a waste of FAC reviewers' time", - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (27 December 2010)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Another Sesame Street FAC

Hi Steve, since you reviewed my previous FAC, would you mind taking a look at this one: [17]? For some reason, my FACs tend to languish, so I ask folks to review so that they don't fail for lack of response. I'd really appreciate it, thanks. Hope your summer is going well. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Your work is quite appreciable. So, a bowl of appreciation is for you. Hoping you are enjoying healthy life. Alexandar Nicole (talk) 12:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

No Answer to Warning

[18] I will summarize my problems. If you want evidence, then I will put it on a noticeboard, because you can find it here.

1. He voted in an offensive manner without a reason.
2. He insisted on being offensive with a reversion.
3. He deleted my first warning from hiz old messajez.
4. One of his friends insisted on hiz offense with a reversion.
5. He referred me to a guideline that does not tell me to do anything differently from what I did.
6. He seems to think that deleting warnings is a good idea.
7. He did not answer my warnings.

Please answer on my talk page. It iz faster that way, because I do not need to poll your page, or even know that you are awake. If I do poll your page, and I am on a different IP#, then I can look closely at colours. Also, I get one piece of spam every three months or so, and it's not because of filters. Bohgosity BumaskiL 75.152.119.10 (talk) 12:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Global account

Hi Steve Smith! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to ping me with {{ping|DerHexer}}. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 01:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Realtors

Please see Category:Realtors for discussion on renaming Hugo999 (talk) 00:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 26, 2015

A summary of a Featured Article you nominated at WP:FAC will appear on the Main Page soon. It mostly follows the lead section; how does it look? - Dank (push to talk) 02:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that one! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Precious again

Alberta politicians
Thank you, Steve, practising the law of expending a "great deal of intellectual energy" on (almost) nothing but content, for quality articles on Alberta politicians such as Alexander Cameron Rutherford and Premiership of John Edward Brownlee, for replacing red links by stubs and creating articles on historic Edmonton elections, for "I can safely say that this article isn't a waste of FAC reviewers' time", - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (27 December 2010)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 910th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Two years ago, you were recipient no. 910 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Steve Smith. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Steve Smith.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Steve Smith. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Nolan2007.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Nolan2007.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Steve Smith. There's something on the file's page which says "Copyright holder (Nolan Crouse) releases image under GFDL", but there's no link to anything online or to any email sent to OTRS which allows this to be verified. How do you know that permission has been given to license this file as such? -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Iran copyright

Template:Iran copyright has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Precious three years!

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Help

Could you please look into SubRE's editing history, he is vandalising pages I've created and it all seems fishy, my full real details social networking profiles and phone number will be given to you if asked Asouko (talk) 10:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Steve Smith. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of flags by number of colors (2nd nomination)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of flags by number of colors (2nd nomination). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Ad Orientem (talk) 19:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Request delete article to userspace

Could I please have the deleted National APIA Panhellenic Association copied to User:Naraht/National APIA Panhellenic Association, thank you. I think http://www.insightintodiversity.com/wp-content/media/digitalissues/march2018/index.html and https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=102233763 may be enough to hang it on.Naraht (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

afd for Sun plaza park

hey admin, not the usual drv post. I'll say it's a good close. what I desired anyway.Quek157 (talk) 07:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Aliza Shvarts

I wish that you had let this one run for a second week. Not merely because the very questionable identity of Nom (a single-purpose account;) but because - despite the fact that both article and AfD were buried under a blizzard of BLUDGEONING, in the last few days a series of experienced editors had taken the time to read it and argued for merging.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• There were 4 iVotes to keep (unless we count an IP that edited only on this AFD, and the unusual Nom (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aliza Shvarts (2nd nomination)) who is also an SPA. There were 4 ivotes to merge or redirect, the direction in which the discussion was trending. as I said, a second week would have appropriate.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

A second week may well have been appropriate, though I don't think it was mandated. My count of seven !votes did include both the nominator and the I.P. Besides that, I counted Randy Kryn (talk · contribs), Nanophosis (talk · contribs), Vexations (talk · contribs), Roman Spinner (talk · contribs), and GRuban (talk · contribs) (who did not bold their "keep" !vote, so you may have missed it). In any case, the close was no consensus rather than keep, so I think you can fairly re-nominate it in the not-too-distant future, if you think that more discussion is required. Steve Smith (talk) 11:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh hey, thanks for the ping. This topic seems a bit contentious and I don't know how comfortable I feel about it, but if E.M.Gregory starts another AfD, please ping me again and I'll take a look. As one of the first voters, I went off my normal criteria for AfD voting (at least 3-4 RS) without realizing the controversial nature of the subject. Anyway, thanks. Nanophosis (talk) 15:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• while I do not think pinging participants was appropriate, I do think that since Closing editor pinged some, he ought to have pinged them all.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, I had no idea that I was pinging anybody - that functionality seems to have been added since I was last super active. Apologies for that.

Yeah, I can see how that happened. I won't ask for it to be overturned, but I am troubled by the fact that being BLUDGEONED by the page creator, a transparent single-purpose account, with the sort of familiarity with WOP lingo and rules that only highly experienced editors possess, probably an alias for this wannabe artist or someone close to her. After all, while I only stumbled into Svartz a couple of days ago, a tiny group of editors have been trying to create a bio page for Shvartz since she was an art student.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Ujjawal Krishnam

NOT A CANVASS

Dear Admin, It has been a day and a lot of discussion on the AfD of the article has been made but I have tried well to answer the questions asked and there appears no clear consensus.

I request you to relist the discussion and if possible keep it in time if it runs long. AchaksurvisayaUdvejin (talk) 05:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

This is me, genuinely curious

I was looking at a deleted page, noticed it was created in '07 by a now-blocked user, and realized that they were blocked a month ago despite not having edited in 11 years. Then I noticed a "sock" being blocked who hasn't edited in 13! I guess I'm just wondering why these blocks on seemingly long-dead-and-buried accounts are being made. Primefac (talk) 14:57, 10 August 2018 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

Hi Primefac — both accounts are socks of of very banned user Sarsaparilla (talk · contribs). In the case of Captain Zyrain, at least, this has been known for quite a while. To the best of my knowledge, this is not true of Rad Racer. In any case, the user himself publicly outed the two accounts as still-unblocked socks here, so it seemed safest to just quietly block them. Steve Smith (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Primefac (talk) 16:23, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Steve Smith. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

Why have I received this message? All administrators are receiving it. What prompted you to send this message? Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account. What do I need to do? Only to follow the instructions in this message. Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites). Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable). Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers. How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)? You can find out more about 2FA at m:2FA.

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Five years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Help me!

primary sources for living persons. Wikipedia claims that it is a tertiary source of information and relies on secondary material for its sources, rather than primary. There are many problems with this stance: 1) secondary sources rely on the author's view of the primary sources. If there are multiple authors, the reader can compare different views and synthesis their own viewpoint. Furthermore, the author's often reiterate the same material over and over again, without critical justification. An example is Thomas Scott being claimed to be an Orangeman despite any lack of evidence that he ever belonged to any lodge (he may have shared their views but given his situation [working migrant which would prohibit his being able to afford lodge fees or staying long enough to join a lodge], this is highly unlikely) However, primary sources allow the reader to make up their own mind directly 2) living people rarely have any secondary sources given the timelines. Often, the secondary source is a hagiography which is anything but unbiased. Furthermore, with living persons, there is an issue with libel. If primary sources are cited, it allows the reader to make up their own mind and mitigates the libel issue. Secondary sources, reflecting their authors' biases, are much more likely to be libelous.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JakeAlberta (talk • contribs) 23:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC) 

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Harry Marshall Erskine Evans.JPG

The file File:Harry Marshall Erskine Evans.JPG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment

I noticed the 2020 deaths category have been removed from the Jerry Givens article. The category should be kept in the article since it is part of the article format and will make it easier for the reader to locate and read the article. The deaths from the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Virginia covers only the cause of death. The 2020 deaths category should be restore to the article since it is part of the format involving articles about notable people. Thank you-RFD (talk) 10:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Sincere question: has it been determined somewhere that the language from WP:SUBCAT saying that an article should not be in both a parent category and a sub-category does not apply to year-of-death categories? Steve Smith (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your response; I am concern that if the coronavirus continues into 2021 that the deaths from 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Virginia category would be be not accurate? Also categories have been use mentioning the different ways people died whether be from accidents of diseases, etc., and the categories of deaths by years has always been in the articles. Again, the 20020 deaths category should be restored to the article. Thank you-RFD (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, as of right now, Category:Deaths from the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Virginia is a subcategory of Category:2020 deaths. Perhaps this will change as the pandemic extends into 2021, or perhaps a new category will be created for 2021 pandemic deaths. We can re-evaluate at that time. For the moment, however, Jerry Givens is in a subcategory of Category:2020 deaths, and WP:SUBCAT advises against including articles in both a parent category and a subcategory. However, I'll drop a note on Wikipedia talk:Categorization to attract a broader audience to this issue. Steve Smith (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Jerry Givens

On 11 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jerry Givens, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Jerry Givens served as Virginia's chief executioner for 17 years before becoming a campaigner against the death penalty? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jerry Givens. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Jerry Givens), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Wug·a·po·des​ 19:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC) 12:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Category:Canadian Alliance candidates in the 2000 Canadian federal election has been nominated for merging

Category:Canadian Alliance candidates in the 2000 Canadian federal election has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Bearcat (talk) 14:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

re:

this post. But back then we !voted with a hammer and chisel. <ducks and runs> — Ched (talk) 18:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

You'll have to speak up; I'm wearing a towel. Steve Smith (talk) 18:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive - July 2021

Good article nominations | July 2021 Backlog Drive
July 2021 Backlog Drive: This Thursday, July 1, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number, length, and age, of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive. Click here to opt out of any future messages. --Usernameunique

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo of the Alberta Advantage Party.png

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello

Hey User:Steve Smith, I just saw your edit on Joe Clark.

I recognized that name from somewhere...aren't you that guy who greatly expanded the articles of Premiers of Alberta? (e.g. Alexander Cameron Rutherford, Herbert Greenfield and about a few more are classified as either good or featured articles). Well done!

Also I still can't believe you made an entire series on John Edward Brownlee. Not only a seperate article about his premiership but also about his time as an Attorney-General. Great job! Ak-eater06 (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive – January 2022

Good article nominations | January 2022 Backlog Drive
January 2022 Backlog Drive: On New Year's Day, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage.
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive. Click here and remove your username from the mailing list to opt out of any future messages. --Usernameunique

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles at 21:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC).

Merchandise giveaway nomination

A token of thanks Hi Steve Smith! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk ~~~~~

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Accurate News and Information Act

I have nominated Accurate News and Information Act for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

1. Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
2. Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive

On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? Sign up here!

You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. (t · c) buidhe 04:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Alexander Cameron Rutherford

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 20 September 2022 (rerun). Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 2022, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/September 2022. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 20:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you today for the article below! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:41, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next month.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 18:14, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Hockey Scores for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hockey Scores, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hockey Scores until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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 notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next several days.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 11:43, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions have been removed.

Subject to certain time limits and other restrictions, your administrative permissions may be returned upon request at WP:BN.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:38, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for John Edward Brownlee

John Edward Brownlee has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Ed Stelmach

User:Buidhe has nominated Ed Stelmach for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Charles Stewart photos

Hi I'm a student researching former Alberta Premier Charles Stewart. I saw that you uploaded many historic photos of him to WikiCommons in 2008. Can you tell me where you found these photographs? Are they in an archive or library somewhere in Canada? Cheers GreenVolvox (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)