User talk:Fetchcomms/Archive 17
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
- Archive 1 (2 October 2009 – 2 December 2009)
- Archive 2 (2 December 2009 – 2 January 2010)
- Archive 3 (2 January 2010 – 2 February 2010)
- Archive 4 (2 February 2010 – 2 March 2010)
- Archive 5 (2 March 2010 – 2 April 2010)
- Archive 6 (2 April 2010 – 2 May 2010)
- Archive 7 (2 May 2010 – 2 June 2010)
- Archive 8 (2 June 2010 – 2 July 2010)
- Archive 9 (2 July 2010 – 2 August 2010)
- Archive 10 (2 August 2010 – 2 September 2010)
- Archive 11 (2 September 2010 – 2 October 2010)
- Archive 12 (2 October 2010 – 2 November 2010)
- Archive 13 (2 November 2010 – 2 December 2010)
- Archive 14 (2 December 2010 – 2 January 2011)
- Archive 15 (2 January 2011 – 2 February 2011)
- Archive 16 (2 February 2011 – 2 March 2011)
- Archive 17 (2 March 2011 – 2 April 2011)
- Archive 18 (2 April 2011 – 2 May 2011)
- Archive 19 (2 May 2011 – 2 June 2011)
- Archive 20 (2 June 2011 – 2 July 2011)
- Archive 21 (2 July 2011 – 2 August 2011)
- Archive 22 (2 August 2011 – 2 September 2011)
- Archive 23 (2 September 2011 – 2 October 2011)
- Archive 24 (2 October 2011 – 2 November 2011)
- Archive 25 (2 November 2011 – 2 December 2011)
- Archive 26 (2 December 2011 – 2 January 2012)
- Archive 27 (2 January 2012 – 2 February 2012)
- Archive 28 (2 February 2012 –2 January 2014)
- Archive 29 (2 January 2014 –5 May 2016)
Please be the mentor for the students working on Satellite Broadcasting and Communications Association v. FCC
Hi Fletcher! I'm currently trying to assign mentors to all the remaining groups in Professor Obar's class. Would you be the mentor for the group of students working on Satellite Broadcasting and Communications Association v. FCC (not yet created)? If you can do it, thanks! If not, please let me know.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 02:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- It seems Guerillero (talk · contribs) has already taken on the role; tell me if you need me for another group or class? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Online Ambassador Program
Please take a look at this project page and see if you can be a mentor to one of the many Areas of Study. If you can, please put your name in the "Online Mentor" area of the Area of Study of your choice and then contact the students you will be working with. As the Coordinating Online Ambassador for this project, please let me know if I can be of assistance. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
IP seeking help, apparently
Would it be too presumptive to connect this with this and thus "you know who"? "meh". Chzz ► 18:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- Secrets floating in the sea (talk · contribs)... Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Deconstructivism FAR
Hi Fetchcomms - The Deconstructivism FAR (review page at WP:Featured article review/Deconstructivism/archive1) has been moved to the FARC section, where keep/delist votes are made. If you have the time, could you please return to the review page to give your opinion on whether the article should be kept or delisted? Thank you, Dana boomer (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
RfA
I would like to accept my nomination. Thank you! --Slon02 (talk) 22:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you once again for the nomination, but things were looking bleak for it for a while and now it is actively sinking. I wanted to hold off on saying all of this until I could see how the RfA was going, because even a comment like this will probably draw fire from the RfA crowd. When I was planning this RfA, I have to say that I was under the impression that it would be a noncontroversial one that could pass more or less easily. After seeing all of these arguments, which could make a candidate believe themselves to be a vandal instead of an editor, I can see that I simply wasn't prepared to face the reality of an RfA, and the previous two, where I was given "newbie treatment", could not have prepared me properly. Based on what I have been told by the comments in the "oppose" section, and the remarkable ability of some to assume bad faith, I have decided that I will probably not be repeating this process again. I do not intend to leave Wikipedia, but only a fool would want to go through that process. I laugh when I hear people say that adminship is "no big deal". RfA certainly doesn't seem to be a process for something that isn't a big deal. --Slon02 (talk) 02:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- That's unfortunate. I have more to say but I don't think it would be prudent to do so at this time. Maybe I'll email you with some thoughts later, if I remember. See ya round, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think that I stated those words a bit hastily. After looking over the statements made on my user talk page and in some parts of the RfA, it seem as though quite a few people expect me to go for another RfA at some point in the far-off future. So I'll say that while I don't have another one in mind, I'll also state that I am not going to outright refuse the possibility of another one. --Slon02 (talk) 03:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- That's unfortunate. I have more to say but I don't think it would be prudent to do so at this time. Maybe I'll email you with some thoughts later, if I remember. See ya round, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Nomination of Daniel Hernandez Jr. for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Hernandez Jr. until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
ping
I left you a reply on my talk page. Draft looks good, but it looks like we still have some open questions that I'm not sure if we should go ahead and make preliminary decisions about, or whether decisions were made in the meeting that didn't make the notes.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
ideas for training program of ambassadors-in-training
Okay, this has taken way to long, but I'm finally ready to devote some serious time to making a training program work. I've sketched out a rough outline of a training concept: Wikipedia:Online Ambassadors/Training. Please make edits and/or comments! If you like the basic direction of it, let's start fleshing out one of the sections and testing it out, maybe with Rock_drum. If it seems like we're going in the right direction, we can roll it out from there and propose it to the ambassadors as the path to full ambassadorship. Cheers--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Flint Dille
Hi there,
You closed the AFD on Flint Dille, so I am contacting you out of courtesy. I have been discussing this article at User talk:Paul Erik#Flint Dille, and I believe we have come up with a decent number of sources to consider restoring the article. If you wish to add to what we were discussing, feel free to join in on Paul Erik's talk page. I am looking to get the article restored, and/or moved to my user space. BOZ (talk) 08:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
ANI
Is it a familiar smell? I have run into so many uncooperative editors (I'm putting this mildly) and can't identify this one. They have made a number of positive contributions, by the way--interspersed with pure trolling. Drmies (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Not familiar to me, but I've seen actually quite a few such users recently (seem experienced from the beginning and getting into AfD/"advanced" areas/etc. within the first 20 edits). /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
wave welcome
- oh man... you used the Great Wave off Kanagawa in your welcome template... and I thought I was cool for using it on my user page... now I feel so passé... thanks for the welcome though.. :-) GlitchCraft (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Declined AfC submissions indefinitely host pages
In view of these contributions, please consider commenting at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#Declined AfC submissions indefinitely host page. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
PC
Your comment at the RFC on pending changes about wishing the debate had ended six months ago has confused someone; he seems to think that you oppose resolving the debate. Please see Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011#No_means_yes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks
for your support and message. Not sure if you mean my life or yours... >8-] Peridon (talk) 21:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yours, lol. People like yelling at admins and making up conspiracy stories and stuff :) So hopefully you don't get mixed up in anything controversial :/ /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
DYK for IPad 2
 | On 14 March 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article IPad 2, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the iPad 2 is thinner than an iPhone and comes in black and white? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
March 2011
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at DYK for iPad2, you may be blocked from editing. Mokele (talk) 01:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Do elaborate. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- See Talk:Main Page. A few IPs and editors seem to think the DYK fact regarding the iPad that you added is advertising. N419BH 01:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- I never added any such DYK. As is obvious from above, HJ Mitchell did. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Exactly, they think you added it. Dunno how. N419BH 01:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- (ec) Actually, all I did was move it to the queue and sign it. I'm guessing you or Marcus submitted the nom, but the claim of "advertising" seems very strange. It's just a vague description. It could be describing a credit card or... any number of things that are smaller than an iPhone and come in different colours! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Exactly, they think you added it. Dunno how. N419BH 01:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- I never added any such DYK. As is obvious from above, HJ Mitchell did. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- See Talk:Main Page. A few IPs and editors seem to think the DYK fact regarding the iPad that you added is advertising. N419BH 01:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- That would probably've been Marcus--I was never deeply involved in editing that article and was actually pretty surprised when I saw the banner on my page an hour ago. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
FUR & Images
I am fairly sure of this, but I wanted to triple check that I had things right with image permissions before I uploaded them. I would be uploading the images @ Air India Express Flight 812, all of them under FUR. The images are the plane on initial touchdown, the crash site, and a diagram of events. Again I am pretty sure I can justify this all under FUR, just wanted to check with the experts :) -- DQ (t) (e) 02:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes to the first two, possibly not for the third. That's because you could feasibly create your own diagram (i.e., making a different rendering would not decrease its educational value, whilst drawing the crashed plane would make it less useful to the reader). /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Marking articles students are working on
Howdy, Online Ambassador!
This is a quick message to all the ambassadors about marking and tracking which articles students are working on. For the classes working with the ambassador program, please look over any articles being worked on by students (in particular, any ones you are mentoring, but others who don't have mentors as well) and do these things:
- Add {{WAP assignment | term = Spring 2011 }} to the articles' talk pages. (The other parameters of the {{WAP assignment}} template are helpful, so please add them as well, but the term = Spring 2011 one is most important.)
- If the article is related to United States public policy, make sure the article the WikiProject banner is on the talk page: {{WikiProject United States Public Policy}}
- Add Category:Article Feedback Pilot (a hidden category) to the article itself. The second phase of the Article Feedback Tool project has started, and this time we're trying to include all of the articles students are working on. Please test out the Article Feedback Tool, as well. The new version just deployed, so any bug reports or feedback will be appreciated by the tech team working on it.
And of course, don't forget to check in on the students, give them constructive feedback, praise them for positive contributions, award them {{The WikiPen}} if they are doing excellent work, and so on. And if you haven't done so, make sure any students you are mentoring are listed on your mentor profile.
Thanks! --Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
The Special Barnstar | |
| For your willingness to take on extra work via OTRS and do so beautifully. You're awesome! :) Christine, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC) |
- Thanks very much! I hadn't been on OTRS for a while due to a busy RL, but it's nice being able to help out, even if only once in a while for now. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Nate Dogg
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Mentorship
Out of curiosity, would you consider being Geo Swan's mentor on BLP issues? See my comment on the RfC/U talk. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, if you (or someone else) could keep track as well in case I'm extremely busy for a week and need to step away from WP for a short time. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm on the lookout for another person to help on the occasions you're unavailable. Have left a note at Geo Swan's talk asking if he's OK with this [1] before pursuing this further. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Rae RfA: Something you may not realize
Fetch, you may want to reconsider and possibly de-indent Physics is all Gnomes' ivote. I left an ex post facto comment that I think you may have confused with the actual vote. All the best--Hokeman (talk) 03:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- D'oh! I must have read the wrong signature. I reverted myself; thanks for telling me! /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
oh, hai.
didn't see you there. GrooveDog FOREVER 11:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
FYI
Perseus/Highspeedrailguy has confessed on Simple that his account's being hacked was a lie, and that the clean start was to avoid you. This is probably something to keep in mind when he tries the standard offer in half a year. Goodvac (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sigh. It'll make for a fascinating case study, no doubt, if I have the patience to relive this. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
ANI editnotice
In a recent edit you've made to change the header at the top of ANI you've noted that there've been a rise of serious incidents lately. I'd like to do a bit of digging and reading myself. Could you point me to a few relevant threads for these? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 20:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Not sure why you're so interested in people's suicide threats and such, but here. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks
For [2] I wanted to do that but didn't know how. I suppose I should have asked but luckily you came along and fixed it, Beeblebrox (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- No problem, I just subst'd the thing and was like, "Wait, whaa". /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 20:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
PC RFC Q1
I noticed you writing that Q1 was "confusing" - exactly so; please see Wikipedia_talk:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_February_2011#Re_Question_1. Cheers, Chzz ► 21:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Editing Fridays article for 25 March
 | The Editing Fridays article for 25 March is Wainwright Building. The previous article was Personal life. We welcome your help! You can sign up here |
Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 21 March 2011
|
Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Linkrot discussion
I drafted a new RfC. Please take a look and comment. –SJ+ 20:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
OTRS
I was looking at the OTRS volunteer page but I didn't see my volunteer request. Could you please inform me of what has happened to my request. Jessy T/C 21:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- There are page histories for a reason. Also, I'm not an OTRS admin, and if I were you, I'd check my email. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
No ice in your soul
Thank you so much for your addition to "Jar of Hearts"! And for upgrading it's rating to a B-Class :D Theuhohreo (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 02:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I thought you should know...
I don't like being here because of you. I don't contribute to this project because of you. aliasd·U·T 11:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Great to hear I've driven away a contributor. You don't like being here because you misinterpret my intentions, which I previously explained to you. In addition, you don't seem to dislike being here because of the other users who supported deletion of your secret page, nor the closing administrator, nor the consensus that had earlier formed, prompting me to start the MfD in the first place. Yeah, I MfD'd your secret page after consensus elsewhere was that such pages were not appropriate. So I'm not sure why you're still blaming me.
- And now, as it seems you want me to be the big mean admin, I'm going to be blunt with you: open your eyes and look at how petty this is. How old are you? It was a SECRET PAGE. zOMG the world is going to end rite? What's the purpose of Wikipedia for you? Because I thought it was your writing until I saw your attachment to this random old page. Seriously, get over it. If you think I'm the reason you're gone then you can live under that little delusion for the rest of your life. But don't return to my talk page until you get over this months-old nonsense or if you refrain from making statements like yours above.
New Pages and New Users
I've recently been doing some thinking (and a great deal of consultation with Philippe and James at the WMF's community department) on how to keep new users around and participating, particularly in light of Sue's March update. One of the things we'd like to test is whether the reception they get when they make their first article is key. In a lot of cases, people don't stay around; their article is deleted and that's that. By the time any contact is made, in other words, it's often too late.
What we're thinking of doing is running a project to gather data on if this occurs, how often it occurs, and so on, and in the mean time try to save as many pages (and new contributors) as possible. Basically, involved users would go through the deletion logs and through Special:NewPages looking for new articles which are at risk of being deleted, but could have something made of them - in other words, non-notable pages that are potentially notable, or spammy pages that could be rewritten in more neutral language. This would be entirely based on the judgment of the user reviewing pages - no finnicky CSD standards. These pages would be incubated instead of deleted, and the creator contacted and shepherded through how to turn the article into something useful. If they respond and it goes well, we have a decent article and maybe a new long-term editor. If they don't respond, the draft can be deleted after a certain period of time.
I know this isn't necessarily your standard fare, but with your ambassadorial work I thought it might be up your alley. If you're interested, read Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/New pages, sign up and get involved; questions can be dropped on the talkpage or directed at me. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 21:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
WP:100
Actually, it's not costing Salvio the chance - WP:100 is a count not a per cent. Boing! said Zebedee got it with one oppose, and at least one got it but didn't get consensus (that must have been quite spectacular!). Thought it better to comment here rather than pile on. Peridon (talk) 21:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oops, I meant a "unanimous WP:100 finish", which I changed my edit to. Thanks for noting that, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
PC
Chzz ► 21:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- 21:19, 27 March 2011 Scott MacDonald (talk | contribs) configured pending changes settings for Alexandra Wallace [Accept: require "autoconfirmed" permission] (expires 21:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)) (Violations of the biographies of living persons policy) (hist)
- 18:57, 27 March 2011 Airplaneman (talk | contribs) configured pending changes settings for Karan Johar [Accept: require "autoconfirmed" permission] (expires 18:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)) (Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: vandalism infrequent but serious) (hist)
- 16:42, 27 March 2011 Plastikspork (talk | contribs) configured pending changes settings for The Biggest Loser (season 2) [Accept: require "autoconfirmed" permission] (Persistent vandalism) (hist)
- 03:50, 27 March 2011 Dabomb87 (talk | contribs) configured pending changes settings for Alexa Demara [Accept: require "review" permission] (expires 03:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)) (Violations of the biographies of living persons policy) (hist)
...?_? Chzz ► 21:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- .... and this is why keeping it on means expanding it, which means we'll never get anything done. Sigh. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey Barnstar...
My name is Shane and I as working on the Mission Mountains page tonight. I saw that you reverted my changes and wanted to see why. I am new to wikipedia, so maybe I don't know the conduct and I know I am not good at html (as easy as it my be for some people)... I grew up in the Missions and just wanted to add to the page. So what up?
Best.
Shane — Preceding unsigned comment added by Run shane run (talk • contribs) 02:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- I never reverted your changes. You can see who did at this page, but I have never seen the Mission Mountains page before. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
K. Weird. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Run shane run (talk • contribs) 02:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Dunno how you thought I reverted you, but I restored your additions. Thanks for asking, anyway—instead of re-reverting, yourself. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Incubation project
I see from the discussion there that you are interested in the Incubation project. You may be interested in this: Wikipedia_talk:Article_Incubator#Use_of_incubation_outside_stated_guidelines. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
WikiCup 2011 March newsletter
We are half way through round two of the WikiCup, which will end on 28 April. Of the 64 current contestants, 32 will make it through to the next round; the two highest in each pool, and the 16 next highest scorers. At the time of writing, our current overall leader is 
Hurricanehink (submissions) with 231 points, who leads Pool H. 
Piotrus (submissions) (Pool G) also has over 200 points, while 9 others (three of whom are in Pool D) have over 100 points. Remember that certain content (specifically, articles/portals included in at least 20 Wikipedias as of 31 December 2010 or articles which are considered "vital") is worth double points if promoted to good or featured status, or if it appears on the main page in the Did You Know column. There were some articles last round which were eligible for double points, but which were not claimed for. For more details, see Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring.
A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round three is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Re: oversight
The oversight permissions should give me everything I need, but further discussion can be found at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Audit Subcommittee appointments (2011). bahamut0013wordsdeeds 16:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, I was looking for that discussion and didn't notice it earlier. Thanks and congrats! /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Assessment with WP:USPP is the ultimate!
hi Fetchcomms!
A new assessment round is posted. This round is mostly starts and stubs, so evaluation should be really quick. WP:USPP Assessment 2.1
The Public Policy Initiative is super exciting this term. The topics are really interesting this term and the student's are producing some really good quality content. Recent numbers indicate that our project is actually contributing a significant amount of content to Wikipedia. There is a group of about 20 subject matter experts who are assessing, but the Wikipedians are so consistent, that I really need your scores to measure article quality.
On another note, are you going to Wikimania? I am looking for people to co-present with, so let me know if you are! Best, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 20:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 01:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thanks for the bite (to me). I hope your happy. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) (Shout!) 01:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
| This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |