Hi, Secret. I'm not really sure what's going on with this, but I thought I'd let you know I requested semi-protection. It seemed pointless just to keep reverting people who won't explain. Rivertorch ( talk) 18:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Me neither considering the picture quality and such, all the accounts were just blocked as sockpuppets however. Secret account 18:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Hey I've been inactive for the past month and am back
. I read your message about wanting to work on the article and am very pleased to work with you on it. Just tell me when and I'll be ready. Best,
Jona
talk to me 15:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you for removing vandalism from
WP:ATP. This is much appreciated, but unfortunately your repair was not successful in restoring the article to its pre-vandalised state. For future reference, it is better to deal with vandalism by checking the article's
page history to determine how it appeared before it was vandalised. You can then restore the whole article, or the relevant part of it, to an appropriate earlier version. If you simply delete the visible vandalism then any content removed or overwritten by the vandal is lost. See
How to deal with vandalism for details. Thank you. Just an FYI -- you missed a couple, rather subtle edits by the IP.
S. Rich (
talk) 19:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Secret, are you still willing to nominate me? If so, I am contemplating doing it at the end of January or beginning of February. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 22:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes I am willing, I did see your email, but late (I get flooded with emails everyday). I will reply back though email. Thanks Secret account 05:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, could you give me some updates on how the review is going? Thank you! -- Nascar1996( Talk • Contribs) 16:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Got busy, will finish the review later on today. Sorry about that. Secret account 05:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This user helped promote Jim Umbricht to good article status. |
On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for your editorial contributions to Jim Umbricht, which has recently become a GA. -- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 01:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 13:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
-- Wehwalt ( talk) 20:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I replied back. Secret account 20:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
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:
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:
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) 01:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
All right, after a few issues I got that straightened out. Still waiting for the conom statements, but whenever that happens you can answer the questions and get it going. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 17:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Hey Secret. I don't mean to bother you as you seem to have some bigger fish to fry, so to speak, at the moment (good luck, by the way...you'll have my vote!), but you said at the Baseball Wiki-Project talk page that you'd be willing to PR Jim Thome for me. I didn't know if perhaps you'd forgotten or if it was on the bottom of a long to-do list or something, but I was wondering if you would still do that. No rush, and I certainly don't mean to nag. Good luck with the RFA! Go Phightins ! 19:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
I will do it sometime this week, of course I'm busy with school and the RFA, but I did promise you and Thome always been an interesting subject in my opinion. Secret account 21:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
It regards the second RFA, I saw the reversal, I had to revert and I explained why through email though I respect your opinion. It's a sensitive issue. Secret account 07:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
First: I apologize for my curiosity. Now, years ago I remember seeing you around this joint, so you're not some n00b to me. I've seen you make reference to school, and it made wonder about something. Since any answer to my question would have absolutely NO bearing on an RfA, I thought I'd ask here. What are you studying? .. and when do you graduate? (or have you already?). If that's personal information you'd rather not disclose, I'm fine with that ... I was just curious. — Ched : ? 20:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I am majoring in history, and I'm graduating next spring and I plan to move forward with a master's degree and hopefully a PH'D. My health did delay my studies, as I was supposed to graduate fall of 2011. Secret account 21:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I know your username yes, I think you were active in IRC as well at one point. I need to remember :/. I remember many of the old-timers, but I need to be reminded. Secret account 22:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm starting to remember, you still go on IRC, I'm on right now. Secret account 23:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Lol, thanks for that compliment. Of course I plan to stick this RFA out! Why should I back down or worry about it? Secret account 21:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I have some feeling about that, now I wait. Secret account 06:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Secret, first let me thank you for everything you've done. I may not have been the best RfA candidate at the end of the day, but I hope no one thinks I'm an ingrate. I regret the outcome in my RfA less than I do its potential impact on your own; hopefully, we will not see a repeat of the comment that was deleted earlier this morning. In all events, I hope you were not disappointed in me as a candidate. I feel like I failed you and my other supporters. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 04:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I was slightly disappointed concerning the circumstances, like I told you by email, Fluffernutter oppose vote is the one that sums my feelings the most. But you will do fine, RFA has always been a huge learning experience as you learned first hand, and I'm happy I had the opportunity to nominate you, despite the result. Secret account 21:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Secret - please do yourself a favor and do not take controversial actions. Let someone else do the reverting on your RFA.--v/r - T P 16:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
It was in good faith, and I don't think it was controversial, as completely removing an oppose vote isn't recommended during a RFA. But as the candidate you are right, I don't think I should have been the one reverting his mistake. I'll let someone else do it, I apologize. Secret account 16:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Yep I agree with that, partly a lack of judgement in my part. Thanks to both of you for understanding. :) Secret account 17:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi Secret. I hope you're feeling well and having a decent day. Good luck with the RFA. I wish I could put in another support vote.
![]() |
I prefer coffee ;) but yeah I'm not worried about it, why should I be? Thanks Secret account 23:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Secret, re: question 4 in your RFA, I presume your use of the word "etymologist" was caused by autocorrect going haywire? An etymologist studies the meaning of words, and I'm not sure what relevance that would have to your health. :-) I'm just curious as to what you meant there. Good luck in your RFA! Graham 87 14:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Changed it, yea spell check gone wrong. Secret account 01:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for defending my talk page. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
No problem, the vandal hit multiple user talk pages bot like style, including mine and did a mass revert. Secret account 01:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello Secret. I am pleased to report that I have closed your request for adminship as successful. Happy editing, and happy adminning. 28bytes ( talk) 08:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations, Secret. Well done. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 12:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so much, I would offer a recall proposal soon like I promised in the RFA. Secret account 18:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, if I need any help I would ask any of you guys, as the tools significantly advanced from 2009 to now. Again I'm about to offer a recall proposal soon, I'm discussing it with several highly trusted users. I did some backlog killing in WP:AFC, and a few things that the tools were needed for. I should get back on track with me and Wehwalt project on Babe Ruth. Good to be back. Secret account 21:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello Secret,
I am writing in regards to the speedy deletion of article Rajit Gadh. I saw that phrases in the article matched a URL to the bio on IEEE.org site. However the original source of the bio is from the UCLA SMERC website. If adding the creative commons license to the bio on that page (official page) - what's to stop the bots from picking up other sources and flagging the article again?
Thanks. Ucsglarc ( talk) 20:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Golden Era
Thank you for quality articles on the Golden Era of baseball, for your recovery as an editor and admin, and for your support of others, - you are an
awesome Wikipedian!
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Hey Secret! Congratulations on your successful RfA! That's very impressive! Thanks and have a nice day! :) Mediran ( t • c) 10:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC) |
![]() |
Congrats on getting your tools back! You've truly deserved it! hmssolent\ Let's convene My patrols 11:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC) |
![]() Hello,
The Project is almost ready to hit the
Main Page, where it will be occupying a section just below "Did you Know" section. Three article from the weekly batch of 7 will be displayed randomly at the main page, the format of which can be seen at
the Main Page sandbox. There is also an ongoing discussion at the
Main page talk over the final details before we can go forward with the Main Page. If you have any ideas to discuss with everyone else, please visit the
TAFI Talk Page and join in on the ongoing discussions there. You are also invited to add new nominations, and comment and suport on the current ones at the
Nominations page. You can also help by helping in the discussions at the
Holding Area. Above all, please do not forget to improve our current
Today's Articles for Improvement Thank you and hoping to have some productive work from you at the Project, |
![]() |
Most RfA's are downright obnoxious and demeaning experiences. However, yours made the average RfA look like Mr. Toad's Wild Ride. Congrats on both keeping your cool through the whole thing and emerging on the other side, mop in hand. Trusilver 12:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC) |
Savior Bacon is the main deity of a real religion, called Baconism. You banned Scientologists from editing Wikipedia, not Baconists.
I have the right to create pages about the religion of Baconism because it actually exists. If you have anything against it, that would be considered religious intolerance.
Hello! I notice that you have extensive knowledge of tragic athlete's endings. On this page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sportspeople_who_died_during_their_careers I searched for Basketball player Maurice Stokes, and I did not find his name listed. Would it be appropriate to add him to the list? And if-so, where? TY! 24.0.133.234 ( talk) 18:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Considering that his death was related to an on-game injury that he never fully recovered, it is appropriate to list Stokes on the list, under basketball. Thanks Secret account 18:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Crazynas t 23:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi, on User talk:TR Technic I think you accidentally issued a block template other than the one you intended to; {{ uw-sblock}} says they were temporarily blocked for adding spam links, when they were actually blocked indefinitely for the username which they used to add that link. (One wouldn't normally be blocked for a single offense of adding a spam link.) The block itself includes "{{ uw-spamublock}}", which is what I assume you intended to use. Oh, and congrats on your brand new adminship. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, my bad. I blocked the user as an obvious spam username like you said on the report page, but I'm still getting used to the block templates, haven't used them since 2009. Thanks Secret account 23:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I've received the same comments from user Mark Arsten. As previously stated, I've requested a semi protection for the page and requested an administrator help due the other user has been placing comment that does not belong with no actual references but media guesses not actual data from Catholic Church, the real place to find. I placed comments about this. Please review protection requests. I am collaborating in the same page in Wikipedia Spanish and remove the same comments. Please review history and talk page. -- Mario Soto ( talk) 02:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Secret. Are you sure this is a hoax? [1] [2] Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 16:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I undeleted it, my google search came up with complete different mentions and we can both agree its not an a7. Secret account 17:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes I didn't see it, I saw the original prod reasoning and the removal by the article creator, and the search was complete different results. I apologize, maybe doing speedy deletions other than the most common sense ones though an iPad isn't a smart idea . Secret account 17:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Been too busy to hang out on IRC for the last week and a half, but I wanted to congratulate you on the tools (finally). Best, m.o.p 19:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL. 21:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
|
As a new admin, I hope that I can encourage you to take a stab at closing a dozen of the RM backlog requests. The way WP:RM is set up, requests can be closed at any time, but are not intended to remain open for longer than seven days, meaning that all should be closed before they reach the WP:RM#Backlog. In other words, after the backlog is cleared out, standard procedure should be to close all of the requests just before they reach the backlog. In some cases, though, this means relisting, which also should be done before reaching the backlog. Closing instructions are at WP:RMCI. If each new admin closes a few requests the backlog can be cleared. Apteva ( talk) 04:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I never really been good with recent moves, I'll peek in and see but I have other backlogs I want to take care of, such as the terrible declined attacks and spam backlog on WP:AFC stuck in the history, and I'm going back to complete some article projects as well. Thanks anyways. Secret account 06:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
New Administrator Award |
Congratulations on your recent successful RfA! Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me... review me... 05:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC) |
Thanks, but I'm not interested, nor never been interested in become a bureaucrat. First its the timing, second I never been great with technical stuff, which a crat needs to have some understanding from. Secret account 02:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
This I liked. You could have just gone with a head-count keep and been done with it. Instead, your close acknowledges a couple of well-framed (I thought) delete arguments and a genuine absence of consensus. Makes me very happy I supported your RFA. Properly good. Stalwart 111 06:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Secret, can you keep an eye on this fella: [3]? He's a newly registered user who is making formatting changes to the Infobox NFL player entries for honors and awards, contrary to WP:NFL established consensus formatting. I've tried to gently explain on his talk page, but he is non-responsive and seems determined to do it his way. We've come a long way in cleaning up these infobox entries and standardizing the formatting, and I would hate to see that work undone. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 17:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
On what planet was there no consensus? Nobody objected to deletion. Perhaps you should revisit. Toddst1 ( talk) 03:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi there! I just want to ask you to please remember to document a merge on the talk pages of the source and destination articles; see the following links related to your merge of Jonathan Stonagal to List of Left Behind characters: marking the source article with {{ R from merge}} and documenting the merge on the talk pages of the source and destination articles using {{ Copied}} (or another similar template). Thank you, and congrats on your recent RFA success, -- Black Falcon ( talk) 19:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
It has been a crazy couple of months, and I regret my timing to nominate you didn't work out. On the up side, maybe that helped you ;) Either way, I'm glad it all worked out and you were given earned the tools. It has been a long hard road for you, this one week should only be worth a few gray hairs.
Dennis Brown -
2¢
©
Join WER 22:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello Secret!
You've protected the page against sock puppetry on 18:37, 19 February 2013
But now we have the owner /vandal, with name! :)
Please have a look on the History, and talk page! Thank you! Csendesmark ( talk) 17:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Secret, head's up: [4]. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 21:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I went ahead and addressed your concerns for the article. Any problems just let me know. Kaiser matias ( talk) 03:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Checking now I apologize about that, I got distracted by administrative stuff as you see below, then a computer failure.
Secret
account 03:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I just noticed a deleted title on a recent changes patrol, and it gives me pause; Independent Publisher Book Award. Will you please userfy this to my user-space? I've never seen this article, but some of the first sources I reviewed leave me very curious. For example if the award was ever called an IPPY or not. Because I can hardly imagine an IPPY not being notable.— My76Strat ( talk) 06:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Done Secret account 07:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 07:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
What sort of a reason for decline is this? AFD didn't have enough input. There was no consensus which was more like void of consensus. Why would you want me to renominate it? Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 11:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Renominate it, that's fine with me, I just can't delete anything that "survived" an AFD per policy, if not of course I would have speedied it. Secret account 21:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
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:
Other contributors of note include:
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) 11:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
What was the criteria for deletion? Bubbagump24 ( talk) 23:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
That had clear consensus that the sourcing is trivial and passing in nature, while having some problems with CRYSTAL. I took the sourcing to account more than the CRYSTAL here. I could WP:USERFY it if you want. Secret account 04:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Every transaction was sourced precisely with linked references. And specifically what problems with CRYSTAL? Please provide exact wording from the WP:CRYSTAL text. Given the activity on the topic the page shouldn't have been deleted. That's why I waited until there was sufficient activity to create it. Bubbagump24 ( talk) 11:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
There was a concern about the transactions being of WP:ROUTINE coverage. Again I took the concerns about CRYSTAL rather lightly and focused more on the sources rationale, which came up a bit late on the debate and wasn't successfully rebutted. I can WP:USERFY it like I said until more sources that cover the subject in detail, closer to the draft can be found. Secret account 18:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Secret... congratulations on regaining admin status. Respectfully, I request you to reconsider your Delete decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoga Psychology. I do not believe that this decision was warranted by the discussion that took place, and - to my eye at least - there was no consensus like what you described. Perhaps this article just got unlucky, coming at the end of a busy 35 minutes in which you closed 17 other AfDs, all with Delete. Perhaps those other cases warranted a Delete - I cannot say - but in this case, I don't think that result was warranted, certainly not in terms of any sort of consensus about WP:GNG. -- Abhidevananda ( talk) 04:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Nope this wasn't unlucky, AFD is not a vote count. I was evaluating the policy based consensus on that one, and another AFD (which I left alone as that needed to be relisted) while I was closing the clear cut delete consensus AFDs. I evaluated the comments carefully in this case, the "keeps" has no policy based arguments mostly WP:INHERITED comments with no other basis, while your argument was oh its listed in a library, keep. The consensus was clear there. Secret account 04:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Secret. I'm not really sure what's going on with this, but I thought I'd let you know I requested semi-protection. It seemed pointless just to keep reverting people who won't explain. Rivertorch ( talk) 18:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Me neither considering the picture quality and such, all the accounts were just blocked as sockpuppets however. Secret account 18:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Hey I've been inactive for the past month and am back
. I read your message about wanting to work on the article and am very pleased to work with you on it. Just tell me when and I'll be ready. Best,
Jona
talk to me 15:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you for removing vandalism from
WP:ATP. This is much appreciated, but unfortunately your repair was not successful in restoring the article to its pre-vandalised state. For future reference, it is better to deal with vandalism by checking the article's
page history to determine how it appeared before it was vandalised. You can then restore the whole article, or the relevant part of it, to an appropriate earlier version. If you simply delete the visible vandalism then any content removed or overwritten by the vandal is lost. See
How to deal with vandalism for details. Thank you. Just an FYI -- you missed a couple, rather subtle edits by the IP.
S. Rich (
talk) 19:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Secret, are you still willing to nominate me? If so, I am contemplating doing it at the end of January or beginning of February. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 22:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes I am willing, I did see your email, but late (I get flooded with emails everyday). I will reply back though email. Thanks Secret account 05:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, could you give me some updates on how the review is going? Thank you! -- Nascar1996( Talk • Contribs) 16:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Got busy, will finish the review later on today. Sorry about that. Secret account 05:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This user helped promote Jim Umbricht to good article status. |
On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for your editorial contributions to Jim Umbricht, which has recently become a GA. -- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 01:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 13:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
-- Wehwalt ( talk) 20:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I replied back. Secret account 20:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
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:
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:
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) 01:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
All right, after a few issues I got that straightened out. Still waiting for the conom statements, but whenever that happens you can answer the questions and get it going. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 17:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Hey Secret. I don't mean to bother you as you seem to have some bigger fish to fry, so to speak, at the moment (good luck, by the way...you'll have my vote!), but you said at the Baseball Wiki-Project talk page that you'd be willing to PR Jim Thome for me. I didn't know if perhaps you'd forgotten or if it was on the bottom of a long to-do list or something, but I was wondering if you would still do that. No rush, and I certainly don't mean to nag. Good luck with the RFA! Go Phightins ! 19:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
I will do it sometime this week, of course I'm busy with school and the RFA, but I did promise you and Thome always been an interesting subject in my opinion. Secret account 21:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
It regards the second RFA, I saw the reversal, I had to revert and I explained why through email though I respect your opinion. It's a sensitive issue. Secret account 07:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
First: I apologize for my curiosity. Now, years ago I remember seeing you around this joint, so you're not some n00b to me. I've seen you make reference to school, and it made wonder about something. Since any answer to my question would have absolutely NO bearing on an RfA, I thought I'd ask here. What are you studying? .. and when do you graduate? (or have you already?). If that's personal information you'd rather not disclose, I'm fine with that ... I was just curious. — Ched : ? 20:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I am majoring in history, and I'm graduating next spring and I plan to move forward with a master's degree and hopefully a PH'D. My health did delay my studies, as I was supposed to graduate fall of 2011. Secret account 21:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I know your username yes, I think you were active in IRC as well at one point. I need to remember :/. I remember many of the old-timers, but I need to be reminded. Secret account 22:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm starting to remember, you still go on IRC, I'm on right now. Secret account 23:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Lol, thanks for that compliment. Of course I plan to stick this RFA out! Why should I back down or worry about it? Secret account 21:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I have some feeling about that, now I wait. Secret account 06:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Secret, first let me thank you for everything you've done. I may not have been the best RfA candidate at the end of the day, but I hope no one thinks I'm an ingrate. I regret the outcome in my RfA less than I do its potential impact on your own; hopefully, we will not see a repeat of the comment that was deleted earlier this morning. In all events, I hope you were not disappointed in me as a candidate. I feel like I failed you and my other supporters. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 04:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I was slightly disappointed concerning the circumstances, like I told you by email, Fluffernutter oppose vote is the one that sums my feelings the most. But you will do fine, RFA has always been a huge learning experience as you learned first hand, and I'm happy I had the opportunity to nominate you, despite the result. Secret account 21:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Secret - please do yourself a favor and do not take controversial actions. Let someone else do the reverting on your RFA.--v/r - T P 16:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
It was in good faith, and I don't think it was controversial, as completely removing an oppose vote isn't recommended during a RFA. But as the candidate you are right, I don't think I should have been the one reverting his mistake. I'll let someone else do it, I apologize. Secret account 16:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Yep I agree with that, partly a lack of judgement in my part. Thanks to both of you for understanding. :) Secret account 17:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi Secret. I hope you're feeling well and having a decent day. Good luck with the RFA. I wish I could put in another support vote.
![]() |
I prefer coffee ;) but yeah I'm not worried about it, why should I be? Thanks Secret account 23:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Secret, re: question 4 in your RFA, I presume your use of the word "etymologist" was caused by autocorrect going haywire? An etymologist studies the meaning of words, and I'm not sure what relevance that would have to your health. :-) I'm just curious as to what you meant there. Good luck in your RFA! Graham 87 14:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Changed it, yea spell check gone wrong. Secret account 01:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for defending my talk page. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
No problem, the vandal hit multiple user talk pages bot like style, including mine and did a mass revert. Secret account 01:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello Secret. I am pleased to report that I have closed your request for adminship as successful. Happy editing, and happy adminning. 28bytes ( talk) 08:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations, Secret. Well done. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 12:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so much, I would offer a recall proposal soon like I promised in the RFA. Secret account 18:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, if I need any help I would ask any of you guys, as the tools significantly advanced from 2009 to now. Again I'm about to offer a recall proposal soon, I'm discussing it with several highly trusted users. I did some backlog killing in WP:AFC, and a few things that the tools were needed for. I should get back on track with me and Wehwalt project on Babe Ruth. Good to be back. Secret account 21:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello Secret,
I am writing in regards to the speedy deletion of article Rajit Gadh. I saw that phrases in the article matched a URL to the bio on IEEE.org site. However the original source of the bio is from the UCLA SMERC website. If adding the creative commons license to the bio on that page (official page) - what's to stop the bots from picking up other sources and flagging the article again?
Thanks. Ucsglarc ( talk) 20:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Golden Era
Thank you for quality articles on the Golden Era of baseball, for your recovery as an editor and admin, and for your support of others, - you are an
awesome Wikipedian!
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Hey Secret! Congratulations on your successful RfA! That's very impressive! Thanks and have a nice day! :) Mediran ( t • c) 10:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC) |
![]() |
Congrats on getting your tools back! You've truly deserved it! hmssolent\ Let's convene My patrols 11:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC) |
![]() Hello,
The Project is almost ready to hit the
Main Page, where it will be occupying a section just below "Did you Know" section. Three article from the weekly batch of 7 will be displayed randomly at the main page, the format of which can be seen at
the Main Page sandbox. There is also an ongoing discussion at the
Main page talk over the final details before we can go forward with the Main Page. If you have any ideas to discuss with everyone else, please visit the
TAFI Talk Page and join in on the ongoing discussions there. You are also invited to add new nominations, and comment and suport on the current ones at the
Nominations page. You can also help by helping in the discussions at the
Holding Area. Above all, please do not forget to improve our current
Today's Articles for Improvement Thank you and hoping to have some productive work from you at the Project, |
![]() |
Most RfA's are downright obnoxious and demeaning experiences. However, yours made the average RfA look like Mr. Toad's Wild Ride. Congrats on both keeping your cool through the whole thing and emerging on the other side, mop in hand. Trusilver 12:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC) |
Savior Bacon is the main deity of a real religion, called Baconism. You banned Scientologists from editing Wikipedia, not Baconists.
I have the right to create pages about the religion of Baconism because it actually exists. If you have anything against it, that would be considered religious intolerance.
Hello! I notice that you have extensive knowledge of tragic athlete's endings. On this page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sportspeople_who_died_during_their_careers I searched for Basketball player Maurice Stokes, and I did not find his name listed. Would it be appropriate to add him to the list? And if-so, where? TY! 24.0.133.234 ( talk) 18:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Considering that his death was related to an on-game injury that he never fully recovered, it is appropriate to list Stokes on the list, under basketball. Thanks Secret account 18:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Crazynas t 23:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi, on User talk:TR Technic I think you accidentally issued a block template other than the one you intended to; {{ uw-sblock}} says they were temporarily blocked for adding spam links, when they were actually blocked indefinitely for the username which they used to add that link. (One wouldn't normally be blocked for a single offense of adding a spam link.) The block itself includes "{{ uw-spamublock}}", which is what I assume you intended to use. Oh, and congrats on your brand new adminship. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, my bad. I blocked the user as an obvious spam username like you said on the report page, but I'm still getting used to the block templates, haven't used them since 2009. Thanks Secret account 23:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I've received the same comments from user Mark Arsten. As previously stated, I've requested a semi protection for the page and requested an administrator help due the other user has been placing comment that does not belong with no actual references but media guesses not actual data from Catholic Church, the real place to find. I placed comments about this. Please review protection requests. I am collaborating in the same page in Wikipedia Spanish and remove the same comments. Please review history and talk page. -- Mario Soto ( talk) 02:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Secret. Are you sure this is a hoax? [1] [2] Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 16:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I undeleted it, my google search came up with complete different mentions and we can both agree its not an a7. Secret account 17:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes I didn't see it, I saw the original prod reasoning and the removal by the article creator, and the search was complete different results. I apologize, maybe doing speedy deletions other than the most common sense ones though an iPad isn't a smart idea . Secret account 17:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Been too busy to hang out on IRC for the last week and a half, but I wanted to congratulate you on the tools (finally). Best, m.o.p 19:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL. 21:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
|
As a new admin, I hope that I can encourage you to take a stab at closing a dozen of the RM backlog requests. The way WP:RM is set up, requests can be closed at any time, but are not intended to remain open for longer than seven days, meaning that all should be closed before they reach the WP:RM#Backlog. In other words, after the backlog is cleared out, standard procedure should be to close all of the requests just before they reach the backlog. In some cases, though, this means relisting, which also should be done before reaching the backlog. Closing instructions are at WP:RMCI. If each new admin closes a few requests the backlog can be cleared. Apteva ( talk) 04:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I never really been good with recent moves, I'll peek in and see but I have other backlogs I want to take care of, such as the terrible declined attacks and spam backlog on WP:AFC stuck in the history, and I'm going back to complete some article projects as well. Thanks anyways. Secret account 06:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
New Administrator Award |
Congratulations on your recent successful RfA! Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me... review me... 05:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC) |
Thanks, but I'm not interested, nor never been interested in become a bureaucrat. First its the timing, second I never been great with technical stuff, which a crat needs to have some understanding from. Secret account 02:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
This I liked. You could have just gone with a head-count keep and been done with it. Instead, your close acknowledges a couple of well-framed (I thought) delete arguments and a genuine absence of consensus. Makes me very happy I supported your RFA. Properly good. Stalwart 111 06:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Secret, can you keep an eye on this fella: [3]? He's a newly registered user who is making formatting changes to the Infobox NFL player entries for honors and awards, contrary to WP:NFL established consensus formatting. I've tried to gently explain on his talk page, but he is non-responsive and seems determined to do it his way. We've come a long way in cleaning up these infobox entries and standardizing the formatting, and I would hate to see that work undone. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 17:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
On what planet was there no consensus? Nobody objected to deletion. Perhaps you should revisit. Toddst1 ( talk) 03:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi there! I just want to ask you to please remember to document a merge on the talk pages of the source and destination articles; see the following links related to your merge of Jonathan Stonagal to List of Left Behind characters: marking the source article with {{ R from merge}} and documenting the merge on the talk pages of the source and destination articles using {{ Copied}} (or another similar template). Thank you, and congrats on your recent RFA success, -- Black Falcon ( talk) 19:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
It has been a crazy couple of months, and I regret my timing to nominate you didn't work out. On the up side, maybe that helped you ;) Either way, I'm glad it all worked out and you were given earned the tools. It has been a long hard road for you, this one week should only be worth a few gray hairs.
Dennis Brown -
2¢
©
Join WER 22:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello Secret!
You've protected the page against sock puppetry on 18:37, 19 February 2013
But now we have the owner /vandal, with name! :)
Please have a look on the History, and talk page! Thank you! Csendesmark ( talk) 17:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Secret, head's up: [4]. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 21:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I went ahead and addressed your concerns for the article. Any problems just let me know. Kaiser matias ( talk) 03:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Checking now I apologize about that, I got distracted by administrative stuff as you see below, then a computer failure.
Secret
account 03:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I just noticed a deleted title on a recent changes patrol, and it gives me pause; Independent Publisher Book Award. Will you please userfy this to my user-space? I've never seen this article, but some of the first sources I reviewed leave me very curious. For example if the award was ever called an IPPY or not. Because I can hardly imagine an IPPY not being notable.— My76Strat ( talk) 06:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Done Secret account 07:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 07:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
What sort of a reason for decline is this? AFD didn't have enough input. There was no consensus which was more like void of consensus. Why would you want me to renominate it? Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 11:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Renominate it, that's fine with me, I just can't delete anything that "survived" an AFD per policy, if not of course I would have speedied it. Secret account 21:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
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:
Other contributors of note include:
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) 11:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
What was the criteria for deletion? Bubbagump24 ( talk) 23:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
That had clear consensus that the sourcing is trivial and passing in nature, while having some problems with CRYSTAL. I took the sourcing to account more than the CRYSTAL here. I could WP:USERFY it if you want. Secret account 04:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Every transaction was sourced precisely with linked references. And specifically what problems with CRYSTAL? Please provide exact wording from the WP:CRYSTAL text. Given the activity on the topic the page shouldn't have been deleted. That's why I waited until there was sufficient activity to create it. Bubbagump24 ( talk) 11:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
There was a concern about the transactions being of WP:ROUTINE coverage. Again I took the concerns about CRYSTAL rather lightly and focused more on the sources rationale, which came up a bit late on the debate and wasn't successfully rebutted. I can WP:USERFY it like I said until more sources that cover the subject in detail, closer to the draft can be found. Secret account 18:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Secret... congratulations on regaining admin status. Respectfully, I request you to reconsider your Delete decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoga Psychology. I do not believe that this decision was warranted by the discussion that took place, and - to my eye at least - there was no consensus like what you described. Perhaps this article just got unlucky, coming at the end of a busy 35 minutes in which you closed 17 other AfDs, all with Delete. Perhaps those other cases warranted a Delete - I cannot say - but in this case, I don't think that result was warranted, certainly not in terms of any sort of consensus about WP:GNG. -- Abhidevananda ( talk) 04:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Nope this wasn't unlucky, AFD is not a vote count. I was evaluating the policy based consensus on that one, and another AFD (which I left alone as that needed to be relisted) while I was closing the clear cut delete consensus AFDs. I evaluated the comments carefully in this case, the "keeps" has no policy based arguments mostly WP:INHERITED comments with no other basis, while your argument was oh its listed in a library, keep. The consensus was clear there. Secret account 04:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)