User talk:Slp1/Archive 11

Friendly reminder

I see that you have added an attempt of trying to resolve this. Please add your signature in the "Users Certifying this dispute" section to fill the form out. Thank you Hasteur (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

This is in response to the RfC/U you commented on. Hasteur (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't see that section, but have now signed in. I've also dropped a note to Delicious carbuncle who seems to have missed that step too. --Slp1 (talk) 20:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Because DC is the one "Filing" the RfC, they're not supposed to sign in that section. Ideally it's supposed to be 3 editors that have the same problem with a user. Hasteur (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense to me, to be honest. The instructions at the top of the RFC say it needs to be two editors in dispute with another one, not three. --Slp1 (talk) 04:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

André Corriveau (doctor)

Hello. I see this article was nominated five hours ago and has already been deleted. I'm afraid I can't respond to the copyright infringement accusation, because I can't see the article. Could you please recreate it or copy it onto my sandbox? I'd be surprised if it was under copyright, I've created a lot of articles, and it would usually be using the old DNB, which is in the public domain and can be copied verbatim. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 06:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, unfortunately I can't recreate it because it is a copyright violation from [1] and WP can't host it anywhere. But I can easily make you feel better because according to your edit summary when you created the article you had copied it from misplaced text on a disambiguation page, and that it wasn't your own work. From here [2], it seems. Sorry for not seeing the full story and noting it under that talkpage notification from another editor; in the future, though, it is probably a good idea to do a quick search to see whether there are any problems with the text you are transferring. Thanks for seeking to clarify this. --Slp1 (talk) 13:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Shakehandsman

This notice is being sent to you because you participated in this RFC, which was placed on indefinite hold when the user who was the subject abruptly retired from Wikipedia. As of today that user has announed that they are no longer retired and are retuning to the project. This does not mean that the RFC must be re-opened, but it can be if anyone feels there is a need for the discussion to continue. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

IP Vandal

"Also hasn't been warned as required"....wrong. They has been warned numerous times in their old accounts. At this stage, their intentions are obvious and shouldn't NEED extra warning. They'll just use a new one. 85.210.190.62 (talk) 08:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I presume you are talking about this? [3]. AIV is for quick responses to obvious vandals who are currently active, and have been recently warned. That IP hadn't edited for a week, and thus blocking would be totally pointless. As you said yourself, "they'll just use another one"! AIV is not the best place to deal with more complex cases involving IP hoppers who are "making random claims without evidence" as you put it, which isn't actually vandalism per WP:VANDALISM. If there is a problem with this editor, then I would suggest carefully gathering the evidence about the IPs used, the problematic edits made, and exactly why they are vandalistic, and then asking an administrator for advice about what to do. If there are limited pages involved then maybe the page could be semi-protected (though that would affect you too). --Slp1 (talk) 13:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank You

I was just doing a re-read and edit of my essay at User:Buster7/Incivility#Evidence presented by User:Slp1 and noticed the inclusion of your thoughts on the subject. For the life of me, I'm not sure if you placed them there or I "lifted" them from somewhere after discovering them. In either case, Thank You for sharing your ideas for improving a very important part of the editorial experience. I imagine that soon a major "gathering" of WP Editors will come together to formulate a Policy that works. Good Luck to us all. ```Buster Seven Talk 12:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your thanks, though not sure those researches deserve it! Anyway, just so you know, I wouldn't dream of inserting just a thing into somebody's personal essay! It looks like you added it here--Slp1 (talk) 14:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Not surprising. I often forget what I did yesterday. ```Buster Seven Talk 16:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Personal request for advice

Hi Slp1 — I've never used any Wikipedia tools for reverting or "rolling back", and have always done this manually. But I'm getting so fed up with having to keep correcting our old friend WW (amongst others) that I want to ask what other editors use. I've had a look at the WP guidance on this and see that quite a few tools are listed. Do you have any preference? Cheers — Bruce Agendum (talk) 13:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bruce. I hope you are well. Sorry for the delay in responding. I have Twinkle installed and I find it very good for doing several tasks. The only thing that I didn't like was the fact that it was very easy to misclick some of the buttons on my watchlist etc and roll things back in error, causing much angst. So I had to install some code or something to remove them from various lists, which you can find here User:Slp1/monobook.css. At least, I think this problem was connected to Twinkle, it was actually such a long time ago that I can hardly remember. --Slp1 (talk) 03:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Slp1,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

A7

You recently deleted the article, Frazer v walker under speedy A7. But it is an article about a legal case, and does not fall under the conditions for A7 . (of course the article is not satisfactory without some indication that it is a standard textbook example or major precedent, and I have so advised the author.) Since this is fixable, please restore the article--I assume it was just an error on your part. When the speedy is an error, I think we must correct errors to give clear advice to the contributor, -- even if there is little chance of the article being accepted at AfD. (I know I have the ability to restore it myself, but I want to ask you first.) DGG ( talk ) 00:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't delete it according to A7 but according to G7 (author request). As I noted in the edit summary, the author indicated on the talkpage that s/he hadn't meant to create the article: "sorry, just a draft, thought i was saving to sand box, not submitting". But if you want to restore it, go ahead, though you'll see that it consisted of the title and an apparently random series of letters. The article certainly wasn't {and isn't} ready for mainspace, and hardly worth moving into userspace, though in retrospect that might have been the best thing to do.--Slp1 (talk) 03:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

you're right. DGG ( talk ) 17:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Cara Luft

Slp1, can you please restore my citation to Cara Luft? You're not supposed to remove citations from aritcles. Depending on what you do, the article needs the banner tag {{No footnotes|BLP=yes|date=February 2012}} or {{More footnotes|BLP=yes|date=February 2012}}. Please advise. Thank-you. Argolin (talk) 08:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm not sure sure what you are talking about. I added some citations to the article about Cara Luft and deleted an unsourced BLP tag as a result.[4] I also deleted some unsourced past promotional content.[5]. Seems fine to me.--Slp1 (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The article no longer has numbered citations. I added the BLP tag because the citation I added was not independent of the subject. You added references but not citations. Have a look at my edit to see the required syntax. If you need help, let me know. Thanks Argolin (talk) 04:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, now I understand. Thanks for explaining and your offer to help, but I've written a few Featured Articles so know how to add citations to the article body. For reasons I can't remember, I decided to use a reference section instead of as inline citations in this article. This is fine per WP:GENREF. I removed the citation you added from the body of text because it was sourcing promotional content about a long over concert. But the reference itself is still in the reference section. If you'd like to tackle the inline citations, do go ahead. --Slp1 (talk) 12:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah! I think were're on the same page now. I was trying to be nice with my nit-picking! I believe that WP:GENREF applies to more developed articles. You know there's a big diff between class=Featured + Stub. I was under the belief that all articles require in-line citations. That's why I use {{No footnotes}} or {{More footnotes}}.

I don't know how many music biographies you edit, but I've never seen "General references". It may be acceptable for a discography at allmusic etc, but again, the prose in the body should be cited.Argolin (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Great. Actually, I think you'll find that WP:GENREF sections tend to be used in less well developed articles rather than more developed ones, and that general reference sections are fine (and not just in AllMusic articles!!). WP:CITE (which you might want to read, since it explains lot of this information in more detail), says: "General references are usually listed at the end of the article in a References section. They may be found in underdeveloped articles especially when all article content is supported by a single source."

I agree with you and with WP:CITE that inline citations are to be preferred, but for any article, it is an improvement to add appropriate references, even if they are just in a reference section. Maybe there were time constraints, or I was called way, but for whatever reason, that day I only did the reference search and added a reference section, but did not have time to do the inline citations. The main thing is that I made the encyclopedia better by adding the refs and making it easier for whoever else who comes along to do the next part of the job: the inline citations. Does that help you understand? --Slp1 (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

My point is that I added an in-line citation to the article (that had none) which you removed. I completely understand time constraints. I'm trying to add Category:Musical groups by year of establishment to Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian music articles and often get sidetracked by trying to reference them. Have a look at the music biography of The Meligrove Band. This is the worst example of any WP:GENREF section I've ever seen. Can you please restore my in-line citation to the article? Argolin (talk) 01:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

J Hawkins

Hi after reading the twitter comments and the radio cast - I have nominated it for deletion - it's clearly very upsetting for the subject - if its kept I will open a topic ban against the user in question immediately after . - Regards - Youreallycan 22:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Medicine new page patrol

Ugh. Vestibular sensitivity came to my attention via User:AlexNewArtBot/MedicineSearchResult, and I hardly know where to start. Then there's Descendophobia by the same new editor. I did find this available online, but this article veers way off of anything I know about proprioception (which isn't much), I'm sure there are WP:MEDRS-compliant sources available, and the article is pretty much incomprehensible to layfolk like me. Since this is a new editor creating incomprehensible gobbledy-gook, some guidance at this stage on how to write articles might be productive. I can't make heads nor tails of that article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi!! Yikes, it is incomprehensible, I agree!! Unfortunately, this sort of detailed audiology stuff was not something I ever easily grasped myself. But I'll take a look and see what I can do. It has something of a copy and paste look about it, too. --Slp1 (talk) 00:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

It feels cut-and-paste, but I couldn't find anything ... but I don't have journal access ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

A lot of it is from the book you linked to above, for which thank you. Personally, I'd question it as a reliable source. Can't find the Lita Corp as a publisher anywhere, and the text is a full of English translation errors. The article looks to me a load of original research about Dr. Trinus' theories. But I'll start with the copyvios. --Slp1 (talk) 01:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

If you can find the copyvio, I think the easiest thing to do would be to overwrite the whole mess with a real definition of vestibular <something>. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I've dropped a note to the editor trying to enlist their help to identify the copied parts, and then I hope we can go from there.--Slp1 (talk) 02:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The sources I have quoted are reliable

The sources I have quoted are reliable. If Craig Mack's own voice is not reliable I don't know what is. Also the article I quoted on mediatkeout.com is a reliable source.

http://mediatakeout.com/54672/mto-world-exclusive-former-bad-boy-artist-craig-mack-joins-a-cult-he-s-living-in-a-compound-run-by-a-man-who-calls-himself-the-messiah.html

It's not just newspapers any more which are reliable sources. In fact many newspapers and print media are going out of business due to digital media. We can not consider only print media a reliable source.

On this basis you should restore the work I have done. Stevejacobs7777 (talk) 16:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

While you were typing this I responded on your talkpage. The short answer is that no, mediatkeout.com would not be considered a reliable source per WP's policies and guidelines, which is what is important here. If you want to see if other editors decided differently you could try posting on WP:BLP/N, but I can pretty much guarantee the result. --Slp1 (talk) 16:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Response to your comments

Dear Slp1,
Thank you for your kind letter.
Your commentaries are very important for me as I am starting my activity WP. First of all, I am female and prof. Trinus is male. I am well familiar with him as well as many other specialists in the problems of dizziness, vertigo and vestibular pathology. Prof. Trinus is one of the most prominent researchers and member of the board of the Neurootological Soc. He is the first author of the Guidelines on dizziness. Therefore, I have used his material as a basis for the article. This article is not copy-paste portion of the copyrighted materials. If it seems to be not enough well prepared I should greatly appreciate your help. I do not have salary from WP and therefore I need more than 24 hours to redo the article. Please, give me more time.
You have written: “it is very hard to understand, even for me who has something of a background in the area”. This phrase is very important for me. I have understood that the knowledge in the Neurootological Soc. has progressed far away and MUST BE spread to whole community. For this reason I have prepared a series of articles dedicated to the problem. The scope of the problem is reflected at the site http://sites.google.com/site/dizzylita/. You are welcome to visit and comment it.
I disagree with your statement: “Another article that you wrote Descendophobia is about a topic that nobody other than Dr. Trinus has ever written”, because if you will open Descendophobia in google search you will find this item. Prof. Trinus has described this as a very dangerous, malignant sign of vestibular damage in the victims of Chornobyl tragedy. Now in the whole world it is met in the persons irradiated with electromagnetic fields. This will be the item of the next article.
Homofortunatus is idea has been born in the frame the international society, it means that human is born to be happy, I like this idea and want we use benefits of the progress and escape its hazards. WS Homofortunatus does not belong to Prof. Trinus. If you have some objections or comments to my articles now and in the future I will be very grateful for your creative help. Please help me to make this material corresponding the standards of WP.
User:Homofortunatus

Hi, I am going to reply on your talkpage. --Slp1 (talk) 23:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much

Thank you very much, I need some time to prepare the reply and make changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homofortunatus (talk • contribs) 06:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Slp1. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 12:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Hawkins

Heya Slp1, I just wanted to stop by and say that I appreciate the good discussion that we had on AN. We don't completely agree on this issue, but I think that we can at least talk to each other, which is nice. Part of the reason that I brought up my impression of Jimbo's role in this was because I wanted to be corrected if my perspective was off... I'm still not absolutely convinced that it is, but I hear what both yourself and Fae are saying.

Ultimately, I think that the crux of the matter here is philosophical. Speaking generally here, I don't think that it is reasonable to accede to the demands of the subject for one of our articles when those demands are about otherwise acceptable content. Meaning, I don't think that it's reasonable to delete a biographical article just because the author says he doesn't like it here (note that this avoids all other issues, such as notability, which can and should be considered separately), and I don't think that it's reasonable to delete data (or comments, or whatever else) from the article when that same data (or comments, or whatever) are published elsewhere. Yourself and others disagree, which I understand, and that's fine. To me, this situation calls for discussing specifics on a point by point basis, article by article. It's hard work, and we'll all have to deal with others who's opinions we don't agree with, but as long as we're not all trying to get each other punished I think that the work will get done (eventually).

I see that there's discussion continuing on the Jim Hawkins article's talk page, so I'm personally satisfied with the current situation. I think that we'll all be keeping an eye on things with respect to this subject, so everything seems fairly settled right now. Feel free to point others towards this if you'd like, and I'll check back here for any replies. Regards,
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Cognitive behavioral therapy

Ugh. No reason for a topic where so many good, secondary reviews exist to be in such awful shape. I began cleanup, there's much more to be done, but there's an entire section on stuttering that is poorly sourced, in case you have time to look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I am super busy at present but will try and have a look at the weekend. But it looks like you've already trimmed the stuttering section, which is likely a good idea. BTW, I think this new article Callous and Unemotional Traits probably needs a good look. It's a proposal for the DSM V and it seems to be sourced to lots of articles from the same group. I hope I'll have time soon, but if you have any thoughts about it that would be great. --Slp1 (talk) 02:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, my, a jolly mess there. I've been thinking of proposing at WT:MED that we need to form a DSM-t task force to deal with editing like that occurring in the runup to May 2013, and articles that will need updating after May 2013. A grand mess if we don't get our arms around it, and the Psych WikiProject has always been ineffective to non-existant to disruptive or clueless. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I think your idea about WT:MED is a good idea: I (foolishly no doubt) hadn't realized how political these things are externally in terms of people pushing or opposing proposals. But it is true that Parental Alienation Syndrome has seen a fair bit of this, though I didn't really see it as coming from academics as opposed to activists.

As you've probably seen, I've found a few more review type articles about stuttering for the CBT article. I think that is sufficient detail to cover the topic. Slp1 (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Haven't seen that yet ... struggling to keep up ... <sigh> ... damn eduation program. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Posted to WT:MED-- do you have time to add examples? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Question

I'm curious. On-wiki, WLU has claimed that his login was the initials of his alma matter "my userid is based on the university I attend", and later that they were his own initials "My user name is actually my initials". Do you believe both claims to be true?

Unless WLU is willing to be honest about who he is, his claims (and those of his supporters) about identity don't amount to much. Of course he and friends are going to deny his use of sockpuppetry to violate 3RR. It is also entirely possible that I've confused WLU with a relative with the same name, who just happened to have a flight during one of WLU's few wikibreaks.

(By the way, the reason why I've had to learn so much about WLU is that he's made himself the gateway to my contributing to Wikipedia in any meaningful fashion. He has been reverting, countering, or opposing most everything I've tried to do on Wikipedia for a year. His wikihounding effort started in Feb 2011. With only one exception, WLU had showed no interest in any of the articles we've had conflicts at before the hounding began.) BitterGrey (talk) 01:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, I am not going to clarify any of the details, except to repeat that trying to sleuth for people's real life identities is highly inappropriate. And that as you might expect, those thus pursued (hounded, you could say) might lay out a false trail or two for those seeking to track them down. As I stated at the SPI, WLU has been honest about his real life identity to me, and I have confirmed this from multiple other sources, including the technical evidence. I doubt very, very much that you have guessed his real identity or confused him with a relative, but even if you have, this kind of guessing game is highly inappropriate, and needs to be stop immediately. --Slp1 (talk) 01:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 23

Hi. When you recently edited F. Matthias Alexander, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages New Republic, William Temple and Joseph Rowntree (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Martin Faulks

I saw that you declined the speedy, so I did an AfD because I swear I've done this before. Turns out this is #3 on the same article, and it was deleted twice before. Could you spare me the trouble of the AfD, perhaps? MSJapan (talk) 06:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't think so. There have been lots of changes (including several significant new sources) since the previous AFDs. This needs to go through an AFD. --Slp1 (talk) 11:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

I don't know if a new report was needed since there's already a relevant one there, but please see the comment here, thank you. - SudoGhost 20:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Scratch that, another admin handled it. - SudoGhost 20:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

RSN

Hi Slp1, on RSN today you offered to email a copy of this scholarly article. Could you email it to me? Thanks. (By the way I'm relatively new to Wikipedia - how do you use email in Wikipedia?) If you could respond on my talk page, that would be great. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 20:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Will do. --Slp1 (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Slp1. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

EW case about The Zeitgeist Movement

Hello Slp1. Please see WP:AN3#User:Reinventor098 reported by User:Tom harrison (Result: 24 hours ), where Tom Harrison argues that Reinventor098 has continued the war after his 24-hour block expired. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry not to have been on the spot at the time, but it seems Reinventor has now been blocked by somebody else.--Slp1 (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Masculinity in Decline

Please restore the "masculinity in decline" section to the article Masculinity. I provided some other source material listed on talk page that substantiate the "declining" claim; indicating that the assertion that "masculinity in decline" is not original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.130.36.148 (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for posting here, but no, I won't be restoring the section myself. Please figure it out with SonicYouth86 on the talkpage of the article. From a quick check I see that s/he still has concerns with the section you propose, and I have to say their arguments look pretty solid, policy-wise. You can't put together various sources that you think talk about masculinity or masculinity in decline to make a point that hasn't been made elsewhere. See WP:SYNTH. --Slp1 (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I removed the specific university reference, there is no reason for any other editor to know that on the discussion page, please maintain some location privacy, you wouldn't want your specific neighborhood listed on the discussion pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.130.36.104 (talk) 02:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK review(s)

Hi: Somebody noted at WT:DYK that you had reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Alain Ducasse at the Dorchester but hadn't given it a tick/checkmark. If you think it's ready to go - as you appear to, from what you wrote - could you give it the mark so the scorekeeping bot and those making up preps notice it? Likewise if you've done any other reviews recently, please stick in the "good to go" symbol or the question mark or something. Thanks! --Yngvadottir (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh... sorry, I missed that that was a required step. I'll put the check mark there immediately. Slp1 (talk) 20:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Edith Unnerstad

Hello! Your submission of Edith Unnerstad 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! Mentoz86 (talk) 02:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Edith Unnerstad

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)