User talk:KimChee

I am preoccupied due to recent events in Asia and will be limited in my presence here for the foreseeable future.

This is KimChee's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Gordon Brown's favourite cookie. Since you had some involvement with the Gordon Brown's favourite cookie redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Diego Grez (EMSIUB) (talk) 14:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Joseph Mitchell Parsons you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 10 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Lord Roem (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time. I have responded to your comments in the GA review. KimChee (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I did some research with the help from a friend which wrote the page number for me. I cant personally verify those as I wasnt present but I do trust my friend. I guess its up to DYK standard now.Thanks for the help.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And sorry if I didnt format it right. Im not 100% into that field of the Wikipedia yet Thanks for doing it.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine. For future reference, you do not need to repeat full publication data for every citation if the complete literary information is included at the bottom. KimChee (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks again.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note on the DYK page so it can be evaluated. But I dont see any problems for it not to pass for DYK.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to the question about the references on the article's talk page. KimChee (talk) 04:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps read WP:POINT.  狐 FOX  01:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. You have my apologies. KimChee (talk) 01:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the by, thanks for being understanding about this whole issue. Sorry that it's been dragged out like this.  狐 FOX  13:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, this process has been an interesting new experience to me. KimChee (talk) 13:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to give you a advice if you are in the mood to make a new crime article, ten days ago DNA evidence finally officially freed Cornelius Dupree who had been in jail for 30 years for a crime that he didnt commit, he was already out when the DNA answers came. He has also been the subject of tv-documentaries because he was known to be innocent of the crime he was in prison for but the district attorney didnt want it to got to court etc etc etc.. Perhaps an interesting case. Just a suggestion.--BabbaQ (talk) 02:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I started a stub if you would like to add to it. KimChee (talk) 03:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering if you could make a comment on DYK so that the DYK nomination of the Fran Otto Erikssons gets moving and evaluated? Or that is perhaps not needed, just asking.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Frans Otto Eriksson article appears to be verified now. I added my name to the nom if that is okay with you. Also, I think the Cornelius Dupree article has cleared minimum length. If you can add some more edits to expand the article further, then I will go ahead and include your name in the DYK nom for this one, too. KimChee (talk) 08:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the issue you brought up.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also the Afd on Joanna Yeates has been closed as Keep, not that I expected anything else ofcourse. Anyway now the DYK nomination can be completed and I have left a comment confirming that the Afd has been closed. If you feel like it leave a comment to.;)--BabbaQ (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, I made DYK nomination for Cornelius Dupree, on the January 4 section. Feel free to change anything as you created the article.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Dupree article and the hook I suggested has now been OK:ed. So congratulations is in order for us, three DYK-ready articles in a matter of days.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KimChee. In answer to your query on my talk page, I found Dupree's date of birth on the Writ of Habeus Corpus, available as the first link at the bottom of the Innocence Project webpage that you cite as your second external link.--198.145.102.216 (talk) 01:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday Cornelius Duprees article was viewed 16.600 times and the day before that about 9.000 times. I find it strange that it suddenly get that mutch views..hmm.. it only got around 2.000 views when it was a DYK. Haha.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm embarrassed I left so many errors, thought I checked it but I must be too tired. --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up (small world!), I've now responded with an alt. Thanks :)  狐 FOX  00:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muchas gracias. ;D  狐 FOX  00:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 6 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Murder of Joanna Yeates, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the inquiry into the murder of Joanna Yeates, dubbed "Operation Braid", has become one of the largest police investigations in Bristol, England? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks from me and the DYK project Victuallers (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations is in order, You have done a great job on this article. Anyway, now it has been placed on DYK, I guess it wont be removed before midnight tonight so I guess we have to count in the views for January 6 and January 7. Just like the John and Sarah Makin article for a correct view figure..--BabbaQ (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now the DYK for Joanna Yeates has ended so in about 50 minutes we will be able to see how many checked it out during January 6.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

9.900 views... so close to the 10.000 view treshold but anyway impressive amount of views for Murder of Joanna Yeates.--BabbaQ (talk) 01:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 9 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Frans Otto Eriksson, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Frans Otto Eriksson was a Swedish baker who committed a double murder in 1909? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems that after the story has developed, that the weapon was indeed a Glock 19, not a Glock 17. I understand the confusion of the media at first as they are basically the same gun; with interchangeable parts. Also the assailant had two 33 round 9x19mm magazines for his weapon, which are interchangeable with all 9mm Glock weapons even the Glock 36 (Baby Glock). I assume that this further added to the confusion.

Thanks for correcting my error and keeping Wiki a friendly place for the exchange of information and cross checking. I truly appreciate it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonanaggie (talk • contribs) 02:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, your edit was specific enough that I presumed it was done in good faith. KimChee (talk) 02:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with a 30 round magazine is that it conflicts with CNN reports that there were 31 9mm rounds left in his magazine, and the fact that Glock Magazines are not made in 30 round capacity. Glock 19 high-capacity magazines are made in 33 rounds as you can see here: http://www.topglock.com/item/42680_Glock_High_Capacity_Magazine_Glock_MF17033_G17_Magazin.aspx. If you search around you will see that this is the only high-capacity magazine for the Glock 19 for a 9mm Parabellum round.

According to reports his second magazine jammed due to a spring failure, thankfully!

Jasonanaggie (talk) 08:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 11 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cornelius Dupree, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Cornelius Dupree was cleared by DNA profiling of committing a robbery for which he served 30 years in prison, longer than any other exonerated inmate in Texas? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I think 'reactions' still covers it all o.k , but 'political debate' is better than the other subsection heading - the tag could go for all I can see. Sayerslle (talk) 07:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KimChee,

I noticed that you re-created (and perhaps originally created) the subsection "Recovery" in the section regarding Gifford's assassination attempt. While we are all certainly hopeful she will only continue to improve from here, that is not a factual guarantee. Doctors have repeatedly stressed that the 3rd and 4th days are especially critical, because that is when the swelling is at its worst. In other words, awful as it is to say in the midst of optimistic results on her current condition, she may still not survive this, nor is she certain to retain this level of response. For this reason, it is still too early to create a "Recovery" subsection - we need to be sure that our edits are made from a historical perspective whenever possible, and this is a superficial change that is honestly premature. If you still disagree, I would appreciate hearing why - you appear to be a much more senior editor than I, and it's certainly possibly I'm viewing this the wrong way. Thank you.

- DrLight11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drlight11 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is not my term. That is the term used by her attending doctors. If you feel this is premature, I am happy to wait until a later date. KimChee (talk) 21:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The web site is msnbc.com, not MSNBC. The publisher of the web site is MSN.

You arbitrarily reverted changes that were correct and ones that included corrections to the incorrect date formats, added fields, and the name of the victim for no benefit. Whywhenwhohow (talk) 05:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One size does not fit all, it may be beneficial to check if an item is a specific program or publication vs. a network or news agency. Hence, why various fields are provided by the various citation templates. KimChee (talk) 05:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We obviously disagree. I know what end users will see. I have been editing Wikipedia for several years. You are quick with undo and wiped out other needed corrections and updates. Whywhenwhohow (talk) 05:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Outside of the reference formatting, can you identify an edit conflict that should be fixed? Your account looks relatively new and Jack Merridew has been here a very long time with a focus on reference formatting. I trust his judgement. KimChee (talk) 05:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jack agreed with my changes. He wrote "saw your edit summary, which makes sense. Sorry for the bump." I suggest you review the differences between MSNBC and msnbc.com and the brand confusion that is described on the msnbc.com page. Whywhenwhohow (talk) 05:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jack is very friendly about edit conflicts, but I would stick with the guidelines presented in the {{cite news}} template -- make sure you distinguish between a publication such as The New York Times vs. an organization such as The McClatchy Company vs. an agency such as Associated Press. KimChee (talk) 05:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, KimChee. The Quinones ref doesn't say Randy is a retired truck driver. It says the neighbor is a retired gasoline truck driver. --Kenatipo (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good eye! KimChee (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is RL really a retired truck driver or is this just a wikimistake? --Kenatipo (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The L.A. Times says "stay-at-home dad", but that sounded a little too informal to include as-is in the article. KimChee (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have followed a criminal case involving a Las Vegas show dancer who disappeared in December 2010 and whos body was found this saturday in a quite bizzarre manor. If you feel like it then do a stub for this case, as you are so good at doing those if you find time and interest for it ofcourse. The case has recived alot of coverage from american media as you can see here.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in my opinion, Jared Lee Loughner would be acceptable for DYK if the hook doesn't have to do with current events. - PM800 (talk) 05:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please check out the Death of Linda Norgrove GA nomination.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little preoccupied right now, but I will be happy to help if it does not pass by this weekend. KimChee (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I can inform you that it passed the GA review moments ago, after just a few hours;). I asked the reviewer about a possible GA nomination for Joanna Yeates. The user answered, At first glance it looks detailed enough to have a good shot - maybe try expanding the 'Background' section. I dont know your stand in this KimChee but it would certainly be a good way to keep the article away from possible future second time Afd requests if it passes GA. Which the user in my opinion thought would be very possible. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. I think the Yeates article may be a good candidate in the future, but will likely be too unstable to meet GA criteria for a while. KimChee (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Photograph of Jared Lee Loughner by Pima County Sheriff's Office.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Active Banana (^bananaphone 21:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not upload this file, I am the one who asked about its status in WP:MCQ. KimChee (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I just wanted to add the picture from talk. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 17 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Federal Correctional Institution, Phoenix, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Cris Kirkwood of the Meat Puppets and Jerry Posin of Steppenwolf teamed up to perform music while both were imprisoned at the Federal Correctional Institution in Phoenix, Arizona? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thank you for this contribution to our second decade of wikipedia Victuallers (talk) 06:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I noticed your activity as a Good Article reviewer, and wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors in the coming term. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 03:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Vein matching 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! Otherwise a very interesting article and hook. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article might interest you, Murder of Anni Dewani.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the time, this article might interest you too. Carlina White kidnapping.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I will take a look at it this weekend. KimChee (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 22 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ajmer Dargah attack, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the 2007 Ajmer Dargah attack was carried out by explosives hidden in a Tiffin carrier? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For your improvements to the article Carlina White kidnapping. Edison (talk) 02:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, another editor suggested I look at this. I hope it looks good for DYK. KimChee (talk) 10:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits have greatly improved the article. Edison (talk) 05:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was just commenting on the plot/references issue :D

But yeah, even though the rules seem to discourage it, DYK does approve nominations for films that haven't been released. Don't ask me why. - PM800 (talk) 13:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting caveat. I will wait to hear back from the nominator, but I guess I will go easy on this one. Thanks. :) KimChee (talk) 13:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the 2011 WikiCup! Your submissions' page can be found here and instructions of how to update the page can be found here and on the submissions' page itself. From the submissions' page, a bot will update the main scoresheet. Our rules have been very slightly updated from last year; the full rules can be found here. Please remember that you can only receive points for content on which you have done significant work in 2011; nominations of work from last year and "drive-by" nominations will not be awarded points. Signups are going to remain open through January, so if you know of anyone who would like to take part, please direct them to Wikipedia:WikiCup/2011 signups. The judges can be contacted on the WikiCup talk page, on their respective talk pages, or by email. Other than that, we will be in contact at the end of every month with the newsletter. If you want to stop or start receiving newsletters, please remove your name from or add your name to this list. Good luck! J Milburn and The ed17 21:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - As far as I know, it's not really necessary to include the date in every ref name - the idea is just that there be an easy to reproduce nickname for each reference, so anything unique works. Sometimes the date's a good idea when many refs are coming in from the same publication or with similar titles, but I find it's most useful and least prone to error when the ref name is kept relatively short and memorable, so the date doesn't have to be embedded there. Cheers. Tvoz/talk 09:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and tend to use simpler name tags for refs in smaller articles. That said, I prefer using dates in naming news citations, especially in large articles that have bursts of activity during cycles of breaking news as there will be a literal avalanche of incoming information, often from a recurring pool of sources in a short period of time. I have seen other users cut and paste more difficult-to-remember numbers and data from URLs as ref names, so I find dates to be the most practical to use ... and perhaps a memorable word from the headline if the same source publishes multiple articles on the same day. KimChee (talk) 11:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just try to keep it as simple as possible, but yeah. Meanwhile, I think the work we've done on Giffords has improved it significantly. Tvoz/talk 17:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merci! Comte0 (talk) 08:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 26 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Vein matching, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the FBI and CIA used vein matching as evidence that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed of al-Qaeda had killed journalist Daniel Pearl? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently reviewed your nomination of Neoregelia 'Dr. Who' at Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know and have found that there are still outstanding issues. Please review the new comment underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for helping this years April Fools be funny! --Found5dollar (talk) 02:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 27 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jared Lee Loughner, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Jared Lee Loughner was detained at the Federal Correctional Institution at Phoenix after the 2011 Tucson shooting? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime! I knew he had to be on the BOP database, so I used some variations of his name WhisperToMe (talk) 13:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I was wondering if you could help me by checking out Bright Lights, Bigger City I have nominated it for DYK but I could need some pro help as I got this message Alt 1 will be fine once the all-caps reference titles in the article are fixed.--BabbaQ (talk) 05:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made a couple passes through the article to clean up the references. Let me know if you need more help. KimChee (talk) 09:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very mutch:). I have followed a missing persons case this week from Michigan concerning two women who was found buried and shot today. Did a search for the victims names and found a quite large number of hits, this story has been a top news in American media for the entire week. See here for information, maybe just maybe we could start a stub perhaps Amy Sue Henslee and Tonya Howarth murders or similar. I wanted to hear your opinion first as you are better aware of what can survive on Wikipedia.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the Murder of Anni Dewani article that became DYK has reached 5,100 views during its time as DYK yesterday could you help me by adding it to the DYK stats. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. I have noticed that the GimmeBot is removing Afd results and DYKs on the talk pages of articles. Is that really good? I would assume that if an article ever have gone trough a Afd process that would be something useful to know for people who is perhpas willing to put it up for deletion again. And the DYKs like the one on Anni Dewani for example would be something that I for example dont want removed. The bot had removed the Afd on Death of Linda Norgrove recently which I restored. What is your opinion?.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I think Im starting to get it now. After your edits. Its ofcourse shown on the articles milestones. Oh my apologies;).--BabbaQ (talk) 12:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question, I was thinking of doing a total re-write on an article which is about a Swedish person. Anyway my question is if I do this complete re-write and the length and hook and everything is OK then would it pass trough the DYK process?.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If an article is not new (less than 5 days old), then the expanded prose (text minus headers, captions, infoboxes, tables, etc.) of the rewritten article must be 5x longer to qualify for DYK. For biographical articles that previously lacked references or citations, the article must be expanded 2x to qualify. All other rules are the same (i.e. work must have been done within the last 5 days). I hope this answers your question. KimChee (talk) 00:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Star Is Born (2012 film) has gained over 10,500 views during its DYK: Please add it to DYK stats as no one has done it. Thanks--BabbaQ (talk) 13:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've found some time to look again at this article which I peer reviewed in Deceember. You appear to have addressed the points I raised, and the article is clearly better for this. One point that I missed in my earlier review is the use of cites in the lead. Normally, material that is cited in the text does not need to be also cited in the lead, so I wonder how many of these cites are necessary. If your intention is to take the article to FAC, it might be as well to have a brief second peer review with someone else's eyes on it, though I would watch it and comment if necessary. My problem at the moment is that I am extremely short of time for detailed reviews, a situation likely to continue for another two or three weks at least. Brianboulton (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply, I really do appreciate it! KimChee (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Article 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! — Rod ^talk 13:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. Signups are now closed, and we have 129 listed competitors, 64 of whom will make it to round two. Congratulations to The Bushranger (submissions), who, at the time of writing, has a comfortable lead with 228 points, followed by Hurricanehink (submissions), with 144 points. Four others have over 100 points. Congratulations also go to Yellow Evan (submissions), who scored the first points in the competition, claiming for Talk:Hurricane King/GA1, Miyagawa (submissions), who scored the first non-review points in the competition, claiming for Dognapping, and Jarry1250 (submissions) who was the first in the competition to use our new "multiplier" mechanic (explanation), claiming for Grigory Potemkin, a subject covered on numerous Wikipedias. Thanks must also go to Jarry1250 for dealing with all bot work- without you, the competition wouldn't be happening!

A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round two is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 22:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 1 February 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article ROKS Choi Young (DDH-981), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the South Korean naval vessel Choi Young (pictured) launched a rescue operation that freed the tanker Samho Jewelry from Somali pirates with only one hostage injured? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 1 February 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article MV Samho Jewelry, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the South Korean naval vessel Choi Young (pictured) launched a rescue operation that freed the tanker Samho Jewelry from Somali pirates with only one hostage injured? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently reviewed your nomination of USCGC Alexander Hamilton (WPG-34) at Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know and have found that there are still outstanding issues. Please review the new comment underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for helping this years April Fools be funny!--Found5dollar (talk) 14:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was thinking of putting Joanna yeates article up for GA. Now I personally think that the article has reached stability. Not another court date until May 4, not trial until October this year. And those event wont I guess have a huge effect on the overall article prose, and even so those events are months away and those changes will be quite few and made properly. I just want to know your opinion. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Her funeral has not even been held yet. The article has developed in a piecemeal fashion and is still at C-class. I would recommend waiting until the plea hearing in May. KimChee (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah,.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I'm afraid I've removed your GA, as the article was nominated last year. Hope you understand. J Milburn (talk) 12:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I had presumed it was okay since the first GA entry was reviewed before mine, but I get it now. KimChee (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's ambiguous and doesn't tell us whether Joran or Radio Nederlands was seeking the interview.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I took another pass at clarification. I am flattered you are still following this. :) KimChee (talk) 13:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Altez who?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 8 February 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Peter M. Rhee, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Peter M. Rhee, one of the first American battlefield surgeons in Afghanistan, was the attending physician of U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords after the shooting in Tucson? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 8 February 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cheonghae Unit, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that a South Korean naval unit defended a North Korean ship against Somali pirates? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 8 February 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John David Duty, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that John David Duty is the first person to be executed in the United States with pentobarbital, which is commonly used for animal euthanasia? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		You've popped up in my watchlist an awful lot... what can I say? You deserve this Egg Centric (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

감사합니다! KimChee (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in this stub, suggested by me and started by user ErrantX. Schenecker double murders.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 12 February 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sugar House Prison (Utah), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that much of the demolition of Sugar House Prison in Utah had to be carried out stone by stone, because dynamite had little effect on its heavy walls? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 06:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing the hook for Richard Smith (silent film director). I have responded to your comment, at T:TDYK. Please see Template_talk:Did_you_know#Richard_Smith_.28silent_film_director.29. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 07:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 07:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My own Zen garden. Thank you! — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 February 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sugar house prisons (New York), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the British Army used sugar houses in New York City to hold prisoners during the American Revolutionary War? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will help out where I can but unfortunately, I am swamped with work in the real life so I may not be able to do much. You are doing a great job nonetheless, I will try to help out where I can. Remember (talk) 17:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tvoz/talk 19:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi maybe you want to participate in the Afd put on my latest stub for Emilia Carr. I find it strange that it was put on just hours after and for a policy that isnt even relevant ONEEVENT as Emilia Carr is notable in many aspects (in my personal opinion) which I have stated on the afd.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for all the help with the Emilia Carr article. Thanks!--BabbaQ (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The 50 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal
		The D.Y.K. Project thanks you for your many contributions to the Encyclopedia. The Interior (Talk) 17:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! KimChee (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your first post-PR note but failed to reply quickly, then forgot. I looked at the PR just now, and all looks fine. "Overshadowed" is just right. The subtle mention of Condit's wife is just right. The revised "Sentencing and appeals" section looks fine with one possible exception: Susan Levy responded, "Did you really take her life? Look me in my eyes and tell me." before being reminded by Judge Gerald Fisher to address the court and not Guandique directly. The double terminal-period problem arises here because of the nested complete sentences. When this sort of thing pops up in my writing, I usually opt for a work-around. Maybe: Before Judge Gerald Fisher reminded her to address the court and not Grandique directly, Susan Levy responded, "Did you really take her life? Look me in my eyes and tell me." Please let me know when you take this to FAC. I think it's ready. Finetooth (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So begins round two of the WikiCup! We now have eight pools, each with eight random contestants. This round will continue until the end of April, when the top two of each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers of those remaining, will make it to round three. Congratulations to The Bushranger (submissions) (first, with 487 points) and Hurricanehink (submissions) (second, with 459), who stormed the first round. Casliber (submissions) finished third with 223. Twelve others finished with over 100 points- well done to all of you! The final standings in round one can be seen here. A mere 8 points were required to reach round two; competition will no doubt be much more fierce this round, so be ready for a challenge! A special thanks goes, again, to Jarry1250 (submissions) for dealing with all bot work. This year's bot, as well as running smoothly, is doing some very helpful things that last year's did not. Also, thanks to Stone (submissions) for some helpful behind-the-scenes updating and number crunching.

Some news for those who are interested- March will see a GAN backlog elimination drive, which you are still free to join. Organised by WikiProject Good articles, the drive aims to minimise the GAN backlog and offers prizes to those who help out. Of course, you may well be able to claim WikiCup points for the articles you review as part of the drive. Also ongoing is the Great Backlog Drive, looking to work on clearing all of the backlogs on Wikipedia; again, incentives are offered, and the spirit of friendly competition is alive, while helping the encyclopedia is the ultimate aim. Though unrelated to the WikiCup, these may well be of interest to some of you.

Just a reminder of the rules; if you have done significant work on content this year and it is promoted in this round, you may claim for it. Also, anything that was promoted after the end of round one but before the beginning of round two may be claimed for in round two. Details of the rules can be found on this page. For those interested in statistics, a running total of claims can be seen here, and a very interesting table of that information (along with the highest scorers in each category) can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Daniel Hernandez Jr. is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Hernandez Jr. until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in joining the current talk page discussion on the Joanna Yeates article as a user has removed all information on Chris Jeffries. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the Afd on Emilia Carr was closed as No Consensus. However I think that the article could need a change in focus and perhaps a namechange as suggested in the Afd. If you feel like it and have the time and interest perhaps you could take a look. To minimize the risk of future re-nominations of the article.Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Joran van der Sloot you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Joran van der Sloot for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment here. Materialscientist (talk) 07:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 15 March 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Emilia Carr, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Emilia Carr is the first woman from Marion County, Florida to be sentenced to death since Aileen Wournos in 1992? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, the DYK on Emilia Carr recieved 8,900 views. Could you please add that to the DYKstats. Great.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the time, please check out this article that I have made.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will look when I have a chance, but it may take me a while under present circumstances. KimChee (talk) 10:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my DYK for Linni Meister recieved 13.300 views. Please add to DYKstats, thanks. Really good.--BabbaQ (talk) 05:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have been helped by another user. Thanks anyway.:)--BabbaQ (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are half way through round two of the WikiCup, which will end on 28 April. Of the 64 current contestants, 32 will make it through to the next round; the two highest in each pool, and the 16 next highest scorers. At the time of writing, our current overall leader is Hurricanehink (submissions) with 231 points, who leads Pool H. Piotrus (submissions) (Pool G) also has over 200 points, while 9 others (three of whom are in Pool D) have over 100 points. Remember that certain content (specifically, articles/portals included in at least 20 Wikipedias as of 31 December 2010 or articles which are considered "vital") is worth double points if promoted to good or featured status, or if it appears on the main page in the Did You Know column. There were some articles last round which were eligible for double points, but which were not claimed for. For more details, see Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring.

A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round three is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 01:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 1 April 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Neoregelia 'Dr. Who', which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Dr. Who's parents are Brazilians from a family known for pineapples? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 08:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi,I had to put Colin Hatch first AFD result up for deletion review and it was established that the result somewat wasnt Delete when closed and it was closed prematurely. I have to tell you that I am personally a bit suspicious over the AFD result of the second Colin Hatch AFD result today. First of all it was closed by the same user that closed the first one prematurely and also I am still personally not convinced that the actual "result" should be delete. In my opinion a closing of this AFD should have been handled by someone else than this user once again for the second time, pone could question that users bias or non-bias in the direction of delete or keep. I want your opinion before taking it back to Deletion review. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colin Hatch--BabbaQ (talk) 17:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Round 2 of the 2011 WikiCup is over, and the new round will begin on 1 May. Note that any points scored in the interim (that is, for content promoted or reviews completed on 29-30 April) can be claimed in the next round, but please do not start updating your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. Fewer than a quarter of our original contestants remain; 32 enter round 3, and, in two months' time, only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. Casliber (submissions), who led Pool F, was our round champion, with 411 points, while 7 contestants scored between 200 and 300 points. At the other end of the scale, a score of 41 was high enough to reach round 3; more than five times the score required to reach round 2, and competition will no doubt become tighter now we're approaching the later rounds. Those progressing to round 3 were spread fairly evenly across the pools; 4 progressed from each of pools A, B, E and H, while 3 progressed from both pools C and F. Pools D and G were the most successful; each had 5 contestants advancing.

This round saw our first good topic points this year; congratulations to Hurricanehink (submissions) and Nergaal (submissions) who also led pool H and pool B respectively. However, there remain content types for which no points have yet been scored; featured sounds, featured portals and featured topics. In addition to prizes for leaderboard positions, the WikiCup awards other prizes; for instance, last year, a prize was awarded to Candlewicke (submissions) (who has been eliminated) for his work on In The News. For this reason, working on more unusual content could be even more rewarding than usual!

Sorry this newsletter is going out a little earlier than expected- there is a busy weekend coming up! A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 19:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're half way through round 3 of the 2011 WikiCup. There are currently 32 remaining in the competition, but only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. Casliber (submissions), of pool D, is our overall leader with nearly 200 points, while pools A, B and C are led by Racepacket (submissions), Hurricanehink (submissions) and Canada Hky (submissions) respectively. The score required to reach the next round is 35, though this will no doubt go up significantly as the round progresses. We have a good number of high scorers, but also a considerable number who are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. Also, an important note concerning nominations at featured article candidates: if you are nominating content for which you intend to claim WikiCup points, please make this clear in the nomination statement so that the FAC director and his delegates are aware of the fact.

A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:31, 31 May 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 23:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Murder on a Horse Trail is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder on a Horse Trail until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]