User talk:Fetchcomms/Archive 23

h t u s m g

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 29

ARCHIVES       

• 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 use this to leave me a new message:

help for image

Hi Fetchcomms,

Can this image [1] be transferred to Wikipedia or to commons? Is there a licence problem? In fact, I uploaded this image to commons, and it was checked by the FlickreviewR robot and confirmed to be licensed under the terms of the cc-by-sa-2.0. But now it has been deleted. [2] Do you have any suggestions?

I'm looking forward to hearing from you.Dizikaygisiz (talk) 00:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Being licensed under cc-by-sa-2.0 on Flickr only counts if the Flickr uploader is the copyright holder of that image. (Otherwise, I could upload any copyrighted image, license it on Flickr, and upload it to Commons! But obviously, the license wouldn't count because I don't hold the original copyright.) I doubt that is the case here; the photo to which you refer looks to have been scanned out of a yearbook or other publication. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK for OmniPeace

Materialscientist (talk) 00:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

myspacing

A while ago, you commented that "we don't get many myspacing 50-year-olds" (or words roughly to that effect). If you've not already seen it, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Sean Peyton Ross might amuse you briefly; we seem to have a myspacing 40-year-old.

(Not that the page required its own ANI thread, though. I'll probably just MfD his userpage if he continues editing without replying to the concerns already raised on his talkpage.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall writing that, but if I did, I guess it's true :) I think the case of Mr. Ross is less MySpacing (although I'm concerned for his wife about the listing of a Japanese adult film actress as a "friend"), but more of a misunderstanding of the point of Wikipedia. Someone should, um, talk to him. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, WP:NOTMYSPACE points to a section of policy specifying four things users should not use pages for; personal web pages, file storage, dating, and memorials. The one he's breaking is the first of these, which says user pages "may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia". (Of course, it may be he's just spending a few weeks practicing layout, before launching into major expansion of articles on cosplay or modern infantry combat tactics, at which point brief details of his background might be relevant for the information of other editors. But WP:AGF on that only stretches so far.)

Some people might also use "myspacing" informally to mean "spending most of one's time fooling around on userpages and talk pages, rather than improving the encyclopedia", but there's no policy that directly says so, and WP:MYSPACING is still a redlink. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

But realistically, user pages have been used to provide brief biographical information about a user. If Mr. Ross had made several thousand edits, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. It isn't unusual at all for people to only edit their userpages at first. All that's needed is a gentle reminder that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and that we encourage him to contribute his knowledge to the world. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, it may be he's just spending a few weeks practicing layout, before launching into major expansion of articles on cosplay or modern infantry combat tactics. And that's absolutely fine. Realistically, user pages have been used for silly games, self-puffery, and all sorts of other nonsense - that doesn't make it acceptable. The point is, this is myspacing until it becomes something else. Excessive use of talkpages is called myspacing by some people, but policy doesn't support that usage. I'll wait to see if the person claiming to be Ross reacts in the right way to the advice left for him, or not. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are equating brief biographical information about oneself on a user page to games or advertising, but that's beside the point. Calling what is generally acceptable "MySpacing" is assuming bad faith. It's not MySpacing until it becomes something else (like posting excessive detail and biographical material). /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I can call anything I want "MySpacing", if that's what it is. I retain an open mind about if it will actually turn out that way in this case. (Excessive detail? Well in this case, hmm, make up your own mind. You already realise some of it is beyond the norm.) It wouldn't become more "myspacing" just because he said hi to you on your talk page, or to someone else. The policy covers what's listed at WP:NOTMYSPACE, there is no separate policy covering WP:MYSPACING. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Policy isn't everything. And I can call you a slice of my favorite apple crumble but that doesn't mean anything. I really don't know what we're talking about anymore, nor do I really care. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 14:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

OpenGlobe

When you have some time, please drop by IRC and ping me (kudu) to discuss OpenGlobe. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 23:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The September 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Postman!

Hello, Fetchcomms. 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.

-Tempodivalse [talk] 18:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Admin term limits

Hello, Fetchcomms. You have new messages at Surturz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Gateway Arch

Hey Fetchcomms. I'm getting back to work on Gateway Arch after taking a break from it. Perusing the "Background" section, I find that it heavily relies on the Administrative History by Sharon A. Brown. Would this be considered a primary source that should be used in moderation? Or because it is from the NPS, can it can be used to source large parts of the article, as it does now? Goodvac (talk) 23:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

IMO, it's fine, although maybe someone else will disagree. Then again, someone always disagrees with stuff on Wikipedia. Fascinatingly, there are almost no books about the history of the arch, at least not in my library. I found this, though, which is not directly relevant to your question, but after a quick perusal, I think it might have some useful information. My library does have a copy of this book, so if you need stuff that's not on the preview for that, I can probably find it for you. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, maybe I'll check with someone who hangs out at FAC.
Coincidentally, I got Gateway Arch: Fact & Symbol in July and will add new info from it after I finish with the newspaper scans I got from Poroubalous (talk · contribs). The citations for the newspaper articles actually came from that book. Goodvac (talk) 00:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, that's wonderful. Have fun with the article, I'll probably look into some additional sources later, but I think that the article has really got a lot of stuff covered! /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I've come across this a lot in my research. It doesn't look reliable, but it contains great information (and it's laid out in a WP-like fashion). I can't fathom whether it's an article or a book. Goodvac (talk) 22:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a blog to me, but I'd try contacting the author to ask about his sources. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Missouri Assistence Needed

Hello Fetchcomms, As I recall, you left a note regarding user inactivity affecting WikiProject Missouri on my UserTalk page back in February, 2010. Since then, I have taken on a more active role in the WikiProject, but have noticed that the article assessments page has requests that have been pending since February, 2008. I have done the best I can to narrow the list down to either requests that I submitted, and requests submitted by other Wikipedians that I’m not sure how to assess. If you are still involved with WikiProject Missouri and willing to render assistance, it would be most appreciated. --TommyBoy (talk) 03:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I think I finished the remaining couple. If you're not sure, I'd label it c-class or start-class. It's easier to tell which articles are stubs and which are B. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 19:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot

I started an RFC at WP:VPI#Linkrot - What to do? and encourage you to comment there. Thanks. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 22:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikimedia Stories Project

Hi,

My name is Victor Grigas, I'm a storyteller at the Wikimedia foundation and we're working on gathering stories from Wikipedia editors, users, donors and staff to paint a picture of who uses Wikipedia for communication and fundraising purposes. I asked Lennart Guldbrandsson who might be interesting to speak to and he sent me your userpage. I'd be interested in speaking with you either over the phone or by Skype if you are interested in participating in the project.

Thanks :)

Victor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.38.130.161 (talk) 21:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm willing to answer questions via email, but I (still) haven't got my mic/webcam fixed and I'd prefer not to do phone interviews. Regards, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Ambassador application

If your time permits, and you see reason, please consider commenting on this ambassador application. -- My76Strat (talk) 15:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

To be fair to you...

...it's hard to be as nice as me; I'm a sweetheart. Don't beat yourself up over it. :) The block is for the best; I was just familiarizing myself with his previous history of sockpuppetry and disruption with other IP addresses (I had stupidly only looked at his talk page archives, not the talk page history), and based on that further information, this block is long overdue. Even without that information, I probably let that drag on a bit too long. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Whew ... I thought I was being too harsh for a sec. I really need to check multiple talk pages before blocking next time. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I think you were both too nice. I'd have re-blocked the moment I heard "I watchlist AIV". But then, I guess I had a clear idea what I thought "last chance" meant. Good job fetch. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

ChristianandJericho

Hey there. I noticed that you blocked User:ChristianandJericho with a link to WP:CIR. You have to understand that he's new to Wikipedia, we all have been, but more importantly, blocking someone for not being competent enough for Wikipedia... I don't know what to say really. I'm sure you have your reasons, as it happens in most of my experiences with C&J we've disagreed completely, but I just don't think he ought to be blocked beacause of this. Excuse my language, please do, but those are very crappy block reasons, not that I have anything against the blocking administrator, it's just I believe his decision should be reconsidered. Firstly he was blocked per the reasons I already showed you, and then unblocked for agreeing to some conditions I have read. But then he was once again blocked, and I don't know the reasons as to why that block took place, so could you please explain. I know C&J can get annoying, but come on, an indef? That's all. I hope you don't take this the wrong way, I just think C&J should be given another chance. I read your comment conditions above, so I was wondering, "How is your day so far?". Lol, anyway, have a good day, and please answer to this message.--Deely1 15:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It's quite simple: if someone, child or adult, is going to waste others' time here with ridiculous excuses, then they get blocked. He was unblocked with restrictions (mentoring). He proceeded to act like a child and showed a lack of clue, competence, or maturity for editing Wikipedia. This is not a website for kids—if they can't act like adults here, then they need to stay away until they can act properly. I have very little tolerance for such users—I've tried several times in the past to be lenient in similar situations and it hasn't paid off.

Thanks for reading my talk page rules, by the way. (And understanding that they were intended as humor!) Regards, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah yeah, I hadn't looked in detail into what the problem actually was. He was blatantly not telling the truth when he tried to explain the "School IP" situation. Haha that's alright, I found them funny! Bye!--Deely talk 16:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

(←) I'm wondering what this talk of "six months" I'm seeing is.([3][4]) Do you have any idea, or did another user give them that idea? Swarm ^{u / t} 18:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Worm mentioned WP:STANDARDOFFER further up CandJ's talk page. Although I can understand the view that a few years might be more helpful than six months, the latter is more workable and presentable and at least gives the chance for some calm in the meantime. (If they stay away completely for six months then it would be a marked change from just about all of their behaviour so far.) At least one recent case occurred where even a three year "growing-up" break didn't produce any significant improvement, so length of time is not always the cure-all. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, was literally just about to strike that; the answer was right in front of my face. Derp. Swarm ^{u / t} 18:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't care if it's six months, really, but if it's three years, I'll be gone by then and it won't matter to me! /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps they'll just discover sports or video games or something and decide to live like a normal 13 year old boy. ;) Swarm ^{u / t} 04:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Ha! I don't think anyone on this site is "normal"! :D--Deely talk 20:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Research into the user pages of Wikipedians: Invitation to participate

Greetings,

My name is John-Paul and I am a student with the University of Alberta specializing in Communications and Technology.

I would like to include your Wikipedia user page in a study I am doing about how people present themselves online. I am interested in whether people see themselves in different ways, online and offline. One of the things I am looking at is how contributors to Wikipedia present themselves to each other through their user pages. Would you consider letting me include your user page in my study?

With your consent, I will read and analyze your user page, and ask you five short questions about it that will take about ten to fifteen minutes to answer. I am looking at about twenty user pages belonging to twenty different people. I will be looking at all user pages together, looking for common threads in the way people introduce themselves to other Wikipedians.

I hope that my research will help answer questions about how people collaborate, work together, and share knowledge. If you are open to participating in this study, please reply to this message, on your User Talk page or on mine. I will provide you with a complete description of my research, which you can use to decide if you want to participate.

Thank-you,

John-Paul Mcvea
University of Alberta
[email protected]

Johnpaulmcvea (talk) 21:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but I've had several other userpages in the past, if that matters at all. User:Fetchcomms/Userpage, User:Fetchcomms/Userpage 2, User:Fetchcomms/Userpage 3, User:Fetchcomms/Userpage 4, User:Fetchcomms/Userpage 5. Also, [5], [6], [7], [8], and [9] have been my userpage. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks. I am interested in the fact that you have had different user pages in the past. I will see what I can do within my research to accomodate these different documents. In the meantime, so that I can include you in my study, please answer five short questions which I will post below, to help me understand what I am looking at when I set about analyzing your user page. Thank-you again. Johnpaulmcvea (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

File work

Hey, Fetchcomms, I have found myself getting more involved in file work and I have a procedural question. I was looking at this File:The tick in sand.JPG file for a name change which I changed, it is also a mixed file, how do you separate the two file while "preserving all appropriate information for each unique media file" as this template {{Split media}} suggest ? I thought of saving the file and re-uploading it but, it seems that would change authorship. I guess I just have a brain block on how to "correctly" separate the two files. Mlpearc Public If you reply here, please leave a {{Talkback}} on my talk.

Histsplitting (as opposed to histmerging) is a bit complex. First, you delete the whole thing, then you undelete the versions of one image and move those to a different title, then you go back to the original title and undelete the other image. However, as the other image in the file you mentioned has no copyright info for it, I would not bother with this. Also, the author asked on the talk page for someone to revert his mistake, and he never bothered to reupload it, so I'm guessing the image was not terribly important. Regards, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 20:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your expertise and time. I see I'll have to wait until after a successful RfA before I'd be able to do any of these things :P, again thanx for your help. Cheers Mlpearc If you reply here, please leave a {{Talkback}} on my talk.

Today's motto

Sorry I don't. The person who originally suggested it however was AstroHurricane001 (talk · contribs) so it would probably be better asking them. Simply south...... creating lakes for 5 years 10:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

News and progress from RfA reform 2011

RfA reform: ...and what you can do now.

(You are receiving this message because you are either a task force member, or you have contributed to recent discussions on any of these pages.) The number of nominations continues to nosedive seriously, according to these monthly figures. We know why this is, and if the trend continues our reserve of active admins will soon be underwater. Wikipedia now needs suitable editors to come forward. This can only be achieved either through changes to the current system, a radical alternative, or by fiat from elsewhere. A lot of work is constantly being done behind the scenes by the coordinators and task force members, such as monitoring the talk pages, discussing new ideas, organising the project pages, researching statistics and keeping them up to date. You'll also see for example that we have recently made tables to compare how other Wikipedias choose their sysops, and some tools have been developed to more closely examine !voters' habits. The purpose of WP:RFA2011 is to focus attention on specific issues of our admin selection process and to develop RfC proposals for solutions to improve them. For this, we have organised the project into dedicated sections each with their own discussion pages. It is important to understand that all Wikipedia policy changes take a long time to implement whether or not the discussions appear to be active - getting the proposals right before offering them for discussion by the broader community is crucial to the success of any RfC. Consider keeping the pages and their talk pages on your watchlist; do check out older threads before starting a new one on topics that have been discussed already, and if you start a new thread, please revisit it regularly to follow up on new comments. The object of WP:RFA2011 is not to make it either easier or harder to become an admin - those criteria are set by those who !vote at each RfA. By providing a unique venue for developing ideas for change independent of the general discussion at WT:RFA, the project has two clearly defined goals: Improving the environment that surrounds RfA in order to encourage mature, experienced editors of the right calibre to come forward, pass the interview, and dedicate some of their time to admin tasks. Discouraging, in the nicest way possible of course, those whose RfA will be obvious NOTNOW or SNOW, and to guide them towards the advice pages. The fastest way is through improvement to the current system. Workspace is however also available within the project pages to suggest and discuss ideas that are not strictly within the remit of this project. Users are invited to make use of these pages where they will offer maximum exposure to the broader community, rather than individual projects in user space. We already know what's wrong with RfA - let's not clutter the project with perennial chat. RFA2011 is now ready to propose some of the elements of reform, and all the task force needs to do now is to pre-draft those proposals in the project's workspace, agree on the wording, and then offer them for central discussion where the entire Wikipedia community will be more than welcome to express their opinions in order to build consensus. New tool Check your RfA !voting history! Since the editors' RfA !vote counter at X!-Tools has been down for a long while, we now have a new RfA Vote Counter to replace it. A significant improvement on the former tool, it provides a a complete breakdown of an editor's RfA votes, together with an analysis of the participant's voting pattern. Are you ready to help? Although the main engine of RFA2011 is its task force, constructive comments from any editors are always welcome on the project's various talk pages. The main reasons why WT:RfA was never successful in getting anything done are that threads on different aspects of RfA are all mixed together, and are then archived where nobody remembers them and where they are hard to find - the same is true of ad hoc threads on the founder's talk page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 15:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC).

Thank-you for agreeing to participate in my study

Thank-you for agreeing to participate in my study, entitled “Online Self-presentation among Wikipedians.” I appreciate it.

As I indicated in my last message, here are five short questions about your user page that I would like you to answer. These will help me to understand your motivations for creating a user page such as yours. Please be as brief or as thorough as you like.

5 QUESTIONS

1. Are you a member of social networks such Facebook or MySpace?

Twitter, only. (And Google+ but I don't use that.)

2. In addition to maintaining a user page in Wikipedia, have you also written or edited articles? If so, about how many times?

Yes. I've created 20 articles, substantially expanded numerous others, and edited articles (according to this) a total of 11149 times. (I think this includes deleted edits to articles as well, but I'm not sure.)

3. What are the key messages about yourself that you hope to convey with your user page?

Mostly contact links, major contributions, and something amusing. I don't really think there are any key messages about myself specifically.

4. Have your Wikipedia contributions ever received feedback, such as being edited by others or commented on? Have you received a message from another Wikipedia user? If so, do you think your user page positively or negatively affected what other people said and how they said it?

Of course. Articles and other content primarily written by me are regularly edited and commented on. My userpage has never had any affect on what people say to me, unless they're complimenting it.

5. Do you see your “online self” as being different from your “offline self?” Can you elaborate?

I suppose—I'm faceless online.

Please indicate your answers to these questions on your talk page, or on mine. Please respond by October 1st so that I have time to properly read your responses. If you like, you can email your answers to me instead ([email protected]).

Thank you again : )

Johnpaulmcvea (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

ADDITONAL INFORMATION

Background

• I am asking you to participate in a research project that is part of my MA degree.

• I am asking you because you have created a user page in Wikipedia that other people can use to learn about you.

Purpose

• My research is about how people present themselves online.

• I will look at how people present themselves when presenting themselves to the Wikipedia community.

Study Procedures

• With your consent, I will analyze the language of your user page and gather basic statistics such as the count of words, the frequency of words, the number of sections, and so on.

• I will also read the text of your user page, looking for elements in common with ads posted by other people. I will note whether you include a picture, or links to other content on the internet.

• I ask you to answer my five questions, above. This will take about ten to fifteen minutes to complete. I will ask you to answer the questions within a week, and send your answers to me.

• Throughout my research, I will adhere to the University of Alberta Standards for the Protection of Human Research Participants, which you can view at http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/gfcpolicymanual/policymanualsection66.cfm

Benefits

• There is no direct benefit to you for participating in this research. You may, however, find it interesting to read my perspective on how you present yourself online.

• I hope that the information I get from doing this study will help understand how technology affects the way people come together into a society.

• There is no reward or compensation for participating in this research.

Risk

• There is no direct risk for participating in this research.

Voluntary Participation

• You are under no obligation to participate in this study. Participation is completely voluntary.

• You can opt out of this study at any time before October 10, 2011, with no penalty. You can ask to have me withdraw any data that I have collected about you. Even if you agree to be in the study, you can change your mind and withdraw.

• If you decline to continue or you wish to withdraw from the study, your information will be removed from the study at your request.

Confidentiality

• This research will be used to support a project that is part of my MA degree.

• A summary of my research will be available on the University of Alberta website.

• Your personally identifiable information will be deleted and digitally shredded as soon as I have finished gathering data about you.

• Data will be kept confidential. Only I will have access to the computer file containing the data. It will be password protected. It will not be sent by email or stored online.

• I will always handle my data in compliance with University of Alberta standards.

• If you would like to receive a copy of my final report, please ask.

Further Information

• If you have any further questions regarding this study, please do not hesitate to contact Dr. Stanley Varnhagen, my research advisor for this project. If you have concerns about this study, you may contact the University of Alberta Research Ethics Committee at 780-492-2615. This office has no affiliation with the study investigators.

INDICATING CONSENT

By answering these questions, you indicate your agreement with the following statements:

• That you understand that you have been asked to be in a research study.

• That you have read and received a copy of the Information Sheet, attached below (“Additional Information”).

• That you understand the benefits and risks involved in taking part in this research study.

• That you have had an opportunity to ask questions and discuss this study.

• That you understand that you are free to refuse to participate, or to withdraw from the study at any time, without consequence, and that your information will be withdrawn at your request.

• That the issue of confidentiality been explained to you and that you understand who will have access to your information (see “Additional Information”).

• That you agree to participate.

Thank-you again!

Answers have been provided directly proceeding each question. Regards, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: MotD

No idea. I seem to remember I made it sound like a video game. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 22:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Update on courses and ambassador needs

Hello, Ambassadors!

I wanted to give you one last update on where we are this term, before my role as Online Facilitator wraps up at the end of this week. Already, there are over 800 students in U.S. classes who have signed up on course pages this term. About 40 classes are active, and we're expecting that many more again once all the classes are up and running.

On a personal note, it's been a huge honor to work with so many great Wikipedians over the last 15 months. Thanks so much to everyone who jumped in and decided to give the ambassador concept a try, and double thanks those of you who were involved early on. Your ideas and insights and enthusiasm have been the foundation of the program, and they will be the keys the future of the program.

Courses looking for Online Ambassadors

Still waiting to get involved with a class this term, or ready to take on more? We have seven classes that are already active and need OA support, and eleven more that have course pages started but don't have active students yet. Please consider joining one or more of these pods!

Active courses that really need Online Ambassadors:

• Sociology of Poverty
• Architectural Design
• Introduction to Educational Psychology
• Intro to Mass Communication
• Psychology Seminar
• Theories of the State
• Advanced Media Studies

Courses that may be active soon that need Online Ambassadors:

• Housing and Social Policy
• Anthropology, Wikipedia, and the Media
• History & Systems
• Horror Cinema
• Digital Media... just bits in a box
• Composition I
• Telecommunications Management
• Training Systems
• Stigma: Culture, Deviance, Identity
• Art and Terrorism
• Political Violence and Insurgency

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 September newsletter

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

If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 12:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

---

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 29