User talk:Cerebellum

Rob Keyloch

Many thanks for your suggestions (decliner=Cerebellum|ts=20121108113636|u=193.60.60.79) that I implement inline citations so that reader can tell where information comes from. I have also kept in mind WP:42 and included external and verifieable references. Best Wishes, J

Independent Collectors

Hello, I hope you can help me. You just approved my article on Independent Collectors, but now it is already up for deletion. And I am unable to improve my article as my account has been blocked. (Hence me writing this without being logged in) I think I misunderstood the guidelines when choosing my username but now that I do understand I cant change it anymore. I am a bit at a loss here. Can you help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.19.208.178 (talk) 13:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

RazorThreat article submission

Thank you so much for your reply and specific examples. They are exactly what I was looking for. I will update the article and resubmit. I look forward to your next review. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Granite (talk • contribs) 16:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Chris van Ouwerkerk submission

Thank you very much again for the encouragement and advice. I have updated the submission and am now unsure how to resubmit it for review. I have added to the figures notability and increased the number of sources. If you can advise on going forward from here it would be much appreciated!

HeavyWeight Yoga article submission

Your message declining this article states that "Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established."

1. Pilarzyk, p. 140 The practice uses language geared to the overweight. 2. San Antonio Express News, Lifestyles, October 6, 2005 3. Health.com, April 12, 2010 ^ Pilarzyk, p. 140 ^ a b Pilarzyk, p. 139 ^ Pilarzyk, p. 143 4. American Fitness, Nov-Dec 2010. p. 52

Pilarzyk, Tom (2008). Yoga Beyond Fitness. Quest Books. ISBN 978-0-8356-0863-3.

1. The Skinny, Orlando Sun Sentinel, July 16, 2008, Abby Lentz gives tips on HeavyWeight yoga 2. Great Day Houston, KHOU Houston, Texas Jan. 1, 2020 HeavyWeight Yoga Allows You To Exercise In Your Own Skin 3. Natural Solutions Magazine, January 1, 2009, Embrace Your Curves 4. Daily Spark, June, 2009, You Don't have to be Stick Thin to Do HeavyWeight Yoga 5. San Antonio Express-News S.A. Life, September, 2009. HeavyWeight Yoga revisited 6. Health.com, April 10, 2010, Yoga Can Help You Love Your Body (and Lose Weight) 7. Austin American-Statesman, Fit City, July 23, 2012, Is yoga as an Olympic sport a stretch?

The above are 11 independent, reliable sources referenced throughout this article. Three are daily newspapers. One is a published book. One is the leading TV station in Houston. One is the website operated by Health magazine, and another is the trade journal for fitness trainers, American Fitness.

Please be specific about what elements of the article don't use independent sources. I'll do my best to locate them and reference them in a revision.

Best wishes,

--Ronseybold (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I've given the article a thorough rewrite to bring it into line with encyclopedic language, plus I've removed explict references to the materials whose source is the creator of the HeavyWeight practice. Also, I've been working on summarizing the story of the founder's training. Thanks so much for your guidance on this. Let me know how it's looking this time around.

-- Ronseybold (talk) 00:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Um, I'm a little confused on how to resubmit this for another review, now that the changes are looking good. Can you help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronseybold (talk • contribs) 02:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I think I've just figured it out. Thanks so much for your help in this. I'm eager to find some other topics I might submit, or flesh out some stubs.Ronseybold (talk) 02:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Followup RFC to WP:RFC/AAT now in community feedback phase

Hello. As a participant in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, you may wish to register an opinion on its followup RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, which is now in its community feedback phase. Please note that WP:RFC/AAMC is not simply a repeat of WP:RFC/AAT, and is attempting to achieve better results by asking a more narrowly-focused, policy-based question of the community. Assumptions based on the previous RFC should be discarded before participation, particularly the assumption that Wikipedia has or inherently needs to have articles covering generalized perspective on each side of abortion advocacy, and that what we are trying to do is come up with labels for that. Thanks! —chaos5023 20:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The article on the J. Manley Robbins Trail

Hi. I saw you recently declined the article I wrote on the J. Manley Robbins Trail for its lack of notability. I agree that the article's notability is not too well established. However, I did write in the article that it was potentially the oldest rail-trail in America. Should this count for something with regards to the notability? Perhaps instead of having it deleted, there would be some way to improve it? Thanks. King jakob c (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I saw your counter-proposal to creating an article on the trail. That sounds good to me. King jakob c (talk) 14:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

A Thank You Message

Thanks for your work with The New New Deal, supporting its move from 'Articles For Creation' to the site proper. It's my first article that I've made myself related to this user account.

I'd post a kitten image or something, but... ah... anyways, keep up the good work! CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Another thank you message

Hi Cerebellum, more thanks to you - this time for your help and advice on my Bernadette Davis article. I do hope to add to it in the future, as I find more info / more sources become available, and thanks for pointing me to the grading system page. By the way, do you know if it's possible to re-name the page, e.g. from Bernadette Davis to Bernadette Davis (Writer)? PaukiPKK (talk) 09:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)PaukiPKK

Hi Cerebellum - re your message to me about the page change: OK, I'll leave it as it is. I had noticed there was another Bernadette Davis, a feminist/blogger/editor [her words!] living in the USA, so I thought it may be worth distinguishing them - but now this Bernadette has got there first, the other one will have to differentiate - if they ever become notable! PaukiPKK (talk) 11:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)PaukiPKK

Hi again Cerebellum - I was just adding some more quotes and references to the page on Bernadette Davis, from reviews about the show Some Girls after its first episode aired - and I thought: "Should I be creating a page for Some Girls itself and then have these reviews and quotes on that page?" (I thought the quotes were apt for Bernadette's page originally as they stated that the writing was original and unusual, but then now that I look at it, it looks like, as they're about the show more than Bernadette, that perhaps the show itself should have a page of its own.) PK. PaukiPKK (talk) 13:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)PaukiPKK

Hi CB, had a look at the Infobox thing - a good idea, though it's certainly a test of whether you can follow rules, sorry protocols! - though I might wait till there's a bit more info available, as you suggested - thanks for the idea! PK. PaukiPKK (talk) 22:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)PaukiPKK.

feindura article submission

hi, thanks for reviewing my submission. currently i cant find more sources which talk about feindura, but i am sure they exist and more will come soon. so my question is, how long does the submission article stay, or will it be deleted? feindura exists since 2010 and its one of the few flat file cms out there. Almost all other cms have also an wikipedia article, so i assume feindura deserves one too :) If more sources will come up, i will add them to the refs. thanks in advance. frozeman (talk) 15:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for apprvoing justin c. hamilton Iknowball 07:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iknowball (talk • contribs)

"Regarding Justin C. Hamilton" I just noticed that the (Basketball) at the end of my title ( Justin C. Hamlilton (Basketball) Has been removed. I dont understnad why. There are other Justin Hamiltons that play so I put his middle intial to differenitate him from them but with out the Basketball, his name doesnt come up under the wiki search. You have to put the C. for his middle name. Is there any way to get it back on there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iknowball (talk • contribs) 08:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Just a note, I moved both Justin Hamilon pages to fit existing basketball convention: Justin Hamilton (basketball, born 1980) and Justin Hamilton (basketball, born 1990) Rikster2 (talk) 21:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank yoiu Rikster2. Iknowball 09:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iknowball (talk • contribs)

Wealth Lab article submission

After you declined my article, I went back and added numerous reliable sources as you suggested. I hope you could take another look and if you see anything that stands out as a deal breaker that you would let me know ASAP and I´ll fix it. The subject should not suffer because I happen to be a poor editor. I´m quite confident that once this article is published that it fill up with more quality content fast as I have no doubt that many Wealth Lab users also dabble in Wikipedia as I do. I find it easy to edit pre-existing articles and make them better, but it has been daunting to try and get a new article posted. I would really appreciate any help as I´m all in now. Thanks in advance Heatman1 (talk) 13:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I really appreciate the quick response. I´ll post a note on the Wealth Lab forum and see if I can get some help improve its level. Cheers! Heatman1 (talk) 17:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening COTM

The current monthly WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening collaborations are: Cold frame Fodder Gardening in Alaska National Organic Program Saint Petersburg Botanical Garden The next collaborations will be posted on December 1, 2012. To propose future collaborations, please contribute here! V • T

From: Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Submission VergeGameStudio

Thank you for helping. That was the first article created myself.

Have a Waffle ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bau912 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Haha, I love waffles! Glad I could help :) --Cerebellum (talk) 11:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Equinet article submission

Thank you very much for looking into the article I created. You declined it because "the sources provided seem to be affiliated with the subject". I am sorry if this is a newbie confusion, but I would like to say that I referred to Equinet's sources because this is the only place where this kind of detailed information about the organisation can be found. Equinet like many other small organisations do not have in-depth or up-to-date depictions of them written by other entities.

I randomly checked some of the organisations that work in equality field and suffer from the same kind of problems. Indeed, I found that their Wikipedia pages don't refer to any other sources apart from their own and in some cases include a long text without any references. Yet they have been approved...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission_against_Racism_and_Intolerance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENAR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Women%27s_Lobby

So I am simply wondering what a feasible solution would be? Would I have to wait years and hope that the organisation would become famous enough to have its structure and activities portrayed by newspapers or other entities? Thank you for your reply! Equinet (talk) 13:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry if this is disappointing - let me know if there is anything else I can do for you, and I wish you success in your future endeavors. --Cerebellum (talk) 18:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't even know if I should reply on my or your Talk page, such a n00b. But I do not understand how I should make the changes ? After doing research for alternative sources and adding them I clicked "edit the article" on my page and then saved it and sent for submission. But now you say that I did it "without going through the Articles for Creation process, simply by going to a blank page (e.g. Equinet) and filling in information". I don't even know what I did wrong, I would be happy to do it the right way.

But what about those other articles I linked, the ones that are accepted with way poorer sources than the ones here? Just curious!

Thanks a lot for all your help, I really appreciate it. Equinet (talk) 13:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, now things make more sense! Thanks for all the tips and special credit for your patient and helpful attitude towards newcomers. Equinet (talk) 09:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Women's Worldwide Web article submission

Thank you very much for looking into the article. After receiving the "declining" note, I changed the section that you mentioned in your comments. I hope you could take a look and let me know if the language is fine for an Encyclopedia. Thanks again! --GabyLevy (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you message

Thank you so much for your valuable comments and help! --GabyLevy (talk) 09:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Glad I could help :) --Cerebellum (talk) 13:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/RaiseAChild.US

I would like feedback please on my article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/RaiseAChild.US, which you said read more like an advertisement. This is my first article and in my zeal to document online sources, I included press releases the organization published on PRWeb. I'm guessing that might be one of the problems, but I'd like to know if it is and also if there are other problems, such as talking too much about the founders. I tried to follow the format of other articles published on Wikipedia about other nonprofits. I would like to correct this article and submit others, so I would appreciate specific feedback on how to revise the article so that it will be accepted. Editor.corlight (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)Editor.corlight

I believe I have incorporated all of your suggestions. Please review my article again and let me know if I need to make further corrections. Thank you! Editor.corlight (talk) 18:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)Editor.corlight

HP Flexible DC AfC

Hi Cerebellum. I wonder if you could take another look at: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/HP Flexible DC

I have had former colleagues, business relations, etc. with both HP and IBM, so I tend to avoid direct editing, but I gave it a quick cleanup and believe it is probably ready. Corporate 15:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening COTM

The current monthly WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening collaborations are: Agribusiness Bolting (horticulture) Garden city movement Garden design Grex (horticulture) The next collaborations will be posted on January 1, 2013. To propose future collaborations, please contribute here! V • T

From: Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

An Barnstar for You!

	The AFC Backlog Buster Barnstar
	Congratulations, Cerebellum! You're receiving The Articles for Creation Barnstar because you reviewed 170 articles during the recent AFC Backlog elimination drive! Thank you for you contributions to Wikipedia at-large and helping to keep the backlog down. We hope you continue reviewing submissions and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! Dom497 (talk) 00:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

No word on RaiseAChild.US page yet

Hi Cerebellum, At your suggestion, I resubmitted my RaiseAChild.US page on November 14 and November 28 but I haven't heard anything. Is there something I am doing incorrectly in the resubmission process? Thanks! Editor.corlight — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor.corlight (talk • contribs) 23:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2013 WikiCup!

Hello Cerebellum, and welcome to the 2013 WikiCup! Your submissions' page is here. The competition begins at midnight UTC. The first round will last until the end of February, at which point the top 64 scorers will advance to the second round. We will be in touch at the end of every month, and signups are going to remain open until the end of January; if you know of anyone else who may like to take part, please let them know! A few reminders: *The rules can be found here. There have been a few changes from last year, which are listed on that page. *Anything you submit must have been nominated and promoted in 2013, and you need to have completed significant work upon it in 2013. (The articles you review at good article reviews does not need to have been nominated in 2013, but you do need to have started the review in 2013.) We will be checking. *If you feel that another competitor is breaking the rules or abusing the competition in some way, please let a judge know. Please do not remove entries from the submissions' pages of others yourself. *Don't worry about calculating precisely how many points everything is worth. The bot will do that. The bot may occasionally get something wrong- let a judge know, or post on the WikiCup talk page if that happens. *Please try to be prompt in updating submissions' pages so that they can be double-checked. Overall, however, don't worry, and have fun. It doesn't matter if you make the odd mistake; these things happen. Questions can be asked on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn and The ed17 18:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2013 WikiCup

Hello, Cerebellum, and welcome to the 2013 WikiCup! Your submissions' page is here. The first round will last until the end of February, at which point the top 64 scorers will advance to the second round. We will be in touch at the end of every month, and signups are going to remain open until the end of January; if you know of anyone else who may like to take part, please let them know! A few reminders:

• The rules can be found here. There have been a few changes from last year, which are listed on that page.
• Anything you submit must have been nominated and promoted in 2013, and you need to have completed significant work upon it in 2013. (The articles you review at good article reviews does not need to have been nominated in 2013, but you do need to have started and completed the review in 2013.) We will be checking.
• If you feel that another competitor is breaking the rules or abusing the competition in some way, please let a judge know. Please do not remove entries from the submissions' pages of others yourself.
• Don't worry about calculating precisely how many points everything is worth. The bot will do that. The bot may occasionally get something wrong- let a judge know, or post on the WikiCup talk page if that happens.
• Please try to be prompt in updating submissions' pages so that they can be double-checked.

Overall, however, don't worry, and have fun. It doesn't matter if you make the odd mistake; these things happen. Questions can be asked on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn and The ed17 13:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the GA Review

Thanks for the GA Review of School of Advanced Military Studies at Talk:School of Advanced Military Studies/GA2. I tried to fix everything in your comments. If you have the time, please take a look at how I updated the article based on your comments. Casprings (talk) 04:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for review

Hi Cerebellum, can you take another look at Phillips Exeter Academy? Thank you. Regards,FrankDev (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

GA1 Review for Philomela

I believe I have addressed the citation issues you had mentioned in your comment on 05JAN13. I hope I have not left anything unaddressed amongst those concerns. If so, please do let me know. --ColonelHenry (talk) 03:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

GAN

Hi, I thought you'll wait for me there. Regards, Zia Khan 22:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Psychic TV/PTV3 - Mr Alien Brain vs. The Skinwalkers (CD & DVD, 2X12") (2008) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Psychic TV/PTV3 - Mr Alien Brain vs. The Skinwalkers'' (CD & DVD, 2X12") (2008). Since you had some involvement with the Psychic TV/PTV3 - Mr Alien Brain vs. The Skinwalkers (CD & DVD, 2X12") (2008) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). —Torchiest ^talk_edits 04:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 January newsletter

Signups are now closed; we have our final 127 contestants for this year's competition. 64 contestants will make it to the next round at the end of February, but we're already seeing strong scoring compared to previous years. Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) currently leads, with 358 points. At this stage in 2012, the leader ( Grapple X (submissions)) had 342 points, while in 2011, the leader had 228 points. We also have a large number of scorers when compared with this stage in previous years. 12george1 (submissions) was the first competitor to score this year, as he was last year, with a detailed good article review. Some other firsts:

• 12george1 (submissions) was also the first to score for an article, with the good article Hurricane Gordon (2000). Again, this is a repeat of last year!
• Buggie111 (submissions) was the first to score for a did you know, with Marquis Flowers.
• Spencer (submissions) was the first to score for an in the news, with 2013 Houphouët-Boigny stampede.
• Status (submissions) was the first to score for a featured list, with list of Billboard Social 50 number-one artists.
• Adam Cuerden (submissions) was the first to score for a featured picture, with File:Thure de Thulstrup - L. Prang and Co. - Battle of Gettysburg - Restoration by Adam Cuerden.jpg.

Featured articles, portals and topics, as well as good topics, are yet to feature in the competition.

This year, the bonus points system has been reworked, with bonus points on offer for old articles prepared for did you know, and "multiplier" points reworked to become more linear. For details, please see Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. There have been some teething problems as the bot has worked its way around the new system, but issues should mostly be ironed out- please report any problems to the WikiCup talk page. Here are some participants worthy of note with regards to the bonus points:

• Ed! (submissions) was the first to score bonus points, with Portland-class cruiser, a good article.
• Hawkeye7 (submissions) has the highest overall bonus points, as well as the highest scoring article, thanks to his work on Enrico Fermi, now a good article. The biography of such a significant figure to the history of science warrants nearly five times the normal score.
• HueSatLum (submissions) claimed bonus points for René Vautier and Nicolas de Fer, articles that did not exist on the English Wikipedia at the start of the year; a first for the WikiCup. The articles were eligible for bonus points because of fact they were both covered on a number of other Wikipedias.

Also, a quick mention of The C of E (submissions), who may well have already written the oddest article of the WikiCup this year: did you know that the Fucking mayor objected to Fucking Hell on the grounds that there was no Fucking brewery? The gauntlet has been thrown down; can anyone beat it?

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. 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 or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Chris Claremont photo

Hi. Can you offer your opinion in the discussion on whether to include a 1990s photograph of Chris Claremont in his article? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Cerebellum. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Denver_and_the_Mile_High_Orchestra.
Message added by Theopolisme at 14:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WikiCup 2013 February newsletter

Round 1 is now over. The top 64 scorers have progressed to round 2, where they have been randomly split into eight pools of eight. At the end of April, the top two from each pool, as well as the 16 highest scorers from those remaining, will progress to round 3. Commiserations to those eliminated; if you're interested in still being involved in the WikiCup, able and willing reviewers will always be needed, and if you're interested in getting involved with other collaborative projects, take a look at the WikiWomen's Month discussed below.

Round 1 saw 21 competitors with over 100 points, which is fantastic; that suggests that this year's competition is going to be highly competative. Our lower scores indicate this, too: A score of 19 was required to reach round 2, which was significantly higher than the 11 points required in 2012 and 8 points required in 2011. The score needed to reach round 3 will be higher, and may depend on pool groupings. In 2011, 41 points secured a round 3 place, while in 2012, 65 was needed. Our top three scorers in round 1 were:

1. Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), primarily for an array of warship GAs.
2. Miyagawa (submissions), primarily for an array of did you knows and good articles, some of which were awarded bonus points.
3. Casliber (submissions), due in no small part to Canis Minor, a featured article awarded a total of 340 points. A joint submission with Keilana (submissions), this is the highest scoring single article yet submitted in this year's competition.

Other contributors of note include:

• Sven Manguard (submissions), whose Portal:Massachusetts is the first featured portal this year. The featured portal process is one of the less well-known featured processes, and featured portals have traditionally had little impact on WikiCup scores.
• Sasata (submissions), whose Mycena aurantiomarginata was the first featured article this year.
• Muboshgu (submissions) and Wizardman (submissions), who both claimed points for articles in the Major League Baseball tie-breakers topic, the first topic points in the competition.
• Toa Nidhiki05 (submissions), who claimed for the first full good topic with the Casting Crowns studio albums topic.

Featured topics have still played no part in this year's competition, but once again, a curious contribution has been offered by The C of E (submissions): did you know that there is a Shit Brook in Shropshire? With April Fools' Day during the next round, there will probably be a good chance of more unusual articles...

March sees the WikiWomen's History Month, a series of collaborative efforts to aid the women's history WikiProject to coincide with Women's History Month and International Women's Day. A number of WikiCup participants have already started to take part. The project has a to-do list of articles needing work on the topic of women's history. Those interested in helping out with the project can find articles in need of attention there, or, alternatively, add articles to the list. Those interested in collaborating on articles on women's history are also welcome to use the WikiCup talk page to find others willing to lend a helping hand. Another collaboration currently running is an an effort from WikiCup participants to coordinate a number of Easter-themed did you know articles. Contributions are welcome!

A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. 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 or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 11:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Third Epistle of John, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Painter (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) 11:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Photo consensus discussion

Hi. Can you offer your opinion on the matter discussed at the bottom of this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For your contributions to bring Third Epistle of John to Good Article status. Thanks, and keep up the good work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Amazingly, looking at WikiProject Bible, this appears to be the first book of the Bible to reach GA status. I hope you'll consider tackling some more of these in the future! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the kind words and the review! I certainly hope to keep working on these, but it's pretty daunting considering that so much has been written about most books of the Bible. The shorter books like 3 John are nice because the information available is more manageable. Thank you again and good luck with your 2013 goals, those are very impressive! Regards, --Cerebellum (talk) 02:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I suspect that's why you're the first. Still, if you ever take any more on, best of luck! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Varaha: Talk:Varaha/GA1

Thanks for the review. I have done a minor copyedit. Can you please check. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the pass. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Halo 4: Forward Unto Dawn

Thanks again for the review. :) James086^Talk 17:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

John Cotton

Thanks very much for your review of John Cotton, and for the very kind recognition following. I believe I've answered your comments, so you may want to take a look. Your comments are very important to me, because I've done a lot of research on the article, and would like to promote it further. Also, nice work on the Third epistle of John. Would be great to see this kind of scholarship on all the books. Sarnold17 (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Women's Worldwide Web

Hi Cerebellum, hope you're doing well! I received an email that my article has been reviewed and penalized once again (not by you) and with out giving me some advice. Could you be so kind to take a look, please? Your comments will help me improove it, if necessary. Also, I would like to ask you a question, if I may: I am living in Paris, and translated the article into French. I submitted it to fr.Wikipedia.org (it was refused) and asked me to use intewikis. I am not an expert, so I followed the guideline in order to creat women's worldwide web (empowering women) tag on the wikidata, in order to allow the interwikis on English version. I am really lost... What can I do? Your advice is valuable for me! Thanks in advance for your attention to this message. Wishing you a lovely day! GabyLevy (talk) 11:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 April newsletter

We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with Sven Manguard (submissions) claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and Cwmhiraeth (submissions) claiming for a did you know of sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place Casliber (submissions) and second place Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.

The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.

A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. 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 or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 15:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre

Hello! Now, some of you might have already received a similar message a little while ago regarding the Recruitment Centre, so if you have, there is no need to read the rest of this. This message is directed to users who have reviewed over 15 Good article nominations and are not part of WikiProject Good articles (the first message I sent out went to only WikiProject members). So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers: Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with (at the time this message was sent out, 2 recruiters have volunteered), the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available". Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497). Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along. A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk) This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 15:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

Cerebellum

Old Testament

Editor of the Week for the week beginning June 9, 2013

Cerebellum creates wonderful open and supportive relationships with new editors as they venture into Wiki Article Creation. Without question, Cerebellum has nurtured newbies to their and the Encyclopedia's benefit.

Recognized for

Major expansion and reorganization to achieve GA status for Third Epistle of John

Nomination page

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week, for kindness and diligence. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Khazar2 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Editor Cerebellum, an all-around terrific Wikipedian. Active since 2007, Cerebellum has accumulated nearly 9,000 edits. She/he is notable for her/his helpfulness and courtesy: she/he has reviewed hundreds of nominations at Wikipedia:Articles for creation and follows up patiently on the talk pages of new users who submit there; she/he participates regularly in AfD discussions and cleanup; and she/he has conducted Good Article reviews on a variety of topics, giving friendly encouragement to both the nominators of articles that pass and those that fail. In February 2013, Cerebellum brought Third Epistle of John to Good Article status, the first time any book of the Christian Bible achieved that distinction. Cerebellum's kindness and diligence show Wikipedia at its best.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}

Thanks again for your efforts! Go Phightins! 16:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry I didn't know your gender--I thought to ask might spoil the surprise of the award. Congratulations, and thanks again for all your work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• Congrats on the award and all the fine work contributed to improvement of wiki!--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• "Cerebellum's kindness and diligence show Wikipedia at its best". Thank you for the example you set. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• Hi there Cerebellum. I haven't worked with you, but taking a look at your talk page it sounds like your award is well-deserved! Congrats! Gandydancer (talk) 22:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow, thank you guys for the recognition! Very encouraging and humbling :) --Cerebellum (talk) 14:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Congratulations for this award, and thank you for all you do on Wikipedia :) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 01:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)