Archives

Archive 1: 2006–April 25, 2008 Archive 2: April 25, 2008–Jan. 3, 2009 Archive 3: Jan. 4, 2008–Feb. 24, 2010 Archive 4: Feb. 25, 2010–May. 4, 2010

Charles, I fully concur with the rationale that inspired your recent edit to santorum. I, too, have misgivings as to "widely regarded". In fact, I will advocate for source citations for ALL lead content (unless there is overwhelming and obvious consensus) that manages to survive this threshing process. However, until that time, I believe there are more pressing issues related to first paragraph lead content and structure..."vulgar" in particular right now. Once the structure and content inclusion can be generally agreed upon (using SV's re-write as a starting point), we can get down to the business of sourcing. Just my .02 which I thought would be more appropriate for your talk page. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just read your archive edit summary. I hope it wasn't my rv that inspired it...but you gotta do what you gotta do I guess. Sorry you're bailing but a wikibreak can sometimes work wonders. At least stay tuned. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, as you had earlier raised this issue and with the discussion of "vulgar" having somewhat abated, the subject of your earler rv is now on the floor at talk:santorum . Not canvassing for your input (though it would certainly be welcomed) but alerting you as a courtesy as I'm probably responsible for its discussion being delayed. Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You and I may not be sympatico on a lot of issues, but this project would be clearly the worse for your departure. Please reconsider. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. That whole santorum episode is disgraceful, but it would be even worse if it costs Wikipedia a good editor. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, There are many frustration and irritations. I understand your position, and sympathize with many of your concerns. I have had some of my own issues, although not necessarily as heartfelt as this. However, your presence is a positive force, and we (and the encyclopedia) are better for it. If you are gone, we (and it) will be diminished. I wish you the best in whatever you decide and do. For evil (or misguided editing) to triumph, all that needs be done is for those who oppose to do nothing. Bad result. Godspeed. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 04:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know how I can feel your pain, as you have seen the crap I have been put thru and how I got raped out of my adminship when we see such egregious behavior allowed elsewhere. Like you now I pretty much just go on Wikipedia to keep my previous work from getting pissed on as well as I can. I have enjoyed collaborating with you in the past and regret we have never met in real life despite the fact we live at most 40 miles away from each other. Take care dude.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 07:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are half way through 2011, and entering the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; the semi-finals are upon us! Points scored in the interim (29/30 June) may be counted towards next round, but please do not update your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. 16 contestants remain, and all have shown dedication to the project to reach this far. Our round leader was Casliber (submissions) who, among other things, successfully passed three articles through featured article candidates and claimed an impressive 29 articles at Did You Know, scoring 555 points. Casliber led pool D. Pool A was led by Wizardman (submissions), claiming points for a featured article, a featured list and seven good article reviews, while pool C was led by Eisfbnore (submissions), who claimed for two good articles, ten articles at Did You Know and four good article reviews. They scored 154 and 118 respectively. Pool B was by far our most competitive pool; six of the eight competitors made it through to round 4, with all of them scoring over 100 points. The pool was led by Hurricanehink (submissions), who claimed for, among other things, three featured articles and five good articles. In addition to the four pool leaders, 12 others (the four second places, and the 8 next highest overall) make up our final 16. The lowest scorer who reached round 4 scored 76 points; a significant increase on the 41 needed to reach round 3. Eight of our semi-finalists scored at least twice as much as this.

No points were awarded this round for featured pictures, good topics or In the News, and no points have been awarded in the whole competition for featured topics, featured portals or featured sounds. Instead, the highest percentage of points has come from good articles. Featured articles, despite their high point cost, are low in number, and so, overall, share a comparable number of points with Did You Know, which are high in number but low in cost. A comparatively small but still considerable number of points come from featured lists and good article reviews, rounding out this round's overall scores.

We would again like to thank Jarry1250 (submissions) and Stone (submissions) for invaluable background work, as well as all of those helping to provide reviews for the articles listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Please do keep using it, and please do help by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup.

Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here, for those interested, though it appears that neither are completely accurate at this time. 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 23:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The July 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) 00:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, I've instituted a process to, hopefully and credibly, NPOV resolve remnant hotbutton issues. While I'm mindful of your recent comments, as a prior participant in that discussion I would appreciate any consideration you might care to offer. Any credible resolution will require significant editor input and your observations would be appreciated. Thanks for your consideration. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are half way through the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; there is less than a month to go before we have our final 8. Our pool leaders are Adabow (submissions) (Pool A, 189 points) and PresN (submissions) (Pool B, 165 points). The number of points required to reach the next round is not clear at this time; there are some users who still do not have any recorded points. Please remember to update your submissions' pages promptly. In addition, congratulations to PresN, who scored the first featured topic points in the competition for his work on Thatgamecompany related articles. Most points this round generally have, so far, come from good articles, with only one featured article (White-bellied Sea Eagle, from Casliber (submissions)) and two featured lists (Hugo Award for Best Graphic Story, from PresN and Grammy Award for Best Native American Music Album, from Another Believer (submissions)). Points for Did You Know and good article reviews round out the scoring. No points have been awarded for In the News, good topics or featured pictures this round, and no points for featured sounds or portals have been awarded in the entire competition. On an unrelated note, preparation will be beginning soon for next year's WikiCup- watch this space!

There is little else to be said beyond the usual. Please list anything you need reviewing on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, so others following the WikiCup can help, and please do help if you can by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup- points are, of course, offered for reviews at GAC. Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here. 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 11:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The finals are upon us; we're down to the last few. One of the eight remaining contestants will be this year's WikiCup champion! 150 was the score needed to progress to the final; just under double the 76 required to reach round 4, and more than triple the 41 required to reach round 3. Our eight finalists are:

• Casliber (submissions), Pool A's winner. Casliber has the highest total score in the competition, with 1528, the bulk of which is made up of 8 featured articles. He has the highest number of total featured articles (8, 1 of which was eligible for double points) and total did you knows (72) of any finalist. Casliber writes mostly on biology, including ornithology, botany and mycology.
• PresN (submissions), Pool B's winner and the highest scorer this round. PresN is the only finalist who has scored featured topic points, and he has gathered an impressive 330, but most of his points come from his 4 featured articles, one of which scored double. PresN writes mostly on video games and the Hugo Awards.
• Hurricanehink (submissions), Pool A's runner-up. Hurricanehink's points are mostly from his 30 good articles, more than any other finalist, and he is also the only finalist to score good topic points. Hurricanehink, as his name suggests, writes mostly on meteorology.
• Wizardman (submissions), Pool B's runner-up. Wizardman has completed 86 good article reviews, more than any other finalist, but most of his points come from his 2 featured articles. Wizardman writes mostly on American sport, especially baseball.
• Miyagawa (submissions), the "fastest loser" (Pool A). Miyagawa has written 3 featured lists, one of which was awarded double points, more than any other finalist, but he was awarded points mostly for his 68 did you knows. Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, including dogs, military history and sport.
• Resolute (submissions), the second "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Resolute's points come from his 9 good articles. He writes mostly on Canadian topics, including ice hockey.
• Yellow Evan (submissions), who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool A). Most of Evan's points come from his 10 good articles, and he writes mostly on meteorology.
• Sp33dyphil (submissions), who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Phil's points come from his 9 good articles, 4 of which (more than any other finalist) were eligible for double points. He writes mostly on aeronautics.

We say goodbye to our seven other semi-finalists, Another Believer (submissions), Piotrus (submissions), Grandiose (submissions), Stone (submissions), Eisfbnore (submissions), Canada Hky (submissions) and MuZemike (submissions). Everyone still in the competition at this stage has done fantastically well, and contributed greatly to Wikipedia. We're on the home straight now, and we will know our winner in two months.

In other news, preparations for next year's competition have begun with a brainstorming thread. Please, feel free to drop by and share any thoughts you have about how the competition should work next year. Sign ups are not yet open, but will be opened in due course. Watch this space. Further, there has been a discussion about the rule whereby those in the WikiCup must delcare their participation when nominating articles at featured article candidates. This has resulted in a bot being created by new featured article delegate Ucucha (talk · contribs). The bot will leave a message on FAC pages if the nominator is a participant in the WikiCup.

A reminder of the rules: any points scored after August 29 may be claimed for the final round, and please remember to update submission pages promptly. 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 23:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Greetings! Any chance you can find any third-party citations to add to Lee Vayle. He's on the current project list for Wikipedia:Unreferenced BLP Rescue -- appears he may be notable, but its tagged as unreferenced. Cheers.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 11:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I know Vayle is mentioned at points in this book: [1], which is a somewhat critical look at branahmism. There is also reference to him in this book [Twentieth-century shapers of American popular religion]. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look. Hope all is well. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Lee Vayle has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable. I could not find any significant coverage about him at Google, Google News, or Google Books.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. MelanieN (talk) 14:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to fix it up. I think he is borderline notable, there are sources if you do some Google searching, and I noted a couple in the section before this, which you could use if you are interested in retaining the article. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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) 05:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	You're Extraordinary!
	Thank you for your help updating The Children's Museum of Indianapolis article. It's great to see you come back! You were missed at our second Backstage Pass & Edit-a-Thon. I hope you might come by soon. We appreciate your help making the Children's Museum page live up to our promise of being "extraordinary, always" :). Thanks again! LoriLee (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Wyandotte cave8.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on September 16, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 16, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article directors Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the last few edits. In particular, an earlier edit. I was trying to get it to go to a subsection of See Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States. It doesn't link right. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. :) —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still have the problem with the one edit. If you could help (this is today's FA), I would appreciate it. Can't get it to link to the religion subsection. Sorry, but it's annoying. OCD. Hope the other tweaks were OK. Thanks.

Ok, I will take alook. I expanded the note just a bit. He did not become catholic until after he retired, so he was only kind of a Catholic justice. From his own writings, he was generally an agnostic most of his life. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, Minton was as man of principle, took his wife's religion seriously, and was 'cramming for the finals.' 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha. I think you are probably right. In his late years, I suspect he regretted alot of his religious inactivity in earlier life. My main point was to be clear that he was not a practicing member of the Catholic Church during his time on the bench, unlike the others he is grouped with, who are practicing. As far as I have read, there is no evidence he ever attended church from death of his mother until his retirement (and his family was not Catholic). He definitely converted to Catholicism after his retirement. He was still technically a Justice until his death, because he retired rather than resigned. So he was technically a Catholic Justice in that sense only. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also think (given Minton's character and his wife's presumed character) that being buried on "hallowed ground" with her -- they wouldn't let him in if he didn't convert -- would have been a factor. Of course, this is all rank speculation without any evidence, but it would be consistent with Catholic practice. Cemeteries are segregated places, by and large. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Congratuations on having Sherman Minton on the main page! I hope that you will again be active in writing great articles on Indiana history. Reywas92Talk 02:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]