My Talk Archives

Archive 1

Yes, this book is rather unusual. But I agree with the author that it is not one of her better works: for one thing, it is unfair on the reader to leave it until so late in the novel to disclose the nature of the crime. I also imagine that if the reader has never studied chemistry, they would not be in a position to understand the method used, and they would find the whole thing rather unsatisfactory.

[I am collecting bits and bobs on her collaborator on this novel, Robert Eustace ... ]

That's the plan, when I get enough together :) Karenjc 17:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You would be glad to know that a new wikipedia ad has been created by Srinivas to encourage users to join Chronicles of Narnia Task Force. You can display that ad on your user/talk page too using the following code: {{Wikipedia ads|ad=190}}

-- Alan16 (talk) 10:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The August 2009 issue of the Novels WikiProject 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. Alan16 (talk) 17:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that you appreciated the wedding story on RD/Misc. Thanks, very kind of you! :-) --pma (talk) 09:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On January 8, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Skimmington, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KingofFilm here, I need Starpointe to stay. It is good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KingofFilm (talk • contribs) 23:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take the speedy deletion nomination personally. Article subjects on Wikipedia must meet various criteria, and one of these is notability. Your article gave no indication why this subject is notable, and there were no references to confirm this. Without these, any material may be removed at any time. I suggest you have a look at Wikipedia:Your first article, and consider drafting your articles in your userspace first, so they don't get nominated for deletion before they are ready to be published. You might also find it useful to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. If you need help setting up a user sandbox to work in, just ask. Kind regards, Karenjc 00:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but it needs to be noted. An encyclopedia should have stuff that people want, not standard stuff. It is a free encyclopedia, which is free in 2 ways. It is free in cash and free for words. KOF —Preceding unsigned comment added by KingofFilm (talk • contribs) 00:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of places you can promote your websites for free. Wikipedia is not a web host or a place to market or promote anything; it merely records what is already notable elsewhere. If the websites are of great public interest, they will have sufficient credible third-party references to support a Wikipedia article. If they have not yet attracted sufficient independent media attention to provide references, then they are not yet notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Yes, Wikipedia is free, but it is not a free-for all. We have rules and policies about what qualifies as notable and what does not. If you need help to set up a space to draft articles that will meet the criteria, I'd be happy to assist you. Karenjc 00:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but can I do Sandbox? KingofFilm (talk) 01:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. If you click on this redlink: User:KingofFilm/Sandbox, type in the box and save, you'll have created your own sandbox you can use for drafting. Best wishes, Karenjc 01:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So when I want to save it into a page, I just take it from the Sandbox and make a new article? KingofFilm (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Take a look at the guidance, like Wikipedia:Your first article, draft your article, and when you're confident it will meet the criteria (complete with citations), move it into articlespace. Shout if you need a hand. Best wishes, Karenjc 01:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I never knew Wiki was so simple! Thanks!! KOF KingofFilm (talk) 01:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC) It's not a redlink anymore! KingofFilm (talk) 01:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome. happy editing :) Karenjc 01:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There ya go, I made an article. It's for Barbara Corcoran. KOF KingofFilm (talk) 13:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not for sure what i have done wrong. I left a talk page called Cebu's Cultural Center. I hope you can read that and tell me where i am going wrong. I just want to do what the others i have spoken about have done...... Cebuexpat 14:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cebuexpat (talk • contribs) You can find the talk page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cebu%27s_Cultural_Entertainment_Center —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cebuexpat (talk • contribs) 14:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC) You can find the Mactan Island Aquarium here at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mactan_Island_Aquarium —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cebuexpat (talk • contribs) 14:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I'm not an administrator, so I can't look at the text of a page once it's been deleted, but I recall that Cebu's Cultural Center was deleted as advertising, because it seemed to promote its subject, using marketing language intended to attract potential customers. It read like an advert for a local tourist attraction, not an encyclopaedia article about a notable location. I also seem to remember that it had no references other than a link to the centre's own website.

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a web host or advertising space, and all articles need to be neutral in tone, with facts that can be verified from reliable third-party sources. Article subjects also need to be notable enough to merit an article in an encyclopaedia. Any article about Cebu's Cultural Center needs to state what makes the centre important enough to be mentioned in an encyclopaedia, backed up with citations from independent sources that confirm this. It should be written in plain, neutral language, with no advertising terms. It should also ideally be written by someone who has no link with the subject. People are strongly discouraged from writing articles about subjects with which they have a strong link, because this makes it harder for them to write from a neutral point of view. If a subject is truly notable, someone else will eventually write an article about it.

I know it can be frustrating to see an article you have created nominated for deletion, but other stuff exists is not a good argument for keeping articles on Wikipedia. Articles have to stand or fall on their own merits, irrespective of what's happening on other pages. In the case of Mactan Island Aquarium, my own feeling is that the subject has fairly weak claims to notability, but the article does make an attempt to assert what is special, unique and important about the aquarium, and importantly, it is written in a neutral way. It describes the aquarium and says where it is, but there is no attempt to use the kind of language associated with marketing brochures. It really needs improving, but it is probably just strong enough now to avoid a speedy deletion.

I would suggest that you first consider your motive for making the article. If you want to promote the centre and help it become more successful and attract more visitors, you are probably making it for the wrong reasons. If you genuinely feel that the centre meets the notability criteria, then read Wikipedia:Your first article. Consider drafting your article in your userspace, where you can work on it until you feel it is ready for publication. Click on this red link: User:Cebuexpat/Sandbox, type in the space and save to create the page. You can then work on the article adding material and references, and seek feedback if you wish before you move it to articlespace. If you need any further help, just ask.

Please don't get discouraged. All good-faith help is welcomed at Wikipedia and there is plenty of opportunity to help improve existing articles as well as to create new ones. Best wishes, Karenjc 00:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Edwards (2nd nomination)Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Supertouch (talk) 00:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your offer to help at WP:FEED. I go through periods where I am able to look at many of the submissions, but there are some subjects I just don't qualified to review, and I sometimes just don't get a chance to stop in. I feel bad when someone has obviously tried to create an article, and is asking for help, and it just sits there with no responses. It will be great of a few others weigh in on occasion; I know some others do as well, but if you scroll back, you'll see a number in a row with no responses.--SPhilbrickT 00:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's probably plenty I'll be clueless about, but I will do my best to help. Karenjc 19:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: I just blocked him and nuked all of the user pages that he created. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing some things up. The only reason why I linked that wooden railway forum was because I found it very useful. I am a parent with two kids who love the wooden railway and that forum has helped me quite a lot with the prices and information about all the wooden items. I still do not know how to make a signature, so please do not flame me. One again, thank you for the explanation? Are you a robot?

- thomas123wooden123 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas123wooden123 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome. Nope, I'm not a robot, just an ordinary flesh-and-blood user like you. To make a signature, just type four tildes like this ~~~~ at the end of your comment, and the software will sign and date it for you. Remember to sign your comments on any article discussion page or user talk page like this, but don't sign your contributions to any actual articles themselves. All the best, Karenjc 22:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh - and Sinebot and Linkbot are both bots, not people. Sinebot makes signatures when they get forgotten, and Linkbot searches for links that don't conform to the rules, and removes them. Karenjc 22:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged the sentence about shampoo being a hair care product as it has no Relaible source to back this claim.--9 to 8 (talk) 23:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have retagged the sentence. As WP:RS states, any material that is challenged needs to be verified by an inline citaton of a reliable source. This applies even if the claim is true.--9 to 8 (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on your own talk page. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The matter has been taken to AN/I.--9 to 8 (talk) 07:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The user has been taken to the Wikipedia Phantom Zone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Thank you for your previous help! Now I wanted to ask if there is a special way to nominate an article for deletion or to point out its lack of neutrality! Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexi lover (talk • contribs) 14:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on user's talk page Karenjc 17:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for quickly removing spam with this edit :) ~EdGl ★ 20:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure :) I think that was that particular spammer's second time around (at least) tonight, so I hoped to get the account slapped with a sock block, but I couldn't track down the earlier incarnation in the block log. Never mind - I'm patient, and I enjoy whack-a-mole! Karenjc 21:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 23 April, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Corinne Malvern, which you recently nominated. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sorry if broke wikipedia i hope i did not do much harm and thanks for replacing i hope i did not cause any trouble

Replied on user's talk page Karenjc 14:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	What an admirably patient and friendly answer you gave at WP:Reference desk/Humanities#Codification_of_interpolations_in_Bhagvad-Gita. -user:Agradman editing for the moment as 160.39.221.164 (talk) 08:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the barnstar and the kind words. Both greatly appreciated. Karenjc 11:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My edit i made to User talk:Christianity was very constructive! wasnt it? --Light for JC (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Light for JC[reply]

No. WP:TALK, WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Karenjc 18:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hate dirty niggers, it's a problem ?--151.20.236.182 (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. WP:NPOV. Karenjc 18:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the accidental revert on John Wayne. Huggle was being a bit laggy, so I accidentally reverted the page back to the vandalism revision while attempting to revert the vandalism. --Seahorseruler ^{(Talk Page)}

No problem - happens to me too sometimes when Huggle's struggling. Karenjc 19:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vmconcernedad... Trying to change content due to the recent articles I've read about Wikipedia and trying to remove offensive material...why block me when the president of WP was trying to remove things himself...I've included links to articles I've read to show my reasons. http://www.techcentral.ie/article.aspx?id=15000 http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/10/porn-wikipedia-illegal-content-remains/ http://www.helium.com/items/1827018-wikipedia-porn-scandal-how-and-why-wikipedia-began-removing-pornography-from-their-pages

Why is this a problem - I thought I was helping now I'm told I will be blocked. Is this what happens?? Vmconcernedad (talk) 20:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Vmconcerned —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vmconcernedad (talk • contribs) 20:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite correct that there has been discussion around some images on Wikimedia Commons with regard to their appropriateness for use here, and the wider implications of some US legislation for Wikipedia. This is to do with the definition of pornography, i.e. gratuitous material with no purpose other than to titillate. Have the images in question a valid role in illustrating articles? Might they fall under the definition of pornography? Do they oblige the Wikimedia Foundation to keep particular records because of their content, and what implication does that have for the organization? As a result of this, some images have indeed been deleted from the site (not just removed from articles, as you did), although there is a great deal of controversy over whether or not this should have been done and talk on the issue is ongoing. If you're really interested, and genuinely want to understand what's going on and perhaps contribute, then the discussions here and here are worth a read to get you started. However, the basic principle remains that Wikipedia is not censored (i.e. Wikipedia doesn't remove images from articles just because some people dislike them, or because certain organisations or public commentators make a public fuss about them). You arrived as a brand new user and set about deleting content from articles with no discussion, because you personally judged them "pornographic". That is seen as vandalism. You were asked not to do it, you were offered links to the policies that explained why you shouldn't, and you kept right on until a final warning. Does that look like a good faith attempt to help the encyclopaedia resolve a complex and divisive issue? Or more like someone with an agenda, who was going to go on editing articles according to their personal tastes unless they were stopped. You tell me. Karenjc 22:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Karenjc. Thanks for the heads up on my user page. Here is my belated response.

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. –xeno^talk 17:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure either, so I've removed him from the category; I've left him in the main college category, though. I just can't think where else to put him, is the problem. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of E. G. Swain at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That unfortunate newbie was actually making a good correction - see Fanbase.com here for confirmation that Stangeland is actually the right spelling. JohnCD (talk) 21:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I realised that after a bit of a poke around Google, have been chasing you around picking up other mentions of Stangeland, and have let the contributor know what's happened to his edit. Thanks for fixing it. Karenjc 22:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've given him a message too, and told him (for future reference) about WP:BRD. I thought I had done that ten minutes ago, but I must have omitted to press "Save page". Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The graph says it all, really; massive increase since we cleared the backlog and introduced a bit better system. As I've said before, it is a 'victim of its own success', I think. Currently, it is pretty backlogged.

Quite a few get missed, as you can see if you flick through the archives - but I don't know what we can do about that, really, other than hope more people give feedback.

The long-term solution would be to keep these editors; so many come to just create one article, and are never heard of again; if just a

few of those stayed, and started giving feedback, then we'd have a more workable system.

I suggest discussion in this WT:FEED section. Cheers!

(I've send this message out to a small number of people that I think/hope will be interested; people who have given feedback, etc. if wrong, apologies, let me know.)

 Chzz  ►  00:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I submitted a request for feedback on my article on Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2010 October 10 on Spiritual healing. I got your reply and am wondering if another reviewer would be able look at it.

Many thanks,

Adrian-from-london (talk) 04:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You offered some partial feedback on an article here. On the chance that you decided to revisit it, I had trouble accessing the feedback page, so I provided some feedback directly to the editor here

Dear Karenjc

I see your replies are both helpful and friendly. I would be most grateful if you could look at this prolonged dispute as follows:

Disputes on page Tunnels I wonder be grateful for your help with a complex and now prolonged removal edits by Wikipedian susanne2009NYC, who assessed the article as GA status. The re-write to attain GA status introduced numerous factual errors. I have repeatedly corrected these, including all four edits in the last 24 hours. Yet despite endless comments on the discussions page, no consensus has been agreed . I believe the actions of user susanne2009NYC contravene Wikipedia policy. Problems are namely:

• Myself and other users have been informed that this page does not need any further editing. We have also had our own choice of critical reviews removed and she consistently reverts to the incorrect Cover Artist - I have even emailed the correct person (David Wyatt) so know it to be correct. However, she will not permit my source of the Authors own Website on the technicality that it doesn't say it's an 'Official' website - see:

David Wyatt is the cover artist - as on authors website, with link to David Waytt's site where Tunnels features

http://www.mathewandson.com/stop_press.htm - July 2007

• My four edits last night were again removed within a few hours - namely I added the Japanese Manga edition with verifiable Amazon source, book published in 40+ countries and over a million sales figures. Susanne2009NYC also refuses to accept any of the following sources:
  

Re:40+ foreign language editions http://www.childrenslit.com/childrenslit/mai_gordon_roderick_qa.html

AND http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=b528986f-0233-4da1-98df-ad44cc7f2427&sponsor=
AND authors site http://www.tunnelsthebook.com/the-books/
And http://www.williamsontunnels.co.uk/view.php?page=news And Publishers site http://www.doublecluck.com/who-we-are

• RE:Manga (2 part) version published in Japan

http://www.amazon.co.jp/%E3%83%88%E3%83%B3%E3%83%8D%E3%83%AB-1-%E3%82%B4%E3%83%9E%E3%82%B3%E3%83%9F%E3%83%83%E3%82%AF%E3%82%B9-%E3%83%AD%E3%83%87%E3%83%AA%E3%83%83%E3%82%AF%E3%83%BB%E3%82%B4%E3%83%BC%E3%83%89%E3%83%B3/dp/4777190897/ref=sr_1_21?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1287185162&sr=1-21

AND http://www.amazon.co.jp/%E3%82%B3%E3%83%9F%E3%83%83%E3%82%AF-%E3%83%88%E3%83%B3%E3%83%8D%E3%83%AB2-%E3%82%B4%E3%83%9E%E3%82%B3%E3%83%9F%E3%83%83%E3%82%AF%E3%82%B9-%E3%83%AD%E3%83%87%E3%83%AA%E3%83%83%E3%82%AF%E3%83%BB%E3%82%B4%E3%83%BC%E3%83%89%E3%83%B3/dp/4777190994/ref=sr_1_10?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1287185029&sr=1-10

• Re: Million+ sales - she also says the copies not is not relevant on Wikipdia, but the Harry Potter page clearly states this information!

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118015432.html?categoryid=13&cs=1&ref=vertfilm

Susanne2009NYC claims Publisher and Author sites are not reliable sources as they tell lies about sales figures etc. I was planning on writing to the Publisher asking them to update their website confirming David Wyatt as cover artist, but Susanne2009NYC has rejected my other citations to the Publishers site, as unverifiable (bit let me use it as the source for the sequel book details)??

On the discussion page myself and other users have been asked not to correct what I know to be inaccuracies with any further edits. I have irrefutable evidence that my changes are accurate. Reading Wikipedia policy it looks to me as if she is contravening policy in - Taking Ownership - Preventing/dissuading other authors and editing - Ignoring consensus reverting changes to ensure her choice of critical reviews is maintained - Refuses to acknowledge Publishers/Authors/major newspapers and industry publications etc. Making changes knowingly reverting to inaccurate statistics e.g. The Highfield Mole 2,000 paperbacks published - Myself and other users have had to change this so many times from the incorrect 200, citing the Authors and other sources. Even now she says she "will let it go for now". Myself and others have 'no' say in editing this page - she will not even let me add a sentence on the Manga edition and has totally removed my latest edit, regarding incorrect references in the AbeBooks article - that she is happy to accept as reliable.

I am one of the passionate people Wikipeda policy makes reference to - about this book series. I am an administrator on the UK fansite TunnesDeeper.com - which has the support of both the publishers and the authors. I have read and own all the books, including one of the 2,000 Highfield Moles and know my subject matter well. This whole experience on here has been very upsetting and I feel irrelevant and excluded from this page. Stewardship does support retaining a users version where it is felt further editing would be detrimental to the existing quality. However, this is not the case here. Sorry to make this so long and rambling. A few months ago I was unhappy that on old version of this article was replaced by an inferior version without discussion or collaboration - surely a cornerstone of Wikipdia ethos. I have spent many hours on numerous occasions sourcing the references to ensure they are meet Wikipedia verifiability standards and my only interest is to help make this article an accurate and informative read. If this matter should be dealt with elsewhere on wikipedia, please advise me. Your expert opinion would be greatly appreciated. (Lifesawhirl (talk) 21:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Looking at the page history, I tend to agree that you and Susanne2009NYC have reached an impasse over certain details in the article, despite talk page discussions, and outside input may be helpful. Rather than informal approaches like this, it would probably be better to get into the dispute resolution process at this point. I would suggest either making a request at Wikipedia:Editor assistance or, since your disputes mainly centre around the disputed reliability of sources, asking the good people at Wikipedia:Reliable sources noticeboard to help clarify matters (don't do both simultaneously though). If you don't reach a resolution by either of these method, you could file a Request for comment on the matter. Good luck and best wishes, Karenjc 19:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Karenjc, Many thanks for the advise and looking into the issues here. As you say there are numerous avenues for resolving disputes and I think your suggestions regarding reliabilty of sources make that noticeboard the next step for me. Thanks for your help (Lifesawhirl (talk) 20:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Karenjc, I know you have helped out here before and hoped I might be able to persuade you to do so once again. One of the regular helpers, Chzz is currently taking a break so things are getting pretty busy. If you can just knock off one or two that will be a help. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 16:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Karenjc,

This is regarding your review comments for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Indian_Stammering_Association . I have added a lot of references to independent reliable coverage of the Indian Stammering Association. Please guide me further if anything else needs to be added or modified.

Jaiprakashsunda (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, and thanks for addressing the issues with the article. I have spent some time on cleanup on the article; in particular I have started correctly formatting the bare URLs into Wiki-formatted references (take a look to see what I've done) and have added a category to start with. There's more to do, and I'll have another look tomorrow (it's 1.15am here now). Regards, Karenjc 01:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks really great now!! Thanks a ton! Jaiprakashsunda (talk) 07:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome - do keep contributing to the article if you have any extra info or refs. I'm only tidying and formatting the existing info. Karenjc 11:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely i will. Thanks once again! Jaiprakashsunda (talk) 20:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was doing some requests for feedback and noticed you suggested a few months ago a template to leave on the article's talk page, so editors know it's been discussed. I wondered if you ever finished the template; is it available to use? It seems a good idea to me. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there; I did design the template and it's here, but there didn't seem to be much support for the idea so I just left it. It could do with linking somehow to the actual individual feedback request, rather than just a general link to the RFF page. If you think it's any good and might be useful, maybe I'll take another look at finishing it. Karenjc 22:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good :) It might be worth adding the date to it. Does it disappear automatically when the page is archived?

I agree that linking to the individual feedback request would be good, i have no idea how difficult though! Is there anyway of making it appear automatically as soon as the new editor requests feedback? It would then be a good way to direct more people (eg. people who are patrolling new articles) towards requests for comment before they've been responded to. Might be tricky though as new editors often don't link to the article properly.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 22:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have begun a new initiative at the WikiProject Novels: an improvement drive. As a member listed here, you are being notified. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels#5-5-5 Improvement Drive and Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Collaboration for more details. Also I would like to remind you to keep an eye on the project talk page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels. Thanks, Sadads (talk) 02:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you everyone who participated in the January Collaboration, it was quite a success with 5 new C class articles, 3 stub kills and several articles were removed from our backlogs. In support of the Great Backlog Drive, the WikiProject Novels Collaboration for February is going to help remove backlog candidates in the backlogs related to WikiProject Novels. Please join us, and help us wikify, reference, clean up plot sections and generally improve Novels content, Sadads (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are recieving this message because you are a member of WikiProject Novels according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Members

Curiously enough, that editor was created over 3 weeks ago and just today made its first posting, with that peculiar question about comics. "Hosiery", perhaps? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, or just a misguided newbie who thought they'd found a bunch of people with lots of time and opinions to spare on every subject under the sun. Ahem ... hang on a minute ... Karenjc 21:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Karen, you helped me with Isaac Seligman a few months back and I found your help invaluable. I am about to place a short biography on Edward Carleton Holmes, and I should like it if you could be my blue pencil> Hope to hear back from you. I will make the entry tomorrow (2 March 2011). Thanks in advance. Might it be possible to send me an e-mail link so I can contact you directly? DrSchaub (talk) 13:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DrSchaub - sorry, I'm not here too often just at the moment, but I will take a look at the article and provide feedback as soon as I can. It's probably best to keep discussion about the article on-wiki, but I can be emailed via the "email this user" link in the left-hand column if necessary. Karenjc 18:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per wp:CANVASSING, this is a neutrally worded notice being sent, without any type of "selection" bias, to everyone that edited fairly recently the MOS page about how to term the Latter Day Saints denominations on Wikipedia in the belief that your various and collective expertise or expertises, if that's a plural, can help us improve its wording, if possible. a bit. The most pertinent section is here. And the issue is to what degree the terms "Mormon church" and "LDS church" relate to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in specific, and to what kind of sourcing should be used to document this. Thanks, if you find time and the interest to look into the matter and offer your opinion or commentary.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Guidance Barnstar
		In recognition for your work at the various help desks assisting other users, you've been noticed and appreciated. :) œ™ 08:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :) Karenjc 13:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Karenjc, for your timely and excellent response to my plea for help on the "butchered" Lee Smolin page! I was feeling terrible about what I'd done. Now, perhaps I'll be at least a tiny bit more bold, henceforth, knowing that help like yours is available to repair inadvertent glitches. Fwiw, by the time I went to the Smolin page to implement your suggestions, someone else had already made the fixes you outlined. I did, however, flesh out the new reference with the additional publication info you recommended. Thanks again! I highly value Wikipedia, and want to do whatever I can to help make it even better. JCNSmith (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Karenjc. Just stopping by to say thanks for the help with my article. Learning a lot, yet learning the HARD WAY by making tons of mistakes. Not even really sure is this is the proper place to post on your 'talk' page. I was looking for a 'click here to post a message' type button but didn't see one so i figured the proper way to do so was to 'edit' the page. So, in advance, sorry if this is the wrong place to post. Moving along, I posted a reply to you on the 'help' page where you initially replied to me at. I wanted to come to your page and notify you just to make sure you get it being that I could have possibly posted that wrong too, so I wanted to make sure you got my response being that i'm working on the 'notibility' issue with my article. Just get back to me when you can. Sorry about being Mr. Mistake, but i'm learning. Soon enough, I will be one of 'the masters' of wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hitm6337 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hitm6337. Yes, this is absolutely the right way to use a talk page :) Don't worry about making mistakes - you can't break Wikipedia and anything you may inadvertently get wrong can be fixed. The only way to get familiar with how this place works is to watch, learn and experiment. We've all done it. Good luck with your article, and do ask for help if you need it. Regards, - Karenjc 22:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There were probably several Crown & Anchor inns in London, but the one associated with Chartism appears to be the one in the Strand.

---

Ehrenkater (talk) 19:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's the show I was trying to remember since last three months..Again, very very thanks for answer. :) GiantBluePanda (talk) 21:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Glad to help :) - Karenjc 21:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited William Benbow, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jubilee year (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your response to my question It's been the most helpful and thorough response I've had. I've been somewhat disheartened by the process so far - I understand absolutely the needs of legality and thoroughness - but you're the only one who has been of assistance in working through this.

Abearfellow (talk) 05:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and you're most welcome  :-) - Karenjc 08:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As we say in London - "fill your boots" (go ahead). Regards, Alansplodge (talk) 12:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done, and thank you. - Karenjc 14:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWomen Unite!

Hi Karenjc! Women around the world who edit and contribute to Wikipedia are coming together to celebrate each other's work, support one another, and engage new women to also join in on the empowering experience of shaping the sum of all the world's knowledge - through the WikiWomen's Collaborative. As a WikiWoman, we'd love to have you involved! You can do this by: Liking the WikiWomen's Collaborative on Facebook and share your tips, projects, and connect with other WikiWomen Join the conversation on our Twitter feed Reading and writing for our blog channel We can't wait to have you involved, and feel free to drop by our meta page (under construction) to see how else you can get involved! Can't wait to have you involved! SarahStierch (talk) 00:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is that it? --Jayron32 22:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly is. Many thanks :) - Karenjc 23:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I like your tldr answer at User_talk:Impromp2Music better than my tldr answer there. It looks like she read yours... Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 01:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Elijah Dixon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Temperance (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Socratic Barnstar
		For sticking it right up the non-existent word "alot", and other acts of sterling service too numerous to mention, you have caused yourself to become my current heroine. Jack of Oz [Talk] 22:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! (after brief but mature consideration of all acceptable variants) x - Karenjc 06:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Loved your use of "pointy" on the Language Ref Desk today -- especially on a topic so often fraught with frustration and annoyance. Cheers!

Deborahjay (talk) 21:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I love kittens :-) - Karenjc 22:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am American. Your help desk response looked strange to me.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - I left a link to a pretty fair online definition. A chancer is an unscrupulous opportunist who doesn't hesitate to make his pitch irrespective of whether it's appropriate or not. A chancer would commiserate with you on the death of your husband, then offer to take his car off your hands for a knock-down price. Or, indeed, tag your company's Wikipedia article from an IP address and then write to you as a PR firm, offering to fix the issues for a consideration. Allegedly. - Karenjc 21:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I keep writing under completely unrelated subjects because I cannot for the life of me figure out how I start a new subject on this! Just to let you know that the Picture for Chris Difford has had approval sent by the author/photographer, Grace. If you could replace it as soon as that is passed through, I would be really grateful. I'll post this on Egghead's site too. Thank you. Also - Not sure how I go about getting the strap line removed about the page having issues due to me having an input - Apart from requesting the picture on the grounds that I did on the open forum, I didn't actually do anything. Any thoughts? Best wishes, (Loulou660 (talk) 10:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

No problem at all. As you see, I have added a header to this section. The easiest way to figure out syntax on Wikipedia is to find an example of the thing you want to do, then click on the edit button, take a look at what the actual code looks like, and copy how it's been done. In this case, you add two equals signs before the section title you want, and then two more after it. The title at the top of this section was produced by adding a line reading . ==Chris Difford== at the top. That produced the title and the dividing line that you see above.

I will go and check whether the new image's permissions have been received, recorded and updated. I will also review the header about conflict of interest, and remove it if I feel it's been fully addressed. You're doing exactly the right thing by discussing this rather than editing it yourself.

Regards, - Karenjc (talk) 20:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I just checked - the file hasn't been approved yet. Can you definitely confirm that Grace Difford sent her email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, and that it contained the correct name of the file, File:Difford.Chris Sept2013.jpeg and the wording at Wikipedia:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries. If so, the {{OTRS pending}} tag needs to be added to the image page. - Karenjc (talk) 20:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm learning so much here - it's great. Thanks for explaining how to open a new title. With regards to the consent - I copied and pasted the 'Declaration of Consent', I def named the file 'Difford.Chris Sept2013' and I gave her that email address. She did only send it at lunchtime today though - so I guess it could take a day or two? What do you think? (Loulou660 (talk) 21:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, it's probably in the system. I will risk adding the OTRS pending tag to the file. This will help the people checking the permissions to match the incoming email with the image it applies to. - Karenjc (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think permissions have been given now - I emailed again and said it had been sent. Another box has appeared under the picture saying they have received permission in accordance with the licensing so I guess you can upload it? Wdyt? Best (Loulou660 (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Unfortunately no - that new yellow box is just the OTRS pending tag I added myself. It says that email permission has been sent, so if an OTRS volunteer looks at the file and spots that it has been tagged "no permission" for more than a week, they also see my new tag and this alerts them to go and look for the email with the permission from Chris's daughter in it. Provided they find that email, and it is worded correctly, and they can fully match it to the file name, they will remove the red "no permission" box and replace it with the correct licence, at which point we can use the image in articlespace. I know it seems a bit bureaucratic, but it is important. You would not believe the hundreds of images uploaded to Wikipedia each day which are either simply stolen from somewhere else online, or else uploaded without the correct licence, and end up having to be deleted - that's why they are so careful. - Karenjc (talk) 18:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My brain hurts. Okay. I'll send another email alerting them to the fact it has been sent again and hope that they find it. I'm guessing that they'll alert you in some way when that is done? I don't know what else I can do except get her to send the permission again I guess? (Loulou660 (talk) 06:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

I think we have to give them a little time - don't forget everyone here is a volunteer and it's a huge project! It may not happen until someone is automatically alerted to the fact that the image has been up for a week without permissions, comes along to check whether it needs to be deleted, spots the "pending" tag and goes off to look for the correct email. Provided the permission has been sent and worded correctly, they will find it so we should get there in th end :-) - Karenjc (talk) 07:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some progress - one of the volunteers at Commons has just removed the "no permission" template and updated the yellow "permission has been sent" template with today's date. That means the image should be safe for another week, until (hopefully) someone gets round to finding the email, matching it with the image and tagging it as properly licensed :-) - Karenjc (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. I'll wait and watch to see. Thank you for keeping an eye on it for me. (Loulou660 (talk) 16:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

As I mentioned, I think your decision to "hat" the Help Desk post in question was reasonable. It looked to me like it was sort of a rant, and the quality of the English wasn't good. He or she then continued ranting at WP:ANI, which is not useful because ranting at the noticeboards tends to be like throwing a boomerang. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, and I left a "sorry" on the thread at ANI for giving him the link once I realised that even if he was reading advice or policies he was being linked to, he certainly wasn't taking them in, my own rather-too-gentle caveat included :-/ I have seen unfair deletionist pile-ons against WP:CLUE-less newbies before - it does happen, despite sensible advice like WP:DOLT - and IMO people should know where to go to read what we actually define as harrassment and where to ask for help if it happens to them. But in this case, it wasn't productive advice, and tbh I'm not sure whether anything else would be. We live and learn. - Karenjc (talk) 13:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the article to the original content about a politician from Rajasthan. If you take a look at the history you will see that between my last edit and yours, User:Sid5439 (clearly a newbie who doesn't know how WP works) replaced all the content to make it about a different politician from Uttar Pradesh. Clearly there should be two separate articles about these people - with dablinks. Unfortunately it is now past my bedtime so if you get to it before I do and you know or can find out how to do a history split then please go ahead. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes, I was right in the middle of the exact same mission when I got your message, wading my way through various versions of the same name online and trying to disentangle what's happening with these two possibly different Rajendras. To complicate matters further, the original article was moved to a "better" version of the name earlier today, which I suspect is the normal spelling of the person about whom the most recent changes were made but which may NOT be the normal spelling of the person about whom the article was originally created. There is also a slight possibility that the article is a hoax or similar, aimed at spoofing or ambushing Rajendra II, who seems to be a more prominent figure than Rajendra I if he exists, and a political opponent. I will keep digging, but yes, we may need to do a history split and end up with two articles. Just establishing the preferred spelling for each, if this happens, will be an achievement in itself! Cheers, Karenjc (talk) 21:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as though there are indeed two notable Rajendras, although the Rajasthan one gets more name spelling variations than the Uttar Pradesh one, see here, for example. I have left a message for Sid5439 offering help with starting a new article in the correct way about Uttar Pradesh Rajendra, which would be simpler than unpicking the history of the existing article, and I'll also start a discussion on the article's talk page. - Karenjc (talk) 08:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on creating Gaston Borch, a title which I've had watchlisted since Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2012 October 29#Bad guy riff. Deor (talk) 13:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I actually wrote the bulk of this in a sandbox almost a year ago, just after we saw that RefDesk question, but got distracted when I discovered that, while Borch did write a piece called The Slimy Viper, it's not actually the name of that particular famous riff after all. Here's a link to the veritable Viper, and it's nothing like. Looks like the incidental riff in question might be called The Villain. I decided poor Borch was still notable enough for an article when reviewing sandboxes today, so I moved him to mainspace and tagged the archived question (to mark the fact that the RefDesk really does function as a place for starting and improving articles as well as hosting fistfights). If I track down the actual composer of our spooky tune I will let you know. - Karenjc (talk) 14:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo! Mysterioso Pizzicato - Karenjc (talk) 15:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the answer at the help desk. I just now logged in, so it was already in the archives. I suppose that I will just leave the term "prepalate" in the article in question, since it seems that it is separate from both the soft and hard palates. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Yes, it looks like the difference between pre-palatial and post-alveolar is incredibly subtle and descriptive terminology for the same consonant may vary, but that both terms refer to a point of articulation that isn't quite on the hard palate and definitely not on the soft one. Karenjc (talk) 06:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Helloooo Karenjc! Bolekaja is back asking where his ne'er-been-edited Dele Jegede article is and I'm starting to wonder as to his sincerity. Hope your day is well, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely, it looks like Dele Jegede might be article-worthy. But either there is a huge competence issue here, or the OP's good faith may be questionable. Either way, we've done what we can. Karenjc (talk) 07:19, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I figured similarly on the notability, which is why I converted the PDF. Oh wells, thanks for your follow-up message at the HD! :D Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass (talk) 08:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Elsie Marley may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Song Lyrics with midi - Byker Hill |publisher=Traditionalmusic.co.uk |date= |accessdate=2013-10-24}}</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		Good work with your answer here. (I'm getting rather fed up with people who apparently feel compelled to respond to ref-desk threads without actually answering the question, as three folks did before you responded with the answer. I guess they just like to hear themselves type.) Deor (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Thanks for your note re Mysterioso Pizzicato. Glad you finally got around to it. Deor (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! - Karenjc (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mysterioso Pizzicato, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trope (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't understand your response sort-of. Your response was little vague, but what other website can I find answers? How & where can I contact the Writer for this movie? What's the writer's name? Have you seen this movie? Can you help me out? The Wikipedia Synopsis seems (1/2) vague for this movie.(76.20.90.53 (talk) 10:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

What more can I tell you? I have no inside information. I haven't seen the film. I was trying - gently - to point out that you're asking a lot of "why" questions about what fictional people in a film did, and that these questions may well be unanswerable because the people aren't real and the writer who invented them probably didn't think that far. Some of your questions seem to be based on not understanding the plot; a Wikipedian who has seen it may be able and wiling to explain, although you might be better off looking for a specialist film forum to ask on rather than this RefDesk - googling will doubtless find you one, and will also find you the name of the writer and possibly even how to contact them (IMDB is always a good place to start). But others seem to be about what characters were thinking, and we cannot possibly answer these without speculation, which we don't do. Remember that if a film plot seems full of holes, there may be no explanation for them - it may just be a poor plot. If you do find answers, please feel free to improve the synopsis, which I agree is not the best I've seen. Regards, Karenjc (talk) 21:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the Entertainment Desk, if someone gives me a Speculation Answer, then I don't mind at all. How come Speculation's banned from this Website?(76.20.90.53 (talk) 04:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

See the RefDesk header: "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate." And the RefDesk answer guidelines: "Personal opinions in answers should be limited to what is absolutely necessary, and avoided entirely when it gets in the way of factual answers." The relevant policies are WP:V and WP:NPOV. - Karenjc (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You are now listed as missing. Should you ever return or choose not to be listed, you are welcome to remove your name. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

1. Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
2. Editor-focused central editing dashboard
3. "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
4. Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
5. Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]