Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:17, 28 May 2013

Archives

1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Help with Freedom of speech

• Freedom of speech

You're fresh of a WP:GA with First Amendment to the United States Constitution, I wonder if you could help with Freedom of speech?

I've never really embarked on a major quality improvement project on a "core" or "vital" article on Misplaced Pages before.

I'm going to try to poke around some other sources to see how they structure this type of article.

We first need to revamp it and reformat the entire page with a much better flow and structure pattern, throughout.

It should have a chronological flow, and be broken up more by history rather than topic or geography. I'm just not sure the best way to do that, yet.

Once that's done, it'll be easier to literally gut the entire page, and then re-expand those new subsections with much better sources than it cites at present.

What do you think? — Cirt (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I think this would be a great article to tackle. It's going to be tricky in lots of ways but it shouldn't be hard to improve over the hodge-podgy approach there now. I think your strategy of seeing other sources' organization makes sense. I'll add it to my watchlist; I don't know that I'll have time to actively help with the research, but I'll be glad to keep an eye on it and consult... thanks for taking this one on! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, yeah, I also have other freedom of speech related projects on my list as well, but I'll make updates on the talk page as far as the research goes. — Cirt (talk) 19:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Style for centuries in Misplaced Pages

I have noticed that you are changing the style of how centuries are portrayed in Misplaced Pages. Have you read WP:CENTURY? This suggests that forms such as 8th century are preferred over 8th-century. MOS:HYPHEN concurs. Please desist. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• There is absolutely nothing at WP:CENTURY stating what you claim about hyphens. Adjective forms of compound terms like 19th century ("a 19th-century painting") are always hyphened. WP:HYPHEN states "When they form a compound adjective, values and unit names should be separated by a hyphen: for example, a five-day holiday.", and WP:CENTURY gives "Centuries are given in figures or words using adjectival hyphenation where appropriate: the 5th century BCE; nineteenth-century painting. Neither the ordinal nor the word "century" should be capitalised." (emphasis mine) Check the context of the sentence: if there are some that are not being used as adjectives, but still getting hyphens, please provide diffs. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, it seems that you are looking a differnt version of WP:CENTURY. Here is what I see:

Centuries and millennia

For purposes of written style, the English Misplaced Pages does not recognise a year 0. Therefore, for dates AD (or CE) the 1st century was 1–100, the 17th century was 1601–1700, and the second millennium was 1001–2000; for dates BC (or BCE) the 1st century was 100–1; the 17th century was 1700–1601, and the second millennium was 2000–1001. Centuries and millennia not in quotes or titles should be either spelled out (eighth century) or in Arabic numeral(s) (8th century). The same style should be used throughout any article. Forms such as the 1700s are normally best avoided since it may be unclear whether a 10- or 100-year period is meant (i.e. 1700–1709 or 1700–1799).

Remember that the 18th century (1701–1800) and the 1700s (1700–1799) do not span the exact same period.

I have highlighted the relevant examples so that you can see them them. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jezhotwells, I appreciate the input, but what appears to be confusing you is the difference between 17th century used as a noun, as in your example above, and 17th-century used as an adjective, as in "17-century painter". You can see the rules for this at MOS:HYPHEN. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• My point exactly, hence why I bolded "using adjectival hyphenation where appropriate ... nineteenth-century painting" (it's there, same version, try using CTRL-F to find it) and asked for diffs of the problem edits, if any. Compare "he is five years old" and "a five-year-old boy"; it's the same grammatical consideration. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Chenevix-Trench

I've decided to have two chews at the same oyster, and have nominated The Land of Lost Content for GA. As far as I can work out, the only even potentially problematic sources (this time!) are Tim Card's book (not used for anything important), and the Daily Mail. Is there anything I've missed? (It's quite short, of course, but very focused.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I saw that--glad to see you're continuing to work on the topic. It looks good to me at first glance. Since I'm familiar with the subject matter from the ACT review, I may pick this one and give it a quick review in the next week. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Demiurge1000, you may want an extra sentence in the lede at the very least. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Christopher Nolan page

Hello good sir, I understand you have a great deal of experience reviewing[REDACTED] articles, so my question to you; Is my nomination of Christopher Nolan good enough for a GA? Someone accidentally agreed to review the page, but backed out it seems.

Could you give it a peak and tell me if it needs a lot of work?

- SammyJankis88 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammyjankis88 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I might be able to do the review soon, but can't make any promises; I've gotten entangled with a few slow-moving reviews at the moment that are taking my attention. Delays are just a part of the GA system, unfortunately, so don't be surprised if it takes a month or two to pick up a reviewer; there are always more editors who want to submit work than to review. Thanks for your work on that one, though--whether or not it's me who reviews it, I hope it makes it to GA! -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Ligier Richier

Thanks for making corrections to article.

All stared me in the face despite having checked and rechecked what I had written!

Most grateful.

Weglinde (talk) 12:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Thanks for your work on it! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Monsters Inc.

Thanks for all your help Khazar. Koala15 (talk) 00:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure! Now we can both sit back and look forward to the sequel... -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	For your help at Johnny Jordaan and elsewhere. Drmies (talk) 01:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Like Thanks for your meticulous work ethic. I've seen you around my Watchlist a few times this week. Enjoy the weekend. ComputerJA (talk) 01:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I've had a health flare-up that's kept me in front of the TV half the week--and since I can never keep my hands still, it's been typo-hunting galore! =) Feeling better now, though, and looking forward to the weekend--you enjoy yours as well! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you're feeling better. And thank you! I'm finally home so I'm on going at it, too. :D ComputerJA (talk) 01:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Glad you're feeling better too. (BTW, I may pop in at the Istiqlal Mosque review if the nominator doesn't show up. Fairly important Indonesian mosque, so it needs the best article it can get) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Great, thanks. I was actually going to ping you about that one, so feel free to chime in or revise at any point... -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Certainly! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Istiqlal Mosque GA review

Hi, it was good to see your comprehensive review and advised corrections, any way I feel that the review is closed in very short notice, Please give couple of days to make the corrections, any way I had made some corrections as per your advices, As you pointed the main issue is of RS's and layout. So my plan is to correct the RS's by today and will co-ordinate with the nominating editor to re-structure the original research work in next 2-3 days. So I humble request to your kind self to re-start the review and give us couple of days to solve the matter. As you see the GA nomination will take long time to get started again. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 06:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say I think the problems with the article run pretty deep (a large amount of original research, serious copyediting problems, copyright issues, sourcing, etc.), so I think it's best that you take the time to address them outside the normal GA process and then later get a second reviewer's eyes on it. Glad to hear you're going to keep working on this important topic, though. Art and architecture articles tend to get picked up pretty quickly, so hopefully wait won't be an issue. (This one got reviewed in less than a month, after all, which is much better than the average). Again, thanks for all you do! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand the issues, and will coordinate with the main editor to solve the issue, and most importantly thanks for your advices at the GA review it will defenately guide us to make the article of GA standards. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 14:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure! Just let me know if you have any questions or if there's another way I can pitch in. User:Crisco 1492 said above that he might be interested in this one, too, so once you've finished the initial issues, you might ask him for either a copyedit or a GA review. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, I'd be happy to - at the very least - give a copyedit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your both support, I will coordinate with User:QatarStarsLeague (as he is a main contributor and GA nominatior), and will update you as soon as we complete the initial work. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 17:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: Sagtikos GAN

Responded. Also just of future note, I cannot stand talk page notices, and I state so in the page notices. ;) - Also, I was trying for 100 days at GAN, and I was happy to let it sit there as long as needed. Mitch32 23:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. My apologies for not reading through your talk page rules; you're welcome to simply revert my comment if you like, which should only take a second. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry about ti too much. I'm just a bit of a stickler because it's really a waste of time for certain reasons to be notified. Thanks for the barnstar though. Mitch32 13:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

You're very welcome--thanks again for all your contributions. Keep it up, you might get to 100 days at GAN yet. =) -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Good Article nomination of Capital punishment

This article is a good article nominee.It would be of great help if U review this article.Any suggestions are highly welcome.Thanks!Suri 100 (talk) 01:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Suri, I might review it at some point, but looking at the article, it appears to be in fairly weak shape. There's some obvious proofreading issues, such as in the "Methods" section, where a number of commas don't have spaces after them and several parentheses aren't closed, or in the garbled text:

"In addition to banning capital punishment for EU member states, the EU has also banned detainee transfers in cases where the receiving party may seek the death penalty.</ref> New Zealand, South Africa, and most European nations except Belarus,"

I would suggest doing a readthrough of the article and doing basic cleanup of stuff like this before the reviewer begins, otherwise it's likely to be quick-failed. I do appreciate your work on it, though! Good luck getting this important topic to GA. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed.First of all thank u and i have seen u contributing a lot in upgrading article to GA status.Actually i have already went through the article, the garbled text and lack of spacing was due to my editing in adding ref and removing broken links!. I think the article should be accorded GA status.So i would consider any further suggestions fron you.Suri 100 (talk) 02:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Great--I may try to review this at some point down the line, but it'll depend on my schedule. Thanks for the fixes, and for your work on this one generally! -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Good Article Barnstar

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For taking the effort to develop Bassem al-Tamimi article into a good article. Wow you now have 25 GAs, that's quite a milestone! Mohamed CJ (talk) 03:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

By the way, interesting to know that people can be jailed for over a year over "illegal" protests in other countries too. Mohamed CJ (talk) 03:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! And yeah, it was an interesting one to write--lots of complicated allegations all around. -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Indeed. One thinks of Pussy Riot... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Question

Since Gagak Item is coming along nicely at FAC and I was hoping to bring Lie Kim Hok up next, do you think you could spare some time to give the latter article a review? It's quite a bit longer than the last one of mine you reviewed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I'd be very glad to. I'll probably get to this today or tomorrow, otherwise I'll do it early next week. Glad it's going well at FAC for Gagak Item. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks. BTW, if you're interested in parallel themes and plots you may want to check out Syair Siti Zubaidah, Syair Abdul Muluk, and Sair Tjerita Siti Akbari. One could easily establish a common formula with these works (or just wonder why gender disguise was so common in syairs. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The Wild Bunch

Not sure how these barnstars are supposed to work and whether I s/b giving you one, but... just wanted to thank you for your work on the article review and say it was great collaborating with you. All the best ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Nope, definitely no need to give me one--I appreciate the thanks, though. It was great working with you, too; I don't usually often get to review subjects I'm this interested in. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hyphens

I've noticed you have been adding hyphens to constructs like "14th century". These hyphens are not needed. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The hyphen is only needed when the word is spelled out. So "fourteenth-century" is correct, but "14th-century" is not. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

If that's the case, I apologize. But US and UK publications appear to exclusively use the hyphenated form for "a 14th-century " (e.g. , , ), and it seems odd that Misplaced Pages would have an independent rule. Can you point me to the part of the MOS you're looking at here? -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, here's the results from some dictionaries. I can't find any examples in the OED--I assume they prefer the word written out in all cases. Merriam-Webster seems to split half and half. Cambridge appears to prefer the hyphenated form., -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) MOS does not seem to be specific on this issue; however, I've been checking at various language and style websites and there is ambiguity here. When the date is spelled out, the hyphen is definitely required (or the meaning could be changed), but otherwise it is almost always omitted. To further complicate the issue, the advice on these sites indicates the date should always be spelled out, which (of course) nobody does. I'm going to butt out and let you do whatever you think is best, but I would suggest some discussion at MOS that leads to a clearer guideline is necessary before you continue with your work. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd actually argue that the MOS is quite specific on this issue. Numerals get hypenated as compound adjectives ("9-millimetre gap") per WP:HYPHEN, and ordinals use hyphenation as compound adjectives, too. For my reference, could you link or cite the websites you're alluding to above? Given the preference for this form in major publications with strict style guides (newspapers and dictionaries), it seems to clear to me that, at minimum, it's not widely accepted as an error. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Didn't we just have this discussion? And yes, numerals still get hyphenated in the MOS: see MOS:HYPHEN, among others "Values and units used as compound modifiers are hyphenated only where the unit is given as a whole word (in this case, century); when the unit symbol is used, it is separated from the number by a non-breaking space ( )." — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Also "Centuries are given in figures or words using adjectival hyphenation where appropriate: the 5th century BCE; nineteenth-century painting. Neither the ordinal nor the word "century" should be capitalised." at WP:NUMERAL. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Well, it appears I have misunderstood. I will do no more reverting. That being said, it would appear to be in conflict with common usage. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• I wonder if you're confusing "common usage" with "personal preference" here; so far as I can tell, major newspapers and dictionaries appear to prefer the same usage as Misplaced Pages, per the links I provided above. (This is something I checked before starting.) In any case, though, I've posted a brief query at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers per your request. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• That would be nice, to actually have an explicit example using a number. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• At the very least, I'll be able to point the next complainant to that thread. It's funny that for all the human rights and current events articles I work on, this hyphenation project is by far the most controversial thing I do on Misplaced Pages. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

A simple Google search reveals the extent to which the non-hyphenated form can be considered "common usage"; however, that doesn't make it right. That is why I am not contesting this matter any further. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. In the future, I'd strongly suggest you check in with things like the MOS, dictionaries, newspapers, style guides, or other editors before doing mass reverts of this kind; if I hadn't been online when you began, it would have been a lot of wasted time and edits for us both. I do appreciate your vigilance, though--thanks for all you do for the 'pedia. -- Khazar2 (talk) 10:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Rights

Hi Khazar. I've added the reviewer and rollbacker rights to your account, in case they come in handy. I figured you're obviously experienced enough to make good use of them if/when you need to. INeverCry 17:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

What a nice surprise--thanks. I'll do my best to use them for good instead of evil. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

River Witham

Hi Khazar2. Wow! - I see you have already done a bundle of GA reviews, and you're busy doing more. Brilliant work! I'm doing a review of River Welland, and I came upon River Witham. Interpretation of GA criteria is a matter of judgement, and reviewers will differ in some areas; that is a natural aspect of GA reviewing. On looking at River Witham my view was that it appears to fall short of GA criteria in a few areas. The lead doesn't appear to comply with WP:Lead, per 1b of WP:GACR. The images in the article squeeze the text, and there is a gallery, which doesn't seem to comply with WP:LAYIM, which is also part of 1b. There are also lists - another part of the rather fussy and tricky 1b. And the references were not set out as WP:FNNR per 2a (but I've sorted that part). I think there is room for individual judgement in assessing criteria, and I know that I can be a little over fussy at times. I'm also aware that sometimes a reviewer may not be fully aware of the criteria - I have been alerted in the past to areas that I wasn't paying attention to. I think it's an on-going evolving process, GA reviewing. It's a vital and important, and sadly under-appreciated task. I think you're doing a great job, and my comments are not intended as criticism, but as a helpful comment. I may be pointing out areas in which you hadn't been focusing attention, and you'll take that on board and move forward. Or, as I said, I may be being over-fussy, in which case, after reflection, you may dismiss my concerns. Either way - please carry on the good work. Regards SilkTork 00:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

PS. I won't be watching this page - so if you want to respond to me, please do so on my talkpage. SilkTork 00:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind note. I'll respond here to keep the conversation together, but will ping your talk page so you know I responded.

For such a brief article, the lead seems sufficient to me to meet the criterion (admittedly, barely sufficient), but if there's a particular point you feel it needs to cover, I'm sure Robert will be glad to oblige if you bring it to his attention. Galleries seem to me explicitly endorsed by WP:LAYIM: "If an article has many images—so many, in fact, that they lengthen the page beyond the length of the text itself—you can use a gallery.". As for the embedded lists, I'm not completely sure that these would be more usefully presented in prose--these seem like they could form the "long sequences within a sentence" that the guideline encourages avoiding--though I respect that we may differ that. Definitely a good catch on switching the order of the references and citations, though; I'll watch for that more carefully in the future, as well as other layout issues. (The WP:LAYOUT subcriterion is definitely my weakest point, since it's such a large guideline.) And more broadly, thanks for the input; I'm always glad to have my work double-checked. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

9/11

You don't seem to be paying attention to what I'm saying. I haven't made a single post about the GA process. In fact, I've told you several times I'm not interested in it. But you keep going on about it even after I asked you to close the GA review. Please stop. AQFK (talk) 09:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Beyond the fact that you were posting to the GA nomination thread in the first place, your first words were "@Khazar2: The problem isn't with the article; the problem is with the GA/FA review process. According to WP:NPOV, only majority and significant minority viewpoints should be presented. Tiny minority and fringe viewpoints should be excluded or delegated to some ancillary article (if they are notable). So, the article is correct and the RfC was correct. The problem is with the GA/FA review process". Your edit summary for the post was "@Khazar2: The problem isn't with the article; the problem is with the GA/FA review process. According to WP:NPOV, only majority and significant minority viewpoints should be presented." And, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, the GA nomination actually closed an hour before you posted your first round of complaints.

Frankly, if you weren't an experienced Misplaced Pages editor, I'd assume I was simply being trolled at this point. But I hope we can come to a point where we agree to disagree and part on good terms. Best of luck in your future editing in any case. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 09:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Added "-century" typo fix

Hi Khazar2! I saw this edit you made to Sting (musician) to change "an 18th century" to "an 18th-century", and decided to add a new typo rule so all AWB editors will be able to make similar changes. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Meeting

Nice to meet you on Men's parking space, thanks for improving ;) - Thinking of Peace movement today, I thought of you also, but most of all of another inspiring person, written on his birthday, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure! Always good to run into you, too. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Did you see that I made some progress on my work in progress highlighted there and top of my talk? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

That's great--very nice work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Big thanks to you, Khazar, for all the GA reviews you've been putting in (and those hyphens... ooh boy, those hyphens)  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! You missed being my 200th GA review by just a few hours... -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Wow, that's about 4 times as many as I have. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

GAN of Bahrain Workers trials

I have reviewed this article and given suggestions. Suri 100 (talk) 07:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

....for all you tidying up of my listed articles. I'll try to remember to get my centuries right in the future. However, people like me need people like you!

Amandajm (talk) 02:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure, and thanks for the kind note! Tinkering like that gives my fidgety hands something to do while watching baseball... -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll echo Amandajm's thanks - you've done a great job on the ones I help to look after as well! Hchc2009 (talk) 06:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good articles: Recruitment Center (Update #1)

Hello! Now that the recent Request for Comment has been closed, it is time to implement all the proposals that received support. Among those proposals was to conduct a "Recruiter Drive". However, instead of holding a "drive" WikiProject Good articles will be opening a "Recruitment Center". The current task at hand is to develop a system that everyone agrees on in which can be followed when recruiting a potential reviewer. A draft of a possible system can be found here. I (Dom497) am asking you to review this system and leave feedback on the talk page of "Recruiter Central". The current system can always be changed so feedback is important. As of right now, the current goal is to launch a 2 month trial run (beginning in late June/early July) to see if the Recruitment Center will even work. This message has only been sent to the users who supported the proposal on the RfC page as these are the beginning stages of this "project". Updates will be sent out when needed.--EdwardsBot (talk) 20:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 20:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Suri 100 (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi Khazar2, thanks for going over Pitfour estate; funnily enough, I had wondered about asking if you would have a quick run over it but thought it might have been cheeky of me! You must be psychic! SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it just came up by chance--I run the DYK and GA nominations through AutoWikiBrowser's spellcheck a few times a week. I figured it was you, though, when I saw the title! I might try to take more of a look soon. =) Thanks for writing another quality article. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

I'm not too sure whether it's too early for beer where you are - it's 3pm here - but no one will look if you have a well deserved slurp if it is too early! Thanks for fixing the refs; I usually use the citation tool but will remember to change it to first name and last name in future (I think the citation template does it that way?). I like the challenge of Wiki code as it reminds me of the long ago days when I had to struggle with DOS and nonsensical file names made up from a string of letters. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)